A P Y R O L O G Y P U R I S T I C J O F T H E J O U R N A L Supplement XXX FRAGMENTS, HOLES, AND WHOLES RECONSTRUCTING THE ANCIENT WORLD IN THEORY AND PRACTICE EDITED BY TOMASZ DERDA JENNIFER HILDER JAN KWAPISZ WARSAW 2017 UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW FACULTY OF LAW AND ADMINISTRATION CHAIR OF ROMAN AND ANTIQUE LAW UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PAPYROLOGY THE RAPHAEL TAUBENSCHLAG FOUNDATION THE JOURNAL OF JURISTIC PAPYROLOGY Supplements SERIES EDITORS TOMASZ DERDA ADAM ŁAJTAR JAKUB URBANIK VOLUME XXX A P Y R O L O G Y P U R I S T I C J O F T H E J O U R N A L Supplement XXX FRAGMENTS, HOLES, AND WHOLES RECONSTRUCTING THE ANCIENT WORLD IN THEORY AND PRACTICE EDITED BY TOMASZ DERDA JENNIFER HILDER JAN KWAPISZ WARSAW 2017 Supplements to The Journal of Juristic Papyrology are jointly published by the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Warsaw, the Institute of Archaeology of the University of Warsaw, and Fundacja im.Rafała Taubenschlaga,Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28 00–927 Warszawa 64 tel. (+4822)55.22.815 and (+4822)55.20.384, fax: (+4822)55.24.319 e-mails: t.derda@uw.edu.pl, kuba@adm.uw.edu.pl a.lajtar@uw.edu.pl, g.ochala@uw.edu.pl web-page: http://www.taubenschlagfoundation.org Cover design by Maryna Wiśniewska This book has been reviewed for publication by Mikołaj Szymański and Ewa Wipszycka Computer design and DTP by Tomasz Derda Editing and proofreading by Tomasz Derda, Jennifer Hilder, and Jan Kwapisz © for the book by Fundacja im. Rafała Taubenschlaga © for the constituting papers by the authors Warszawa 2017 The publication of this volume was made possible thanks to the financial support from the Faculty of Polish Studies of the University of Warsaw isbn 978–83–946848–0–8 Wydanie I Druk i oprawa: Sowa Sp. z o.o. ul. Raszyńska 13, 05–500 Piaseczno Fragments, Holes, and Wholes TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ......................................................................................................... NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS AND EDITORS ................................... VII XI INTRODUCTION Jan Kwapisz, Fun from fragments ...................................................................... 3 PART ONE: PROLEGOMENA TO FRAGMENTOLOGY Joshua T. Katz, Reconstructing the pre-ancient world in theory and practice ..... Hans-Joachim Gehrke, Fragmentary evidence and the whole of history .......... Annette Harder, From pieces to pictures .......................................................... 23 41 53 PART TWO: FROM FRAGMENTS TO CONTEXTS Han Baltussen, Slim pickings and Russian dolls? Presocratic fragments in Peripatetic sources after Aristotle .................................................................. Ilaria Andolfi, Hecataeus Milesius: A textual approach to selected fragments of the Genealogies ......................................................................................... Gertjan Verhasselt, Reconstructing lost prose literature: The fragments of Dicaearchus .............................................................................................. S. Douglas Olson, Some unattributed fragments of Eupolis: Problems and possibilities ............................................................................................... 127 PART THREE: FROM CONTEXTS TO FRAGMENTS Renate Schlesier, How to make fragments: Maximus Tyrius’ Sappho ............... 141 73 91 109 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS Eran Almagor, Facts, fragments and fiction: Plutarch’s Solon ............................ Henriette van der Blom, Sulla in the contio: An oratorical episode in pieces ... PART FOUR: FRAGMENTS THEMSELVES Christophe Cusset & Antje Kolde, Fragments of a female lover’s discourse: Inconsistent discourse or consistent text? The Fragmentum Grenfellianum (P. Dryton 50) ................................................................................................ Martin Stöckinger, Fragments, wholes, and missing ends? The Carmina Einsidlensia and the question of bucolic closure .......................................... Victor M. Martínez, Rethinking the fragmentary (w)hole in archaeology: A microscopic paradigm for understanding macroscopic problems .............. PART FIVE: FRAGMENTS OF GRAND DISCOURSES Lech Trzcionkowski, Collecting the dismembered poet: The interplay between the whole and fragments in the reconstruction of Orphism .......................... Marquis Berrey, Technology, performance, loss: Reconstructing Andreas of Carystus’ surgical machine ........................................................................................ Jennifer M. Hilder, Making wholes: Using exemplary fragments in the Rhetorica ad Herennium ........................................................................................... PART SIX: FRAGMENTOLOGISTS AT WORK Ettore Cingano, Epic fragments on Theseus: Hesiod, Cercops, and the Theseis ... Giuseppe Ucciardello, Reconstructing Greek lyric poetry from papyrus fragments: The case of P. Oxy. 32.2624 (choral lyric) .................................. Karol Myśliwiec, Hole or whole? A cemetery from the Ptolemaic period in Saqqara .................................................................................................... 163 181 199 217 233 251 273 291 309 333 363 EPILOGUE Han Baltussen & S. Douglas Olson, A conversation on fragments .............. 393 GENERAL INDEX ......................................................................................... 407 Fragments, Holes, and Wholes pp. vii–ix Krystyna Bartol Jerzy Danielewicz PREFACE However, as every parent of a small child knows, converting a large object into small fragments is considerably easier than the reverse process. Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 4th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ 2002, p. 428 n the field of studies of ancient culture the enormous and lasting authority of fragments is, not surprisingly, a stable feature. This important and difficult subject has attracted scholars’ attention over the past decades; as a result, more and more emphasis is placed on the phenomenon in question. Examining fragments requires not only understanding what the fragment is (which is by no means easy), but also what the fragment can and should be for scholars working on various ‘objects’ and aspects related to ancient culture. It also requires realizing the strengths and, at the same time, limitations of a fragmentum, which – being a piece detached from the whole – may bear little resemblance to the ‘object’ it originally belonged to. In the case of Greek and Roman monuments of culture, material as well as spiritual, the process of corruption began quite early, and the quest for the ‘original’ lasts to this day. Scholars nowadays persist in their efforts to reconstruct the realities of the ancient world and – in a way – to re-cre- I VIII KRYSTYNA BARTOL – JERZY DANIELEWICZ ate the past. The vast body of extant fragments cannot be dismissed if a broad picture of past times is to be obtained. The present volume offers a variety of case studies rather than a theoretically oriented survey of trends and overall approaches towards the fragmentarily preserved ancient material. Nevertheless, the discussions of specific cases are not confined to merely illustrating with examples the patterns already detected and followed by scholars, but also formulate some new theoretical proposals applicable to different kinds of material. This book stems from the international conference Fragments, Holes, and Wholes: Reconstructing the Ancient World in Theory and Practice (Warsaw, 12–14 June 2014), which was organized by the Committee on Ancient Culture of the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of Warsaw, the Institute of Archaeology of the University of Warsaw, and the Institute of Classical Studies of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. The papers assembled in it were all delivered during the conference, and roughly reflect the range of different subjects represented there. We are grateful to the Faculty of Polish Studies of the University of Warsaw for providing the funds for publication of this volume. Many individuals contributed to the success of the event. The members of the Conference Committee: Tomasz Giaro, Włodzimierz Lengauer, Adam Łajtar, Karol Myśliwiec, Jakub Pigoń, Mikołaj Szymański (accompanied by the two undersigned) are to be thanked for their unfailing support, and particularly for their valuable contribution to the selection of papers for the conference. Additionally, they all – together with Renate Schlesier, Johannes Engels, Hans-Joachim Gehrke and Han Baltussen – presided over sessions. Very special thanks go to the scholars who kindly accepted our invitation and agreed to deliver the opening and keynote lectures: Hans-Joachim Gehrke, Annette Harder, Wolfgang Kaiser, Joshua Katz, Karol Myśliwiec, and Dirk Obbink. We are convinced that the fruitful dialogue between speakers, formal respondents (Maria Jennifer Falcone, Chiara Meccariello, Elisabetta Miccolis, Marco Perale, Mateusz Stróżyński, Alexandra Trachsel, Matteo Zaccarini) and other participants contributed to the improvement of the papers before their submission to this volume. The lively intellectual atmosphere of the discussions is best exemplified by the exchange PREFACE IX between S. Douglas Olson and Han Baltussen, which is included at the end of this volume as the Epilogue. Finally, we should like to express our heartfelt gratitude to the Conference Secretary, Jan Kwapisz, without whose tremendous input and organizational skills the conference would never have been so successful. Separate thanks are due to him, Jennifer Hilder and Tomasz Derda for taking on the time-consuming task of editing this volume. Poznań, June 2016 Krystyna Bartol Jerzy Danielewicz krbartol@amu.edu.pl danielew@amu.edu.pl Fragments, Holes, and Wholes pp. xi–xv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS AND EDITORS Eran Almagor is co-editor of Ancient Ethnography: New Approaches (Bloomsbury, 2013) and author of papers on the history of the Achaemenid Empire, its image in Greek literature, the Lives of Plutarch and Greek imperial writers (in particular Strabo, Josephus, and Lucian). Among his interests is the reception of Antiquity in modern popular culture. Ilaria Andolfi is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici in Naples. Her research interests include the early Greek prose of the mythographers and the Presocratics, Plato and fifthcentury bc philosophical poetry (especially Empedocles). Han Baltussen is the Hughes Professor of Classics at the University of Adelaide and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. He has published on a wide range of topics in intellectual history; his book publications include Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator (2008). Krystyna Bartol is Full Professor of Classics at Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, and President of the Committee on Ancient Culture of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Her research interests include various XII CONTRIBUTORS AND EDITORS aspects of Greek poetry and Greek prose of the Imperial period. She recently co-authored with Jerzy Danielewicz the first Polish translation of Athenaeus (2010) and a translation, with extensive commentary, of Greek comic fragments (2011). Marquis Berrey is an assistant professor of Classics at the University of Iowa. His research explores how the cultural practices of gift-exchange, reading, and performance shaped scientific communities and scientific ideas in Greco-Roman Antiquity. His book Hellenistic Science at Court will be published by de Gruyter. Henriette van der Blom is Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Birmingham. She is an expert on Roman oratory and political life, on which she has published a string of articles and a co-edited volume. Her latest monograph, Oratory and Political Career in the Late Roman Republic (2016), is published by Cambridge University Press. Ettore Cingano is Professore Ordinario at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. He has extensively published on early Greek myth and its reception, Greek epic and archaic lyric poetry from Stesichorus to Bacchylides, and a number of other aspects of Greek culture. Christophe Cusset, Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Lyon (ENS de Lyon), is author of several books on Hellenistic poetry. His recent publications include French editions of Lycophron (with Cédric Chauvin, 2008) and Euphorion (with Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, 2012), and the volume Lycophron: éclats d’obscurité, co-edited with Évelyne Prioux (2009). Jerzy Danielewicz is Professor Emeritus at Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, and Honorary President of the Committee on Ancient Culture of the Polish Academy of Sciences. His main research interest is Greek lyric poetry. He has recently published the Polish translations, with introductions and commentaries, of Posidippus, Athenaeus and the fragmentary comic poets (the last two co-authored with Krystyna Bartol). CONTRIBUTORS AND EDITORS XIII Tomasz Derda is Professor at the Department of Papyrology at the University of Warsaw and co-editor of the Journal of Juristic Papyrology. In his many years of work on excavations at Naqlun in the Fayum Oasis he has focused on investigating and publishing newly found papyrus texts. Hans-Joachim Gehrke is a former President of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut and Professor of Ancient History at the Albert-LudwigsUniversität Freiburg. His numerous publications reflect his interests in the history, social and intellectual history of the central and eastern Mediterranean in Antiquity, geography and ethnography of Greece. Annette Harder is Professor of Ancient Greek Language and Literature at the University of Groningen. She has published commented editions of Euripides’ fragmentary Cresphontes and Archelaus (1985) and Callimachus’ Aetia (2012). She is the force behind the Groningen Workshops on Hellenistic Poetry. Jennifer Hilder is a Lecturer in the Department of Classics and Ancient History at Durham University. Her research interests are focused on the mid to late Roman Republic and Roman rhetoric. She is currently working on a monograph on the Rhetorica ad Herennium. Joshua T. Katz is Cotsen Professor in the Humanities, Professor of Classics, and sometime Director of the Program in Linguistics at Princeton University. Subjects that have recently occupied his attention include the morphology of the Greek pluperfect, Aristotle’s knowledge of the badger, and the reception of Saussure’s cahiers d’anagrammes. Antje Kolde, Professor at the Haute École Pédagogique of Lausanne and Associated Researcher at the University of Lausanne, is author of a number of publications on Hellenistic poetry, including Isyllos, Euphorion and Lycophron. She co-authored, with André Hurst, a commented edition of Lycophron (2008). Jan Kwapisz is an assistant professor in the Institute of Classical Studies XIV CONTRIBUTORS AND EDITORS at the University of Warsaw. He is the author of a commented edition of the Greek technopaegnia (2013), and has co-edited The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek and Latin Poetry (with David Petrain and Miko aj Szymański, 2013). Victor M. Martínez, Instructor of Art History at the Arkansas State University, also serves as associate director of the Palatine East Pottery Project and is co-director of the Najerilla River Valley Research Project in La Rioja, Spain. He is currently at work on a monograph tentatively entitled, Networks of Intoxication: The Case of Late Roman Wines from Italy, ca. 250–700 ce. Karol Mys′liwiec is a former Director of the Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures at the Polish Academy of Sciences. Since 1985 he has directed excavations in Egypt, currently at Saqqara. He has published twelve books and some 300 articles on the archaeology, history and culture of Egypt. S. Douglas Olson is Distinguished McKnight University Professor in the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Studies at the University of Minnesota. He has recently completed the work on a three-volume commentary on the fragments of Eupolis for the Heidelberg Academy Kommentierung der Fragmenten der griechischen Komödie project. Renate Schlesier is Professor of the Study of Religion at the Freie Universität of Berlin. In her scholarly work she has explored ancient Greek religion from a variety of perspectives, focusing on its history, aesthetics, cultural significance and the methodology of the study of religion and culture. Martin Stöckinger, Academic Coordinator of the August Boeckh Centre at the Humboldt University of Berlin, works on Augustan and early imperial literature. His book entitled, Vergils Gaben. Materialität, Reziprozität und Poetik in den Eklogen und der Aeneis, has recently been published by Winter. CONTRIBUTORS AND EDITORS XV Lech Trzcionkowski is currently Head of the Institute for the Study of Religion at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. His primary interest is in Greek religion, especially Orphism. His book Bios – Thanatos – Bios: Orphic Semiophores from Olbia and the Polis Culture was published (in Polish) in 2013. Giuseppe Ucciardello is Associate Professor in Greek Language and Literature at the University of Messina. He has published a number of articles on Greek lyric, Attic orators, Greek literary papyri and Byzantine lexicography. He is currently working towards a commented edition of a selection of lyric adespota. Gertjan Verhasselt is a postdoctoral collaborator in the Department of Ancient History at the University of Leuven. In his work he focuses on Greek prose and Greek literary papyri. His edition of the fragments of Dicaearchus will soon appear as part of the continuation of Jacoby’s FGrHist. A P Y R O L O G Y P U R I S T I C J O F T H E J O U R N A L Supplement XXX FRAGMENTS, HOLES, AND WHOLES RECONSTRUCTING THE ANCIENT WORLD IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Fragments, Holes, and Wholes pp. 109–126 Gertjan Verhasselt RECONSTRUCTING LOST PROSE LITERATURE: THE FRAGMENTS OF DICAEARCHUS I INTRODUCTION any historical and philosophical works from antiquity do not survive in mediaeval transmission, especially those written in the Hellenistic period. Most are known only through citations in later writers. These are usually lumped together with papyri, ostraca and inscriptions in the general category of ‘fragments’. However, the problems involved with ‘cited’ fragments are different from those of ‘physical’ fragments. This paper addresses a number of such methodological problems, more specifically the delineation of a fragment, its reliability, the loss of the original context and the reconstruction of individual works. I shall illustrate these problems with a selection of fragments of the Peripatetic Dicaearchus, who was a pupil of Aristotle, active in the second half of the fourth century bce. He wrote on cultural history, literature, philosophers, politics, geography, ethics and the soul. With his blend of history and philosophy, he is a typical exponent of the Peripatos. His fragments have been collected by Fritz Wehrli and by David Mirhady,1 but their text often proves to be problematic. M 1 F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar, II: Dikaiarchos, 2nd ed., Basel 110 GERTJAN VERHASSELT II DELINEATION OF A FRAGMENT 1. The source author’s method Unlike poetical fragments, prose fragments have no metre to indicate the beginning and end of the citations. The fragments cover verbatim quotations, paraphrases and allusions and are often embedded in a new context. This makes it difficult to separate the context from the actual fragment and to determine which information goes back to the cited writer. Therefore, it is necessary to know the method of each source author. The following lemma in the epitome of Stephen of Byzantium’s geographic lexicon may serve as an example. α δα οι, ο πρ τερον ηφ νε , π ηφ ω το πατρ νδρομ δα , φ’ κα το ερσ ω τ αν η κα ι ρση , φ ο ο ηφ νε κα α δα οι πρ τερον <κα ο μενοι ρσαι> κ θησαν, ε ρηται ν τ περ ηφην α . νικο δ φησιν ν πρ τ ερσικ ν ο τω ‘ ηφ ο ο κ τι ζ ντο στρατευσ μενοι [ κ αβυ νο ] ν στησαν κ τ χ ρη κα τ ν γ ν σχον <...> ο κ τι χ ρη ηφην η κα εται, ο δ ο νθρωποι ο νοικ οντε ηφ νε , α δα οι’. α χ ρα α τη π σα ν ν α δα κ κα ε ται. κ θησαν δ π α δα ου τιν , ικα αρχο ν πρ τ το τ δο β ου ‘ ο τ δ συν σει κα δυν μει δι φορον γεν μενον τ ν κα ο μενον νον τ ν μ νυμον α τ συνοικ σαι π ιν. π δ το του τ ταρτον π δ κα βασι α γεν μενον, το νομα α δα ον ε ναι γουσιν, ν φασι κα αβυ να τ ν νομαστοτ την π ιν περ τ ν φρ την ποταμ ν κατασκευ σαι, παντα ε τα τ συναγαγ ντα το κα ουμ νου α δα ου ’. γεται κα α δα α χ ρα. σ δ κα α δα οι θνο π ησ ον τ χο τε α δα τε κα ρων ο χ δο . οφοκ υμπανιστα ‘ 1967; D. C. Mirhady, ‘Dicaearchus of Messana: The sources, text and translation’, [in:] W. W. Fortenbaugh & E. Schütrumpf (eds), Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion [= Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 10], New Brunswick – London 2001, pp. 1–142. For a brief recent introduction to Dicaearchus, see G. Verhasselt, ‘Dikaiarchos of Messene’, [in:] R. S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C. B. Champion, A. Erskine & S. R. Hübner (eds), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History: Online Additions. I have published a new edition of the historical fragments of Dicaearchus in G. Verhasselt, FGrHist Continued, IV B 9: History of Culture. Dikaiarchos (1400), Leiden – Boston, in press. RECONSTRUCTING LOST PROSE LITERATURE 111 θνο ’. μ ντοι χαρι στεροι περ αβυ να γουσιν ο κε ν α το , δδεικται, μαντε ον δ’ χειν α το παρ βαρβ ροι , ε φο παρ’ ησιν.2 (Steph. Byz. s.v. α δα οι) Chaldaeans. The people formerly called Cephenes, after Cepheus, father of Andromeda. From her and Perseus, son of Danae and Zeus, Perses was born. After him the people formerly <called> Cephenes and Chaldaeans were named <Persians>, as has been said in the lemma on Cephenia. Hellanicus [FGrHist 4 F 59] says the following in the first book of the Persica: ‘When Cepheus was no longer alive, they went on a campaign and were forced to migrate from the land and took control of Artaea <...> the land is no longer called Cephenia. The people living there are no longer called Cephenes either but Chaldaeans’. That whole country too is now called Chaldaice. They were named after a certain Chaldaeus, as Dicaearchus [fr. 60 Mirhady] says in the first book of the Life of Greece: ‘Having become his rival in intelligence and power, a man called Ninus founded the homonymous city. From him the fourteenth king was someone whose name – they say – was Chaldaeus. It is said that he also built Babylon, the most famous city near the river Euphrates, after he had gathered all those named Chaldaeans in the same place’. The land Chaldaea is also used as a name. Chaldaeans are also a people near Colchis. Sophocles in the Drummers says: ‘and a Chaldaean of Colchis and the nation of Syrians’ [fr. 638 Radt]. But the more elegant writers say that they live around Babylon, as has been shown, and that they have an oracle among barbarians as the Delphians have one among Greeks. In the lemma α δα οι, Stephen first quotes from Hellanicus of Lesbos’ Persica for the information that the Chaldaeans were originally called Cephenes (after the mythical king Cepheus). Next, he quotes a passage of Dicaearchus’ Life of Greece on the origin of the name ‘Chaldaeans’. According to Dicaearchus, their name is derived from a certain king named Chaldaeus (a descendent of the legendary Assyrian king Ninus). Fritz Wehrli and David Mirhady also included the subsequent informa2 All translations are mine. The text is that of A. Meineke, Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum quae supersunt, I, Berlin 1849, pp. 679–680, with a few changes: I supplement <κα ο μενοι ρσαι> and delete κ αβυ νο (probably originally a gloss to κ τ χ ρη ) with F. Jacoby, FGrHist, I, p. 123 and p. *29 and idem, FGrHist, III C, 1, p. 412. Contrary to Jacoby, however, I do not include the phrase α χ ρα α τη π σα ν ν α δα κ κα ε ται in the quotation of Hellanicus, since it is not written in Ionic. 112 GERTJAN VERHASSELT tion on the land Chaldaea and the homonymous Chaldaeans living near Colchis, with the fragment of Sophocles.3 At first sight, this inclusion seems confirmed by a parallel in Eustathius’ commentary on Dionysius Periegeta, who cites Dicaearchus in a note on the homonymous Chaldaeans. ρα δ ρμεν α α δ α, μ χρι οντικ βασι ε α. ο δ κε σε δου γεσθαι πικρατε συν θεια δισυ βω , ο α δα ου . α δα οι γ ρ τρισυ βω ο ποτ μ ν ηφ νε , π δ ερσ ω ρσαι α δα οι κ ηθ ντε π τινο α δα ου ν φασι τ ταρτον π δ κα γουν τεσσαρεσκαιδ κατον βασι α μετ νον γεν μενον τ ν αβυ να ο κ σαι, κα το συναχθ ντα κα σαι φ’ αυτο α δα ου . γονται μ ντοι παρ τινων κα ο περ ο χ δα δοι α δα οι τρισυ βω κατ (Eust. In Dionys. Per. 767) ικα αρχον.4 Chaldia is a region in Armenia, to which the Pontic kingdom extends. According to the prevailing custom, the people living there are called Chaldi in two syllables, not Chaldaeans. For the Chaldaeans in three syllables are the people formerly called Cephenes and – after Perseus – Persians. They were named Chaldaeans after a certain Chaldaeus. It is said that he was the fourth after ten, i.e. the fourteenth, king after Ninus, that he founded Babylon and that he named the gathered men Chaldaeans after himself. Some also call the Chaldi around Colchis Chaldaeans in three syllables, according to Dicaearchus [fr. 61 Mirhady]. David Mirhady included all this text; however, Eustathius has actually copied two lemmas of Stephen here ( α δ α and α δα οι), as can be seen from the following table.5 3 Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles (cit. n. 1), p. 59; Mirhady, ‘Dicaearchus of Messana’ (cit. n. 1), pp. 68–70. 4 The text is that of K. Müller, Geographi Graeci minores [GGM], II, Paris 1861, p. 350. 5 Eustathius frequently uses the epitome of Stephen in his commentaries on Dionysius Periegeta and Homer; see M. van der Valk, Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, I: Praefatio et commentarii ad libros – , Leiden 1971, pp. lxxvi–lxxix; M. Billerbeck, Stephani Byzantii Ethnica, I: – [= Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 43.1], Berlin – New York 2006, pp. 33*–35*. RECONSTRUCTING LOST PROSE LITERATURE Eust. In Dionys. Per. 767 113 Steph. Byz. s.v. α δ α α δ α χ ρα τ ρμεν α . νιππο ρα δ ρμεν α α δ α, μ χρι ντων τ ν <...> οντικ βασι ε α. ο δ κε σε - ν περ π τ ν δ ο μ χρι το των τ ν βαρβ ρων στ ν δου γεσθαι πικρατε συν θεια οντικ βασι ε α. α κατ ιβαρην ην κα α δ ην κα αννικ ν. O ν τα τ κατοικο ντε δοι ο τω γ ρ πεκρ τησεν. δισυ βω , ο α δα ου . α δα οι γ ρ τρισυ βω ο ποτ μ ν ηφ νε , π δ ερσ ω ρσαι s.v. α δα οι α δα οι, ο πρ τερον ηφ νε , π ηφ ω το πατρ νδρομ δα , φ’ κα το ερσ ω το αν η κα ι ρση , φ ο ο ηφ νε κα α δα οι πρ τερον <κα ο μενοι ρσαι> κ θησαν, ε ρηται ν τ περ ηφην α . νικο δ φησιν... κ ησαν δ π α δα ου τιν , α δα οι κ η ντε π τινο α δα ου, ικα αρχο ν πρ τ το τ δο ν φασι τ ταρτον π δ κα, γουν τεσσαρεσκαιδ κατον, βασι α μετ νον β ου. ο των δ συν σει κα δυν μει δι εν μενον τ ν αβυ να ο κ σαι, κα φορον γεν μενον τ ν κα ο μενον νον το συναχ ντα κα σαι φ’ αυτο τ ν μ νυμον α τ συνοικ σαι π ιν. π δ το του τ ταρτον π δ κα βασια δα ου . α εν μενον, το νομα α δα ον ε ναι γουσιν, ν φασι κα αβυ να τ ν νομαστοτ την π ιν περ τ ν φρ την ποταμ ν κατασκευ σαι, παντα ε τα τ συνα α ντα το κα ουμ νου α δα ου ... γονται μ ντοι παρ τινων κα ο περ τ ν ο χ δα δοι α δα οι τρισυ βω κατ ικα αρχον. σ δ κα ο χ δο . α δα οι νο π ησ ον τ 114 GERTJAN VERHASSELT In other words, this is Eustathius’ own interpretation of Stephen. The opening section on the land Chaldia in Eustathius certainly does not belong to Dicaearchus, since Stephen cites the geographer Menippus for that information (GGM 1.572, fr. 2). Stephen’s method too makes the boundaries of the fragment clearer. His lemmas have a stereotypical structure, usually listing an alternative geographic name, the ethnic, possessive adjective, feminine form, etc. (in whatever order). Stephen generally cites ancient writers to attest these geographic terms, usually with verbatim quotations.6 Therefore, the reference to the land Chaldaea (a stereotypical element) probably does not belong to the quotation. It seems to be connected with the foregoing statement that the land was called Chaldaice: Stephen first gives the old name ηφην η (found in Hellanicus), then the modern name α δα κ and thirdly the alternative name α δα α. His return to this topic implies that the fragment of Dicaearchus ends right before this. The information on the Colchian Chaldaeans is also unlikely to go back to Dicaearchus. When at the end Stephen contrasts that information with ‘the more elegant writers’ (ο χαρι στεροι), who do not call the people living near Colchis Chaldaeans, he is clearly referring to Dicaearchus and Hellanicus, the only two authorities cited in this lemma. This means that (1) Dicaearchus probably did not mention the Colchian Chaldaeans, i.e. Eustathius is wrong to append the words κατ ικα αρχον at the end of his account (these actually belong after κα σαι φ’ αυτο α δα ου ),7 and (2) Dicaearchus probably mentioned the oracle of the Chaldaeans (information omitted in previous editions of Dicaearchus) as one of the ‘elegant writers’. 2. Realia and external evidence The scope of a fragment can also be determined by realia and other external evidence. An example is the following fragment of Dicaearchus in Plutarch’s Life of Theseus. 6 On Stephen’s method, see M. Billerbeck, ‘Sources et technique de citation chez Étienne de Byzance’, Eikasmos 19 (2008), pp. 301–322. 7 See already M. Fuhr, Dicaearchi Messenii quae supersunt, Darmstadt 1841, pp. 99–100 and K. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, II, Paris 1848, pp. 237–238. RECONSTRUCTING LOST PROSE LITERATURE 115 κδ τ ρ τη ποπ ων ε ον κατ σχε, κα τ θε θ σα κα ναθε τ φροδ σιον παρ τ ρι δνη αβεν, χ ρευσε μετ τ ν θ ων χορε αν ν τι ν ν πιτε ε ν η ου γουσι, μ μημα τ ν ν τ αβυρ νθ περι δων κα διε δων ν τινι υθμ παρα ει κα νε ει χοντι γιγνομ νην. α ε ται δ τ γ νο το το τ χορε α π η ων γ ρανο , στορε ικα αρχο . χ ρευσε δ περ τ ν ερατ να βωμ ν, κ κερ των συνηρμοσμ νον ε ων μων π ντων. οι σαι δ κα γ ν φασιν α τ ν ν , κα το νικ σι τ τε πρ τον π’ κε νου φο νικα (Plut. Thes. 21.1–3) δοθ ναι.8 When sailing away from Crete to Delos, he [sc. Theseus] stopped there. He sacrificed to the god, dedicated the statue of Aphrodite that he had received from Ariadne and together with the young people performed a dance, which the Delians are said to perform even now and which imitated the passages around and out of the Labyrinth in a certain rhythm having alternating and circling movements. This type of dance is called ‘the crane’ by the Delians, as Dicaearchus recounts [fr. 74 Mirhady]. He danced around the Horn Altar, which was constructed of all left-side horns. They say that he also established a contest on Delos and that then for the first time the victors were given a palm by him. After treating Theseus’ adventures on Crete with the Minotaur, Plutarch describes the arrival on Delos and explains the origin of two Delian customs: the crane dance (supposedly an imitation of the young people’s wanderings in the labyrinth) and the athletic competition founded by Theseus (in which the victors received a palm). Fritz Wehrli and David Mirhady attributed both elements to Dicaearchus.9 Wehrli considered the Delian contest the focus and therefore attributed the fragment to Dicaearchus’ treatise On Musical Contests.10 However, the mythical contest is probably connected with the later Thesea festival, in which a torch race ( αμπαδηδρομ α) was held – in other words, no musical contest. More importantly, the Thesea seem to have been introduced on Delos in 8 The text is that of C. Lindskog, K. Ziegler & H. Gärtner, Plutarchi Vitae parallelae, I 1 [= Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana], 5th ed., Munich – Leipzig 2000, pp. 18–19. 9 Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles (cit. n. 1), pp. 31 and 69; Mirhady, ‘Dicaearchus of Messana’ (cit. n. 1), p. 80. 10 The title ερ μουσικ ν γ νων is attested in frr. 89 and 90 Mirhady. GERTJAN VERHASSELT 116 the mid-second century bce (at the time of the second Athenian colonisation), when the same festival was renewed in Athens,11 i.e. long after Dicaearchus. Moreover, Plutarch also mentions the foundation of the contest by Theseus (with the detail of the palm) in Quaest. conv. 8.4.3 = Mor. 724a, where he cites an anonymous Attica as his source ( ν το ττικο , FGrHist 329 F 5), not Dicaearchus. The description of the Horn Altar as consisting of left-side horns may have been added by Plutarch as well. He describes the altar in similar terms in De soll. an. 35 = Mor. 983e, where he actually claims that the altar consists of right-side horns (δι μ νων τ ν δε ι ν συμπ πηγε κα συν ρμοσται κερ των). He probably cites the detail from memory, erring in one of the two passages.12 Even the aetiological myth about Theseus need not belong to Dicaearchus. The external evidence thus suggests that the fragment in Plutarch is shorter than previous editors have assumed. III RELIABILITY OF A FRAGMENT The reliability and accuracy of a citation also varies from one source author to another. The following example from the Homeric D-scholia illustrates how deceptive ancient citations can be if not adequately understood. ετ ων ε ασγ ντα θα βην τ τα τη γ 11 ναιεν π κ η σσ ρανικ , ο δ τρ μου , τ γ νο , φ κετ ποτε π τ ν ν υκ δην κα π ιν κτ σα φ’ αυτο προσηγ ρευσεν τραμ τειον. ενν σα δ θυγατ ρα νομα παρ τ ν κμ ν το γ μου θετο γυμνικ ν γ να κα τ ν μον τ ριστε σαντι. ρακ δ κατ’ κε νο καιρο φανε See P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque impériale [= Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 217], Paris 1970, p. 35. The torch race at the Thesea on Delos is attested in ID 1951 (154/3 bce), ID 1952 (148/7 or 147/6 bce) and ID 1955 (ca. 80 bce). 12 See R. Flacelière, ‘Sur quelques passages des Vies de Plutarque’, Revue des études grecques (1948), pp. 67–103, at 80; Bruneau, Recherches (cit. n. 11), p. 24. RECONSTRUCTING LOST PROSE LITERATURE 117 αβε τ ν βην γυνα κα κα κτ σα π ιν π τ κιον κα ο μενον ρο τ υκ α ακ αν βην α τ ν π τ γυναικ κ εσεν. στορ α παρ ικαι ρχ .13 (schol. D Hom. Il. 6.396) ‘Eëtion, who lived beneath the wooded Placus in Hypoplacian Thebe’. Granicus, according to others Atramus, a man of Pelasgian origin, once arrived at the foot of the Ida in Lycia, founded a city there and called it after himself Atramytium. He begat a daughter called Thebe and, when it was time for her to marry, he organised an athletic contest and offered her hand in marriage to the victorious athlete. At that time, Heracles showed up and took Thebe as his wife; he founded a city at the foot of the mountain in Lycia called Placium and named it Placian Thebe after his wife. The story is found in Dicaearchus [fr. 65 Mirhady]. The D-scholia are a corpus of scholia, transmitted separately from the Homeric text, consisting of a lexical component and a collection of myths. The mythographic sections go back to the so-called Mythographus Homericus (also attested in papyri). The mythographer tells the story of the foundation of Placian Thebe by Heracles; at the end of the myth, he appends the note ‘the story is found in Dicaearchus’. Fritz Wehrli took this fragment at face value.14 However, it is actually contradicted by a parallel citation in the scholia on Euripides, where the foundation of the city is attributed to a detachment of Cadmus’ expedition, not Heracles, whose adventures postdate those of Cadmus in mythical chronology.15 ν ν σ γει ποπ κιον βην, φησιν νθ δε π σπασμ τι το μετ το ετ ων βασ ευσεν. ικα αρχ δμου στ ου ο κ σαι.16 (schol. Eur. Andr. 1) 13 The text is that of H. van Thiel, Scholia D in Iliadem. Proecdosis aucta et correctior 2014 secundum codices manu scriptos, Cologne 2014, p. 302. 14 Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles (cit. n. 1), p. 58. 15 The contradiction was already noticed by E. Schwartz, ‘De scholiis Homericis ad historiam fabularem pertinentibus’, Neue Philologische Jahrbücher 12 (1881), pp. 405–463, at 441 and M. van der Valk, Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, I, Leiden 1963, pp. 344–345. 16 The text is that of E. Schwartz, Scholia in Euripidem, II: Scholia in Hippolytum, Medeam, Alcestin, Andromacham, Rhesum, Troades, Berlin 1891, p. 247. 118 GERTJAN VERHASSELT He [sc. Euripides] means Hypoplacian Thebe in Asia, which was ruled by Eëtion. Dicaearchus says that a detachment of Cadmus’ expedition settled there [fr. 66 Mirhady]. The Mythographus Homericus frequently adds the subscription σδε να at the end of a myth. The subscriptions citing preserved authors such as Pindar, Euripides, Aristotle, Callimachus and Lycophron show that this is no source indication.17 The stories are rarely adopted from the cited authors, who merely provide parallel accounts or vaguely similar stories; often only one detail of the story is found there.18 In some cases, the actual source can be identified: schol. D Hom. Od. 22.299–300 (citing Aristotle) is based on the physician Sostratus (frr. 9–10 Wellmann),19 whereas schol. D Hom. Il. 2.547 (citing Callimachus), 14.323 (citing Euripides) and 24.602 (citing Euphorion) are based on Ps.Apollodorus (Bibl. 3.14.6, 3.4.3 and 3.5.6 respectively).20 Thus, the phrases τορ α παρ τ δε να or στορε 17 See schol. D Hom. Il. 3.243 ~ Pind. Nem. 10.55–90; schol. D Hom. Od. 21.303–304 ~ Pind. Pyth. 2.21–48; schol. D Hom. Il. 14.323 ~ Eur. Bacch. 88–98; schol. D Hom. Il. 10.274 ~ Arist. Hist. an. 8.616b33–617a7; schol. D Hom. Od. 22.299–300 ~ Arist. Hist. an. 5.551b21–23 and 552a29; schol. D Hom. Il. 2.547 ~ Callim. Hec. fr. 260.18–20 Pfeiffer = 70.3–5 Hollis = 247.3–5 Asper; schol. D Hom. Il. 17.53 ~ Callim. Iamb. 4, fr. 194.66–68 Pfeiffer = 154.66–68 Asper; schol. D Hom. Il. 5.412 ~ Lycoph. Alex. 592–632; schol. D Hom. Il. 16.36 ~ Lycoph. Alex. 178–179; schol. D Hom. Il. 20.215 ~ Lycoph. Alex. 72–75; schol. D Hom. Il. 24.251 ~ Lycoph. Alex. 168–171; schol. D Hom. Od. 13.259a ~ Lycoph. Alex. 424–438. The line numbers of the D-scholia cited here are those used by van Thiel, Scholia D (cit. n. 13) for the Iliad and N. Ernst, Die D-Scholien zur Odyssee. Kritische Ausgabe, diss. Cologne, 2006 for the Odyssey. 18 See van der Valk, Researches (cit. n. 15), pp. 342–413; F. Montanari, ‘The Mythographus Homericus’, [in:] J. G. J. Abbenes, S. R. Slings & I. Sluiter (eds), Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle: A Collection of Papers in Honor of D. M. Schenkeveld, Amsterdam 1995, pp. 154–164; M. van Rossum-Steenbeek, Greek Readers’ Digests?
Studies on a Selection of Subliterary Papyri [= Mnemosyne Supplements 75], Leiden – New York – Cologne 1998, pp. 111–113. Exceptions are schol. D Hom. Il. 13.302 ~ Pherec., FGrHist 3 F 41a–d, schol. D Hom. Il. 14.119 ~ Pherec. FGrHist 3 F 122a, schol. D Hom. Il. 14.229 ~ Hdt. 7.22–23; schol. D Hom. Od. 19.178–179 ~ [Pl.] Minos 319c–e and schol. D Hom. Od. 20.301–302 ~ Demo, FGrHist 327 F 18b. 19 See van der Valk, Researches (cit. n. 15), p. 344. 20 See van der Valk, Researches (cit. n. 15), pp. 306 and 357. According to van RossumSteenbeek, Greek Readers’ Digests? (cit. n. 18), pp. 106–108, however, the information RECONSTRUCTING LOST PROSE LITERATURE 119 στορ α παρ τ δε να and στορε δε να actually mean ‘compare also’. This is also indicated by the following scholion. ‘ ι δ τε ε ετο βου ’ ... οι δ π στορ α τιν ε πον ε ρηκ ναι τ ν μηρον φασ γ ρ τ ν γ ν βαρουμ νην π νθρ πων πο υπ ηθ α , μηδεμι νθρ πων ο ση ε σεβε α , α τ σαι τ ν α κουφισθ ναι το χθου τ ν δ α πρ τον μ ν ε θ ποι σαι τ ν ηβα κ ν π εμον, δι’ ο πο ο π νυ π εσεν στερον δ π ιν, συμβο τ μ χρησ μενο , ν ι βου ν μηρ φησιν, πειδ ο τε ν κεραυνο κατακ υσμο παντα διαφθε ρειν. περ το μου κω σαντο , ποθεμ νου δ α τ γν μα δ ο, τ ν τιδο θνητογαμ αν κα θυγατρ κα γ νναν, ν μφοτ ρων π εμο ησ τε κα βαρβ ροι γ νετο. φ’ ο συν βη κουφισθ ναι τ ν γ ν πο ν ναιρεθ ντων. δ στορ α παρ τασ ν τ τ πρια πεποιηκ τι, ε π ντι ο τω ν τε μυρ α φ α κατ χθ να †π αζ μενα <...> βαρυστ ρνου π το α η . ε δ δ ν ησε κα ν πυκινα πραπ δεσσιν σ νθετο †κουφ σαι, παμβ τορα γα αν νθρ πων† ιπ σα πο μου μεγ ην ριν ιακο ο φρα κεν σειεν θαν τ β ρο ο δ’ ν ρο ρωε κτε νοντο. ι δ’ τε ε ετο βου . α τ μ ν παρ το νεωτ ροι στορο μενα περ τ το ι βου στ ν (schol. D Hom. Il. 1.5) τ δε.21 ‘Zeus’ will was fulfilled’ ... Others claimed that Homer has said this because of a certain story. For they say that, when the earth was weighed down by the large number of humans, she asked Zeus to be relieved of the burden, since there was no piety among humans. Zeus first started the Theban war at once, through which he eliminated a great number of people. Later he repeated this, when he took Momus as his adviser – this is what Homer calls ‘Zeus’ will’ – since he was able to eliminate everyone with thunderbolts and floods. Momus prevented this and gave him two drawn from Ps.-Apollodorus is a later addition in the D-scholia, not derived from the Mythographus Homericus. 21 The text is that of van Thiel, Scholia D (cit. n. 13), pp. 5–6, with several changes; the most important are that I adopt, with other editors, the reading γα αν of Vaticanus Gr. 2193 (Y) instead of the ungrammatical γα η in line 4 of Stasinus and do not put ιπ σα ( ιπ σαι codd.) πο μου in line 5 between cruces, since this sequence is metrically acceptable if metrical lengthening is assumed in ιπ σα or if it is read as ιπ σ<σ>α . 120 GERTJAN VERHASSELT suggestions: the marriage between Thetis and a mortal and the birth of a beautiful daughter. Both of these gave rise to war between Greeks and non-Greeks. Thus the earth was relieved since many people were killed. The story is found in Stasinus, the writer of the Cypria, who said the following [fr. 1 Bernabé/Davies/West]: There was a time when countless nations, which were roaming over the land, <...> the wide earth with the heavy breast. When Zeus saw this, he took pity and in his shrewd mind he agreed to relieve the all-nourishing earth of humans by instigating the great strife of the Trojan War in order to take away the burden with death. Because of him heroes were killed in Troy. And Zeus’ will was fulfilled. This is what is told by the post-Homeric poets concerning Zeus’ will. According to one interpretation, Zeus’ will ( ι βου ) refers to his decision to relieve the earth of burden by eliminating humans through wars (among others the Trojan War). After presenting the story, the scholiast cites Stasinus in the subscription and subsequently quotes a passage from the Cypria. In other words, Stasinus is clearly not the direct source for the previous information. In the case of Dicaearchus, the Mythographus Homericus probably means that the foundation of Placian Thebe was also discussed by Dicaearchus, as is confirmed by the fragment in the scholia on Euripides, albeit in a different version. IV LOSS OF THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A WORK Most fragments of Dicaearchus are transmitted without a book title and are often cited out of context. An additional problem is that there is no complete list of Dicaearchus’ works; many titles are in fact attested only by a single chance citation. These problems have often led to highly speculative or even erroneous reconstructions. An example is Dicaearchus’ Descent into the Sanctuary of Trophonius. Fritz Wehrli considered it a work on divination, since the title refers to the oracle of Trophonius in Lebadea, and RECONSTRUCTING LOST PROSE LITERATURE 121 therefore also included Dicaearchus’ fragments on divination (frr. 30–31 Mirhady) here.22 However, the fragments actually citing the title instead suggest a moralising work on decadence. Two fragments are found in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists. ικα αρχο δ’ ν πρ τ τ ε ροφων ου αταβ σε φησιν ο τω ‘ γε τ ν πο ν δαπ νην ν το δε πνοι παρ χουσα δευτ ρα τρ πεζα προσεγ νετο, κα στ φανοι κα μ ρα κα θυμι ματα κα τ το τοι κ ουθα (Ath. 14.641e–f) π ντα’.23 Dicaearchus in the first book of the Descent into the Sanctuary of Trophonius says the following [fr. 80 Mirhady]: ‘the second course, which leads to the lavish expenses at dinner parties, was added as well as wreaths, perfumes, incense and everything that goes with them’. Athenaeus quotes Dicaearchus here because of his use of δευτ ρα τρ πεζα as a word for dessert24 and therefore leaves out any context. The brief fragment describes a luxurious dinner party, but its relation to the oracle of Trophonius remains unclear.25 The other fragment in Athenaeus mentions the luxurious monument erected by Harpalus for the courtesan Pythionice. ικα αρχο δ’ ν το ερ τ ε ροφων ου αταβ σε φησι ‘ α τ δ π θοι τι ν π τ ν θηνα ων π ιν φικνο μενο κατ τ ν π’ ευσ νο 22 Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles (cit. n. 1), p. 47. This interpretation goes back to R. Hirzel, Der Dialog. Ein literarhistorischer Versuch, I, Leipzig 1895, p. 320. Dicaearchus rejected all forms of divination, except those from dreams and madness. 23 The text is that of G. Kaibel, Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV, III: libri XI–XV et indices [= Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana], Leipzig 1890, p. 417. 24 Ath. 14.640c–642f contains a catalogue of words meaning ‘dessert’ and their attestations. This probably goes back to a lexicon, perhaps that of Pamphilus (frequently used by Athenaeus). 25 According to Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles (cit. n. 1), p. 47, the dinner party provided the narrative frame for a sympotic dialogue set at Lebadea. According to F. Osann, ‘Über einige Schriften Dikäarchos, des Peripatetikers’, [in:] idem (ed.), Beiträge zur Griechischen und Römischen Litteraturgeschichte, II, Kassel – Leipzig 1839, pp. 1–119, at 107–108, by contrast, it refers to the decadent habits of the priests of Trophonius. 122 GERTJAN VERHASSELT τ ν ερ ν δ ν κα ουμ νην. α γ ρ ντα θα καταστ ο ν φαν τ πρ τον τ θην φορ μενο νε κα τ π ισμα, εται παρ τ ν δ ν α τ ν κοδομημ νον μν μα ο ον ο χ τερον ο δ σ νεγγυ ο δ ν στι τ μεγ θει. ο το δ τ μ ν πρ τον, περ ε κ , ι τι δου φ σειεν < ν> σαφ ερικ ου μωνο τινο τ ρου τ ν γαθ ν νδρ ν ε ναι, <κα > μ ιστα μ ν π τ π εω δημοσ κατεσκευασμ νον, ε δ μ , δεδομ νον κατασκευ σασθαι. ιν δ’ ταν ετ σ υθιον κη τ (Ath. 13.594e–595a) τα ρα ν, τ να χρ προσδοκ αν αβε ν α τ ν;’26 Dicaearchus says in the books On the Descent into the Sanctuary of Trophonius [fr. 81 Mirhady]: ‘Someone would experience the same thing if he arrives in Athens along the route from Eleusis that is called the Sacred Road. Indeed, if he gets to that point from which the temple of Athena and the citadel are first seen in the distance, he will see a monument built right beside the road. It is like no other, nor does anything come close to it in size. At first, someone would naturally say that this is clearly a monument for Miltiades or Pericles or Cimon or some other noble man. He would certainly say that it has been constructed by the city at public expense or at least that the city has allowed its construction. But when he next finds out that it is for the courtesan Pythionice, what should he think?’ A large section of Athenaeus’ thirteenth book is devoted to courtesans, one of which is Pythionice. Athenaeus again gives what appears to be a verbatim fragment without much regard for the original context – Dicaearchus compared the sight of the monument for Pythionice in Athens to another experience, in which Athenaeus (or his intermediate source) is not interested. The fragment preserves Dicaearchus’ indignant remark on the marvellous monument, which is devoted to a courtesan, not a famous politician. Again, there is no connection with Trophonius here. The ‘similar’ experience mentioned at the beginning probably concerned another extravagant monument or an example of decadence.27 26 The text is that of Kaibel, Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri (cit. n. 23), p. 311. K. O. Müller, Geschichten hellenischer Stämme und Städte, I: Orchomenos und die Minyer. Mit einer Karte, Breslau 1820, pp. 150–151 randomly assumed that Dicaearchus compared the disappointment of learning the dedicatee of the monument to the disappointment about the charlatans at the oracle of Trophonius. 27 RECONSTRUCTING LOST PROSE LITERATURE 123 The other fragments of the Descent are found in Cicero.28 The only fragment which is introduced nominatim is found in a letter to Atticus. Peloponnesias ciuitates omnis maritimas esse hominis non nequam sed etiam tuo iudicio probati, Dicaearchi, tabulis credidi. Is multis nominibus in Trophoniana Chaeronis narratione Graecos in eo reprehendit quod maritima secuti sint, nec ullum in Peloponneso locum excipit. Cum mihi auctor placeret – etenim erat στορικ τατο et uixerat in Peloponneso – admirabar tamen et uix accredens communicaui cum Dionysio. Atque is primo est commotus, deinde, quod de deo isto Dicaearch<e>o non minus bene existimabat quam tu de C. Vestorio, ego de M. Cluuio, non dubitabat quin ei crederemus. Arcadiae censebat esse Lepreon quoddam maritimum; Tenea autem et Aliphera et Tritia νε κτιστα ei uidebantur, idque τ τ ν νε ν κατα γ confirmabat, ubi mentio non fit istorum. Itaque istum ego locum totidem uerbis a Dicaearcho transtuli.29 (Cic. Att. 6.2.3) In claiming that all Peloponnesian states border on the sea, I trusted the accounts of Dicaearchus [fr. 79 Mirhady], a person who is not worthless but who is approved even by your judgement. On many grounds, he reproaches the Greeks in Chaeron’s Trophonius-story for having pursued maritime business, and he makes no exception of any place in the Peloponnese. Although I liked him as an authority – indeed, he was bien informé and had lived in the Peloponnese – I was nevertheless surprised and, since I could hardly believe it, I consulted Dionysius. And he was baffled at first. But then, since he did not think less of this Dicaearchean deity than you do of C. Vestorius and I do of M. Cluvius, he did not doubt that we had to give him credit. He concluded that Arcadia had a certain coastal area called Lepreum; Tenea, Aliphera and Tritia, by contrast, he considered fondations récentes. He confirmed this by the Catalogue of Ships, where they are not mentioned. Therefore, I translated that passage from Dicaearchus verbatim. In this letter, Cicero replies to Atticus’ criticism of a passage in De republica, where Cicero claims that all Peloponnesian cities except Phlius 28 Cicero requested his friend Atticus to send him a copy of the Descent in Att. 13.31.2, 13.32.2 and 13.33.2. 29 The text is that of D. R. Shackleton Bailey, M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae ad Atticum, I: libri I–VIII [= Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana], Stuttgart 1987, p. 220. 124 GERTJAN VERHASSELT have seaboards. Cicero argues that his authority is Dicaearchus, whom he claims to have translated verbatim. Therefore, a good chunk of the parallel section in De republica probably goes back to Dicaearchus. Est autem maritimis urbibus etiam quaedam corruptela ac mutatio morum. Admiscentur enim nouis sermonibus ac disciplinis, et importantur non merces solum aduenticiae sed etiam mores, ut nihil possit in patriis institutis manere integrum. Iam qui incolunt eas urbes non haerent in suis sedibus, sed uolucri semper spe et cogitatione rapiuntur a domo longius, atque etiam cum manent corpore, animo tamen exulant et uagantur. Nec uero ulla res magis labefactatam diu et Carthaginem et Corinthum peruertit aliquando, quam hic error ac dissipatio ciuium, quod mercandi cupiditate et nauigandi et agrorum et armorum cultum reliquerant. Multa etiam ad luxuriam inuitamenta, perniciosa ciuitatibus, suppeditantur mari, quae uel capiuntur uel importantur, atque habet etiam amoenitas ipsa uel sumptuosas uel desidiosas illecebras multas cupiditatum. Et quod de Corintho dixi, id haud scio an liceat de cuncta Graecia uerissime dicere. Nam et ipsa Peloponnesus fere tota in mari est, nec praeter Phliasios ulli sunt quorum agri non contingant mare; et extra Peloponnesum Aenianes et Dories et Dolopes soli absunt a mari. Quid dicam insulas Graeciae, quae fluctibus cinctae natant paene ipsae simul cum ciuitatum institutis et moribus? Atque haec quidem, ut supra dixi, ueteris sunt Graeciae; coloniarum uero, quae est deducta a Grais in Asiam Thracam Italiam Siciliam Africam, praeter unam Magnesiam, quam unda non adluat? Ita barbarorum agris quasi adtexta quaedam uidetur ora esse Graeciae; nam e barbaris quidem ipsis nulli erant antea maritimi praeter Etruscos et Poenos, alteri mercandi causa, latrocinandi alteri. Quae causa perspicua est malorum commutationumque Graeciae, propter ea uitia maritimarum urbium quae ante paulo perbreuiter attigi. Sed tamen in his uitiis inest illa magna commoditas: et quod ubique genitum est ut ad eam urbem quam incolas possit adnare, et rursus ut id quod agri efferant sui, quascumque uelint in terras portare possint ac mittere.30 (Cic. Rep. 2.7–9) Cities located near the sea also experience a certain corruption and change of customs. For they are contaminated with new forms of speech and habits. And not only foreign merchandise but also foreign customs are 30 The text is that of J. G. F. Powell, M. Tulli Ciceronis De re publica, De legibus, Cato maior de senectute, Laelius de amicitia [= Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis], Oxford – New York 2006, pp. 55–56. RECONSTRUCTING LOST PROSE LITERATURE 125 imported, so that nothing in their ancestral institutions can remain unchanged. Indeed, the inhabitants of those cities are not attached to their dwellings but are swept quite far away from home by their ever agile hope and thoughts. And even if they physically stay at home, nevertheless in their minds they live in exile and wander about. Indeed, nothing ever ruined Carthage and Corinth, which had already been declining for a long time, more than this wandering and dissipation of the citizens, since in their desire for trading and sailing they had abandoned agriculture and military training. The sea also brings many temptations to luxury, which are ruinous to states. These temptations are either taken by force or imported. And even a charming place itself contains many extravagant or idle allurements to lust. And what I have said of Corinth may perhaps rightly be said of all of Greece. For the Peloponnese itself too is almost entirely on the seaboard, and apart from the Phliasians there is no state whose territory does not border the sea. And outside the Peloponnese, only the Aenianes, Dories and Dolopes are removed from the sea. The same goes for the islands of Greece. Surrounded by waves, they themselves are almost in flux along with the institutions and customs of their cities. This, as I have said before, is the situation of the old Greece. But which colony that has been founded by the Greeks in Asia, Thrace, Italy, Sicily and Africa, apart from Magnesia, is not washed by the sea? Thus, it seems as though a Greek coast is almost woven onto the lands of the barbarians. For among the barbarians, none were previously maritime apart from the Etruscans and the Phoenicians, the former for piracy and the latter for the sake of trade. This is the obvious cause for the evils and revolutions of Greece, because of those vices of coastal cities that I have briefly touched upon shortly before. But nevertheless the following great benefit lies in these vices: whatever is produced in the world can sail to the city where you live and, conversely, whatever their own fields produce, they can bring and send to whatever lands they like. This passage deals with the danger of decadence and moral decline for cities situated near the sea. Since according to the aforementioned letter to Atticus Dicaearchus criticised the Greeks in general, the comments on the states outside the Peloponnese, the Greek islands, the Greek colonies and the seafaring barbarians may go back to him as well. The gist at least is probably Dicaearchan, especially the view that maritime cities fall victim to luxury, although some elements have clearly been added by Cicero, such as the downfall of Corinth and Carthage in 146 bce. 126 GERTJAN VERHASSELT The fragment in Cicero’s letter to Atticus is also the only one that refers to Trophonius. It mentions a certain Chaeron, who gives a Trophoniana narratio. This character was probably imagined to have consulted the oracle. In fact, the descent into the cave of Trophonius may have merely been the starting point of a dialogue on luxury.31 In conclusion, we may note that the fragments on divination probably do not belong to the Descent. They might go back to Dicaearchus’ work on how it is better not to know the future (attested in fr. 32 Mirhady), his work On the Soul or perhaps a separate, unattested work on divination. In fact, if the Descent treated divination, it is difficult to see why Dicaearchus digresses on the unrelated topics of luxury and decadence. V CONCLUSION In the present discussion, I have used a sample of fragments of Dicaearchus to show that their extent, reliability and interpretation are often more problematic than is presented in traditional editions. It is especially necessary to know the method, way of citing and intentions of each source author. The ideal platform to tackle such issues is a commentary or accompanying notes in an edition. Few editions of fragmentary authors systematically address these problems, however; they are instead conceived as ‘source books’, which tend to leave such decisions up to the reader, who is usually less of a specialist than the actual editor. In the long run, covering all these aspects might indeed be beyond the reach of a single editor. For a lost writer cited by a large number of source authors, collaborative work between philologists, ancient historians, philosophers, Byzantinists, papyrologists and others will therefore be of increasing importance. Gertjan Verhasselt gertjan.verhasselt@kuleuven.be 31 See already Fuhr, Dicaearchi Messenii (cit. n. 7), pp. 130–131; p. 134 n. 12, Müller, Fragmenta (cit. n. 7), pp. 267–268 and F. Schmidt, De Heraclidae Pontici et Dicaearchi Messenii dialogis deperditis, Breslau 1867, pp. 31–35. T H E J O U R N A L O F J U R I S T I C P A P Y R O L O G Y Supplement XXX