Transmission and Textual Variants: Divergent Fragments of Sappho’s Songs Examined

Mark de Kreij

“NewPhilology”focusesontextsintheirmaterialanduniqueforms.Thename

comesfromamovementinitiatedbyAmericanphilologistsworkingonmedi-aevaltexts,whointhe1990issueofSpeculumarguedforamoresystematic

analysisofthemanydifferentversionsofmediaevaltextsthathavebeentrans-mitted.1Thisfocusonthedivergenceoftexts,asopposedtotheemphasison

reconstructionofanoriginalUrtext,hadalreadybeenadvocatedbyZumthor

andCerquigliniintheprecedingdecades,butwasonlynowappliedtoarange

ofactualcorpora.2AfteranendorsementbytheGermanmediaevalistStack-mann,“NewPhilology”becameknowntoawideraudience,whorealizedits

applicabilitytocorporaotherthanmediaevalepicsongs.3Thepanelatthe

Text, Transmission, ReceptionconferenceinNijmegenshowedhowNewPhilol-ogymayilluminateissuesintextualcorporarangingfromearlyantiquityto

thetwentiethcentury.Afterall,instabilityoftextsisofalltimes,whetherit

manifestsindifferentversionsonapapyrusandinamanuscript,inmultiple

editionsandtranslationsofaneighteenthcenturynovel,orincontemporary

paperanddigitaleditions.

Thoughtheapproachandmaintenetsmaybesimilarforeachperiodand

genre,thesalientissuesdiffersignificantly.Inclassicalstudies,thestrengthof

NewPhilologyliesinitsabilitytorevealtheeffectsofdifferentstagesoftex- tualtransmission.4Thisapproachplacesthetexts–thatisthemultipleactual-izationsofatextinallpossibleforms–first,inamoreradicalwaythanthe

majorityofresearchersinclassicstendtodo.Fromancientpapyriandinscrip-tionstolatemediaevalmanuscriptsandfragmentsquotedwithinotherworks,

1 SeetheintroductionbyNicholsonpages1–10forastatementofintent.

2 Zumthor(1972)and(1983),Cerquiglini(1989).

3 Stackmann(1994).

4 Inthefieldofclassics,Gentili(1984)anticipatedsomeofthetenetsofNewPhilology.More

recently,Lardinois(2006)discussesdivergentversionsofSolon’spoetrytransmittedindiffer-entsources.Likewise,Lardinois[forthcoming]isexplicitlynew-philologicalinitsapproach

totextsofearlyGreeksong.

ThisisanopenaccesschapterdistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.

thefieldofclassicalstudieshasawealthofmaterialatitsdisposalforthiskind

ofresearch.

Historically,thetendencyinclassicalphilologyhasbeentoapproachitsrich

corpuswiththeintentionofreconstructingoriginaltexts.Eachinstantiation

ofacertaintextisthusappreciatedonlyinsofarasitishelpfultothatenter-prise.However,itisalmostimpossibletoreconstructtheoriginalversionof

anytext,andinthecaseofarchaicandclassicalGreektextsthereisnohopeat

allofestablishingtheoriginalform;asituationthatarisesduetothenon-exis-tenceofliterature(asweknowittoday)beforethefifthcenturyBC.Iftexts

werewrittendown,theywerenotintendedforpublicationandreading,but

ratherforconservationandre-performance.Thetextsthatweregardasthe

“classics”ofclassicalliteratureinthisperiodwereprimarilyworkstobeper- formed;beittheHomericepics,thedramasbyAeschylus,Sophocles,andEu-ripides,orthelyricsongscomposedbyPindar,Alcaeus,orindeedSappho,who

composedsongsonLesbosinthesixthcenturyBC.5

ModerneditionsofSappho’ssongshavebeenpiecedtogetherfromquota-tionsintheworksofother,later,authorsand–morerecently–fromscrapsof

papyrus.Thesourcesatourdisposal,then,werewrittendownnoearlierthan

threehundredyearsafterthesupposedcomposition,whilethemajoritydates

fromtheMiddleAges.Moreover,theyarenomorethanthetextualcomponent

ofalargerwholethatonceincludedmusic,aspecificvenue,andprobably

dance.Generally,theonlyresidueofthesongs’originalnatureistheirmetrical

pattern,andsometimesnoteventhat.6Thetextsinourpossessionarevery

fragmentary,representonlyonefacetoftheoriginalperformanceofSappho’s

songs,andareseparatedfromthedateofcompositionbyaphysicalgapofat

leastthreecenturies,whichraisesthequestion:Howmaysuchinevitablycom-promisedsourcesforSappho’ssongsserveclassicalphilologists?Atentative

answerrequiresfirstasurveyofthetraditionalphilologicalresearchonthe

fragmentsofSappho.AdducingtwoquotesofSapphoinsecond-centuryAD

5 SeeespeciallyAndrewFord’s“FromLetterstoLiterature.Readingthe‘SongCulture’of

ClassicalGreece”inYunis(2003)15–37.

6 Greekmetreisbasedonthedivisionofheavyandlightsyllables(or“long”and“short”).

ThisfactmayhelpourunderstandingofSapphointwoways.Firstly,knowledgeofthe

metressheusedmayhelpidentifyaspecificmetricalpatternevenifweonlyhaveafrag- mentarytext.Secondly,someofSappho’smusicwasstanzaic,builtoutofrepeatedmetri-cal–andprobablymelodic–patterns.Ifwehavealargeenoughpartofthesong,itis

possibletoestablishifthemetricalpatternrecursconsistently–evenifwehavenever

encounteredthatspecificmetrebefore.Withthesetwotools,itbecomespossibleinsome

instancestoestablishtheoriginalmetre,andnotewherethetextdepartsfromthepat-tern;theseplacestheninvitediscussion.

sources,Iwillprobethepossibilitiesofferedby,andchallengesposedto,New

Philologyinthefieldofclassics.InSappho’scase,whilethelatersourcesmay

pointonlyminimallytowardheroriginalsixthcenturyBCcompositions,they

providetantalizingglimpsesoftheformofhersongsintheearlycenturiesof

ourera.

TheproblemswiththetextualtraditionforSapphoarisefromthefactthat

unlikeforHomer,forexample,nomanuscripteditionofSappho’ssongshas

survivedfromtheMiddleAges.7Asaresultwearereliantuponquotationsin

othertexts,eithertransmittedonpapyrior,mainly,inmediaevalmanuscripts,

uponfragmentsofpapyri,whichdatefromthethirdcenturyBCtothefourth

centuryAD,apieceofparchment(sixthcenturyAD),andtheSapphoostrakon

(orpotsherd)thatcontainsthefragment2V.8Thefragmentarynatureofthe

extanttextsis,however,nottheonlyproblemwefacewhenreconstructing

Sappho’ssongs.Workingonsixth-centuryBCLesbos,Sapphoprobablycom-posedhersongsinadialectthatwasfarremovedfromtheGreekofclassical

Athens,letalonethatoflaterantiquityortheMiddleAges.Thisisreflectedin

thefactthattheformswefindinthemediaevalindirectsourcesdifferconsid- erablyfromthosefoundinearlyLesbianinscriptionsandintreatisesbyan-cientgrammarians.9

EditingSappho’stexts,then,hasbeenaprocessofreconstructionforschol-arsfromtheoutset.10Ifthegoalistoapproachtheoriginalcompositionsas

closelyaspossible,thismethodisindeedtheonlyoneavailabletous,butNew

Philologyarguesthatreconstructionisnottheonlygoalinclassicalphilology.

Thereconstructivemethodisreliantuponlaterauthors’competenceincopy-ingcorrectcitationsintotheirowntexts,aswellasontheaccuracyofour

knowledgeregardingSappho’smetresandtheLesbiandialect.Thesepresup-positionshavehadtheeffectthatthedivergentformsofSappho’ssongs,as

foundinthegreatmajorityofsources,havebeenpickedapartandreconstruct-7 ThesamethingholdsfortheotherGreekpoetsofthelyriccanon,withthesoleexception

ofPindar.SeeHadjimichael(2011)forarichexpositionontheearlytransmissionofthe

earlyGreeklyriccomposers,aswellasananalysisofitsreceptionintheperipateticschol-8 ars.TheeditionreferredtothroughoutisVoigt(1971).Theoriginaleditionoftheostrakon is

Papiri della Società ItalianaXIII,1300.

9 ThetwomostrecentworksonthedialectoftheLesbianpoets,byHookerandA.M.

Bowie,provideaframeworkthatisbasedoninscriptionalevidenceandancientdescrip-tionsofthedialect.Thisproducesasetofrulesthatappearstohavebeenfollowedquite

closelybytheancienteditors,atleastasfarasthatisreflectedinthepapyrusevidence.

10 UntilthelatenineteenthcenturySappho’scorpuswasrestrictedtofragmentstransmitted

inindirectsources.

edtofittheexpectedformofbothdialectandmetre.Those“divergent”frag-mentsofSapphohavethusrarelybeenstudiedin situ.11

ThebulkofthefragmentsofSappho’ssongsarefoundasquotationsinthe

worksoflaterauthorssuchasPlutarch(first-secondcenturyAD),Stobaeus

(fifthcenturyAD),andAthenaeus(second-thirdcenturyAD),whichbringwith

themaveryparticularproblemforthetextualcritic.Therelationbetweenthe

hosttextandthequotedfragmentissimilartoamise-en-abîme,anditurgesus

toconsidertheinterplaybetweenthetwoveryclosely.Afterall,itisonething

toattempttoreconstructanoriginalsongbySapphowithalltheknowledgeof

metreanddialectwehavenow,andquiteanothertoassumethat,firstly,the

authorquotinghersonginthesecondcenturyADhadthesameknowledge

and,secondly,hadtheintentionoreventheopportunitytofaithfullyrender

theoriginal.Inpractice,however,thiseffortisrarelymade,andthetwodis-coursesarereconstructedasiftheywerecompletelyseparatetexts.12

Inthefollowing,Iadducetwofragmentsfromtheearlycenturiesofourera

thatwerebothtransmittedbymorethanonesourceandindivergentforms.

Fragment2V.,transmittedonapotsherdandasaquotewithinAthenaeus’

Deipnosophistae,servestoputthebasicchallengesandopportunitiesofanew-philologicalapproachinrelief.Subsequently,anotherfragmenttransmittedin

twodifferentbutroughlycontemporarysourcesillustrateshoware-examina-tionofvariantsmaychallengealatentpresuppositioninthereconstructive

philologicalapproach,namelythat(generallyolder)papyrusevidencetrumps

manuscriptevidence.

IntheDeipnosophistae,aworkofwide-rangingscholarship,13Athenaeus

setsthesceneofabanquet,introducesthelearnedmenwhoattend,andimag-inestheconversationsthatwouldtakeplacebetweenthem.Heusesfictitious

dialoguesandspeechesasavesselfortheexpositionofhisownknowledge.

Topicsrangefromfood,tomusic,andtopoetry,andthusagreatdealofinfor-mationisaccumulatedinthemanypagesoftheDeipnosophistae.Arguably,

mostvaluabletophilologistsarethenumerousquotesfromancientauthors,

oftentransmittedonlythroughthiswork.

The scene presented by Athenaeus brings to mind the practice of the

symposion best known from classical Athens. Even though it went through

11 AloneexceptionisNicosia(1976).

12 Seepage31withnote41below.

13 Olson’s2006LoebeditionpresentsanaccessibleeditionalongwithafullEnglishtransla-tion;see,however,page31belowforacommentonhistext.Itmustbenotedthateventhe

mostcompletemanuscript(A)isincomplete.Itmissesthefirsttwobooks,partofthe

third,andafewpageshereandthere.Thesegapsareusuallyfilledbyusinganepitome

thatwaspreservedintact.

significantchanges,thegatheringafterdinnertosharepoetryandsonglived

onindifferentformsuntiltheendofantiquity.AulusGellius(secondcentury

AD)inhisAttic Nights testifies,amongothers,totheprobabilitythatthesing- ingof“Sapphic”songswasstillanafter-dinneractivityeveninthesecondcen-turyAD.14

Sappho’s songs, with love and longing as their subjects in many cases,

formedafittingcorpusforthesymposiastinanyperiod.15Itisthusnosurprise

tofindpartsofherworkinthisfictionalsymposionimaginedbyAthenaeus.

Withinhisdinnerscene,hequotesthefollowingfragment,whichitselfin-vokesasymposiasticscene–adivinesymposion,describingthemixingand

pouringofnectar.

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 11.463e16

(…)ἐλθέ,Κύπρι,

χρυσείαισινἐνκυλίκεσσινἁβροῖς συνμεμιγμένονθαλίαισι.νέκταρ οἰνοχοοῦσατούτοισιτοῖςἑταίροις

ἐμοῖςγεκαὶσοῖ.

Come,Kypris,

ingoldencups[ ]mixedwith gentlefestivities,17pouringnectar

forthesefriends

ofmineandforyourself.

ThequoteinAthenaeusformstheendofalongersong,Sappho2intheVoigt

edition,thelargestpartofwhichispreservedontheostrakon.Thetextonthe

ostrakonwaswritteninthethirdorsecondcenturyBCwhileAthenaeusworked

around200AD.Thepotteryshardgivesatextthatiswritteninanunclearhand,

14 AulusGellius,Attic Nights 19.9.3–7.ForthesingingofSappho’ssongsinthistimeseealso:

Aelianfr.190,inStobaeus3.29.58;Plutarch,Moralia,611cand722d.

15 YatromanolakisgatherstherelevantevidenceforSapphoinChapter3ofhis2007work.

SeeReitzenstein(1893),Collins(2004),andespeciallyVetta(1995)foranoverviewofour

evidenceforpoeticpracticesatsymposia.

16 ThetextasgivenhereistheonefoundinManuscriptA(VenetianusMarcianus447).

CompareOlson2009:V.224.

17 Thepunctuationafterνέκταρcreatesaproblemineithersyntaxorsense.Atthesame

timeitshowsthatthescribeofthismanuscriptbelievedthefollowinglinetobesyntacti-callyconnectedtothequoteofSappho.

andwhatcanbereadisdecidedlyproblematicwithregardtobothmorpholo-gy and syntax. Athenaeus’ version is problematic for different reasons, yet

clearlyrelatedtothetextontheostrakon.

Sappho Ostrakon18

(…)ενθαδησυ[

στεμ[

ελοισαΚυπριχρυσεαιςενκυλικεσσιν αβρωςεμμειχμενονθαλιαιεσσιννεκταρ

οινοχοεισα

Thereyou[were],holding[],

Kypris,skilfullypouringingoldencups nectarmixedwith

festivities

Withoutgoingintodifferencesofdialectandorthography,theversiononthe

ostrakondiffersmainlyfromtheversioninAthenaeusinthatitispartofa

largerwhole.Thisinitselfleadstoadifferentinterpretationofthepassage,but

thedifferencebetweenthetwoversionsisalsoreflectedinthelanguage:where

Athenaeushastheimperative“ἐλθέ”[“come”],theostrakonhastheparticiple

“ἔλοισα”[“havingtakenup”],whichonewouldexpecttobeprecededbyamain

verb.Moststrikingofall,Athenaeus’textcontainsanextralineafterthepoint

wheretheostrakon ends.Asstatedabovetheostrakonisapotsherd,butitmust

benotedthatthesongwasonlywrittenonthispieceofpotterywhenitwas

alreadyasherd.Thetextisthusfairlycomplete,asfaraswecanestablish,and

thebreak-offpointcomesnaturallyaftertheendofastanza,whilethereisstill

moreroomlefttowriteonthepotsherdhadthewriterwishedit.Theextraline

inAthenaeusmayeitherrepresentthestartofanewstanzaofthesong(omit-tedfromtheostrakonbecauseonlypartofitwouldhavefitted)oranaddition,

eithercomposedbyAthenaeusoralreadyknowntohiminthatform.Thefinal

textbelowisthefragmentasgiveninVoigt’sedition;areconstructionwhich

18 PSIXIII,1300.Thereadingoftheostrakonisextremelyproblematic.Differentreaders

(Norsa,Theiler,Lanata,LobelandPage)haveallcomeupwithdifferentreadings.As

Ihavenotbeeninapositiontogainaccesstoanythingotherthana(decent)photograph,

IhavedecidedtofollowNorsa’sreading.Whatisbeyonddoubtisthattheostrakonand

Athenaeusdonotgivethesamereading.Formetricalreconstructions,seeNorsa(1953)47

andLanata(1960)89-90andallmoderneditionsofSappho.

makesuseofbothofthesesourcesandisbasedonourknowledgeofmetre

anddialect.

Voigt (1971)

ἔνθαδὴσὺστέμ<ματ’>ἔλοισαΚύπρι χρυσίαισινἐνκυλίκεσσινἄβρως

<ὀ>μ<με>μείχμενονθαλίαισινέκταρ

οἰνοχόεισα

Andthereyou[were],havingtakenupthewands,Cypris, skillfullypouringingoldencups,

nectarmixedwith festivities

ThefactthattheostrakonistheearliersourceisusedbyVoigtasalicenseto

takeitstextasthebasisforherreconstruction.Heredition,however,masks

somesignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwosources,bothatthebeginning

andattheendofthefragment.Asforthefirstfourlines,wecannotknowifthe

ostrakonversionistheoriginalratherthanAthenaeus’,asbothfitthemetre

roughlyandbothcouldhavemadesenseintheoriginal.Forthelastlinehow-ever,giveninAthenaeusbutnotontheostrakon,wearehelpedbythemetre:

itdoesnotfitthereconstructedmetricalschemainanyway.Itisthushighly

unlikelytohavebeenpartofthesongasAthenaeusknewit,andnosurprise

thatVoigtomitsitinhereditionofSappho.

Fortheprovenanceofthisunmetricallinewemightconsiderthefollowing

twopossibilities.Asnotedabove,Sappho’ssongsweremostlikelysungatsym- posia.Thesegatherings,likeAthenaeus’literaryreflectionofit,formedoppor-tunitiestodemonstrateone’serudition,literaryprowess,poeticcreativity,and

wit.Apartfromwineandsong,poeticgamesformedaninherentpartofthese

events,andpartoftheskillinthesegameswastoremember,select,andadapt

songsorpoemsbyfamouscomposers.ThelastlineofthequoteinAthenaeus

suggeststhatitmightbetheresultofsuchacreativeadaptation.Symposia

werepredominantlymaleaffairs,atleastintheearlystagesinAttica.Sappho,

however,seemstohavewrittenmainlyforandaboutanaudienceconsistingof

agroupofwomen.19ThelastlineofthequotebyAthenaeus,then,issuspect

19 Thenatureofthisgroupisopentomuchdiscussion,butdoesnotconcernusnow.Cf.

Parker(1993)Sappho Schoolmistressforadebunkingofearliertheories,andLardinois

(1994)forareactiontothisarticle.

notonlybecauseofthemetricalproblems,butalsobecauseofthegenderof

the“friends”mentioned.Sympoticusesofpoetryandsongweremostlyinthe

formofquotationsorpassagesratherthanperformancesofwholeworks.I

havenotroubleimaginingthisstanzaofaSapphicsongbeingadapted(the

participleἔλοισα“havingtakenup,”whichwaspartofalarger,precedingcon-struction,changedtotheimperativeἔλθε“come”)andextendedwithanextra

linetoprovideafittingintroductoryquasi-prayerforasymposionofmalearis- tocrats.Suchanadaptationmaythenhaveendedupinacollectionoranan-thologyofpassages,quotes,andadaptations,suchaswefindinthepapyrus

containingthenewSapphopoem.20

Ifthisistoofancifulaproposition,theotherpossibilityisthatAthenaeus

introducedtheadditioninhisworkbothtoshowtheworkingsofthesympo-sionandtointegratethequoteintohisnarrative.Thislatterismoreattractive

toatextually-orientedmodernreaderbecauseaparticipantatasymposion

mighthavebeenexpectedtomakeametrically-fittingaddition,whereasAth-enaeusasanauthorofprosehadnosuchrestrictiontodealwith.Itisunclear

atwhichpointSappho’slyricbegantobereadaspoetry,butIbelievethatby

thefirstcenturyADthetextswerestilltransmittedassongs,whilealsocirculat- ingaspoetryforreading.However,theaudienceofthelatterwasnotnecessar-ilyawareoftheformthatthis“poetry”hadinearliertimes,or,iftheywere

aware,eitherdidnothavetheabilityortheinteresttoreconstructit.

Despitethenotedtextualproblems,mostofthefragmentasquotedbyAth-enaeusstillfitsthemetrereconstructedwiththehelpofthelongerfragment

Im Dokument Texts,Transmissions,Receptions i (Seite 31-49)