μέμαρπεν: Hesiod Shield 245

[mwh]

The editorially accepted and indubitably correct text is ἄνδρεϲ δ’ οἳ πρεϲβῆεϲ ἔϲαν γῆράϲ τε μέμαρπεν (“the men who were elders and [whom] old age had taken hold of”). In the manuscript tradition this is reportedly carried by a single 14th-cent. manuscript, whether by conjecture or drawing on other sources. (The paradosis was evidently μέμαρπον, plural, and there are other variants.) LSJ take μέμαρπεν as perfect, but that is surely disallowed by the context, and I take it to be a reduplicated aorist, like μεμάποιεν at 252. I’d welcome knowledgeable views on this. (Hylander, phalakros?)

[jeidsath]

If the poet saying that γῆρας took them right then outside the gates...

[Hylander]

I wouldn't call myself knowledgeable, but in the verb list appendix, Smyth lists this form as a reduplicated 2d aorist, with a question mark. Willi, who makes heavy weather of reduplicated aorists, doesn't mention this form as one. Is it possible that the μ- is an ad hoc metrical fudge to avoid hiatus?

The form μεμαρπώς appears at Op. 204. See LSJ. And what form is μεμάποιεν, guaranteed metrically without -ρ-?

[jeidsath]

Pedismus in the 14th century (from scholia to that only manuscript?), calling it the Ionic [ie., Homeric] reduplication, which I assume got it into the Smyth list.



The line from works and days that has the same form is:

ὕψι μάλ’ ἐν νεφέεσσι φέρων ὀνύχεσσι μεμαρπώς

Which is certainly perfect. (Hylander added the reference to the works and days line to his post as an edit. I didn't mean to double-up his identification of it.)

***

EDIT: In a world where a snake can ἐκδύνει γῆρας, the idea of old men who μέμαρπον γῆρας, isn't all that weird, and the subjects flow so much better, accepting it as the Homeric reduplication.

[Hylander]

In 245, you’d expect pluperfect rather than perfect, wouldn’t you?

μεμάποιεν is surely a reduplicated aorist, not a non-periphrastic optative perfect.

[phalakros]

I would also take it as reduplicated aorist of μάρπτω (where the common sigmatic aorist = ἔμαρψα), < *me-mrkw-e/o?

Paley’s ed. reports that Dindorf proposed the plpf μεμάρπει here. That would solve things (cf μεμαρπώς in W&D), but it seems impossible given the parallel μεμάποιεν just a few lines later.

I’m not sure that μεμάποιεν (252) is actually related etymologically. Beekes suggests not, contra LSJ and other old scholarship, and Homeric ἐμμαπέως seems to show that it is independent. It looks to me like an ad hoc form modeled on μέμαρπεν to fit the meter. Wildly speculating (συγγνώμην ἔχε): the root μαπ- may have been productive at an early stage, but preserved only in early epic in the adverbial form ἐμμαπέως. The author of Scut. then secondarily introduced the thematic root aor. stem μαπ-ε/ο and the reduplicated aor. μεμαπ-ε/ο, modeled on μάρπτω formally and semantically.

Interesting that Wackernagel (apud Paley) reads, with some mss, μεμάρποιεν(!) in 252, breaking the meter in the manner of the so-called pherecratean verse-ends in Homer.

Willi’s treatment is selective and he rightfully excludes evidence like these unclear forms in Scut. It may be discussed in Bendahman, Der reduplizierte Aorist in den indogermanischen Sprachen, which I haven’t seen. Does West mention it in his W&D commentary?

[Hylander]

West on WD 204 does not mention μεμαρπώς.

On γῆράς τε μέμαρπεν Rzach in his apparatus (ed. min. 1913) refers to ("cf.") an article he wrote in Hermes XXXIII 607 seq. I don't have access.

UPDATE: I found I do have access, but Rzach's discussion doesn't address the form itself, just the significance of the variant. Link to JSTOR:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4472659?re ... b_contents

[jeidsath]

All the old volumes of Hermes are on Hathi.

[mwh]

Many thanks to all for such generous and reassuring responses.

[jeidsath]

What about "γήρᾳ τε μέμαρπον"?

γήρᾳ:
λ135-136, ψ282-283 ὅς κέ σε πέφνῃ / γήρᾳ ὕπο λιπαρῷ ἀρημένον

Active form 2nd aorist as passive (active form ἥλω, "taken hold of"!!):
χ230 σῇ δ’ ἥλω βουλῇ Πριάμου πόλις εὐρυάγυια

Do any similarities to the Odyssey exist in the poem?

[mwh]

I don’t know what γήρᾳ τε μέμαρπον would mean, if that’s what you’re proposing, Joel. I don’t think μέμαρπον could be taken as passive. ἥλω (= ἑάλω) is inherently passive, could not be active.

The transmitted μέμαρπον makes γῆραϲ the object rather than the subject of the verb. Presumably it originated in discomfort over the unsignaled switch of subject in the relative clause. ω390 κατὰ γῆραϲ ἔμαρψεν/ἔμαρπτεν validates the singular.

[jeidsath]

With a verb passive in sense, γήρᾳ would be the agent. Like ἀνδρὶ δαμείς (Γ429), etc.

Still, you're right, I think, that ἥλω wouldn't work as an example. While ἥλω is active and you might expect it to mean, well ἔμαρψε, the other forms of ἁλίσκομαι are middle/passive, always used passively. This doesn't indicate any sort of pattern, I guess.

But, looking at that Hermes article just quoted, isn't that μέμαρπτο from M = μέμαρπ(ν)το? Passive pluperfect. And doesn't B have γήρα τε? So γήρᾳ τε μέμαρπτο. And they had been caught by old age.

I had seen the κατὰ γῆραϲ ἔμαρψεν too, and had thought that the ἐπεὶ signaling the subject switch made it pretty clear in contrast to "ἄνδρες δ’ οἳ πρεσβῆες ἔσαν γῆράς τε μέμαρπεν".

[Hylander]

Isn't the pluperfect medio-passive 3rd plural of consonant verbs (like the 3rd pl. perfect) always periphrastic? It would be μεμαρμμένοι ἦσαν, wouldn't it?

[phalakros]

Isn't the pluperfect medio-passive 3rd plural of consonant verbs (like the 3rd pl. perfect) always periphrastic? It would be μεμαρμμένοι ἦσαν, wouldn't it?

In standard Attic prose, yes. But the non-periphrastic form is -Cαται < -*Cnται [C=consonant], the regular outcome of syllabic n. So *μεμάρπαται perf, *(ἐ)μεμάρπατο plpf.

[jeidsath]

Yes, I can't find any 3rd person uses where the ν doesn't go to α in Hesiod/Homer. But try this one for size:

κλέπτω has 2nd aor. passive of ἐκλάπην, 3rd person ἐκλάπησαν. μάρπτω might have aor. passive ἐμάρπην, 3rd person ἐμάρπησαν. Homeric reduplication, drop the augment, and use the Homeric 3rd person (ησαν -> εν): μέμαρπεν

[jeidsath]

Updated with some digging. Presented in my order of preference.

1. ἄνδρεϲ δ’ οἳ πρεϲβῆεϲ ἔϲαν γήρᾳ τε μέμαρπτο (ppf. pas., 3rd per. pl.)
2. ἄνδρεϲ δ’ οἳ πρεϲβῆεϲ ἔϲαν γήρᾳ τε μέμαρπεν (aor. pas., 3rd per. pl.)
3. ἄνδρεϲ δ’ οἳ πρεϲβῆεϲ ἔϲαν γῆρας τε μέμαρπεν (pf. act. or aor. act., 3rd per. sing.)
4. μέμαρφθεν, μέμαρφεν

1. Choeroboscus, followed by Herodianus, thought that plural τέτυπται, νένυκται, κέκαρται existed, with ν dropped from νται. -αται forms don't seem to exist for these, and the meter would preclude them anyway. But none of these seem to be in the edited texts (that I can find on TLG). On the other hand, this form would explain the manuscript variation nicely.

2. If we're happy with the Ionic reduplication explanation from Pedismus, there are a number of these aorist passive forms with π from -πτω verbs:

κλέπτω ἐκλάπην
παρακόπτω παρεκόπην
σκέπτομαι ἐσκέπην
τύπτω ἐτύπην (Il., Pi., etc.)

Other verbs:

ἀπολέπω ἀπελέπην (Hsch.)
ἀποσήπομαι ἀπεσάπην
ἐρείπω ἠρίπην
σήπω ἐσάπην
τρέπω ἐτράπην, ἐτρέπην

3. Does the poet want to say something so awkward so much that he would use a metrical fudge (Ionic reduplication) to make it happen?

4. Seem unnecessary versus 2.