So I opened my copy of Zuntz today and I stumbled right into my first problem. In one of the reading exercises of lesson 2 he has a fable by Aesopus (I tracked it down to be Perry 167, Prof. Zuntz could have given an index locorum at the end. ). This is the text:
It’s supposed to be only a reading lesson but I stumbled over the form given in bold face ἤμελλεω. I didn’t find the Greek text online (but that’s maybe my fault) so I couldn’t compare, but there seems to be a problem with the accent being on the wrong syllable, and I don’t recognize the form itself. Could that simply be ἔμελλε/ἤμελλε?
Mine is the German 2nd edition from 1991. Yours is English?
Anyways, thank you all for the answers… somehow the νῦ ἐφελκυστικόν must have morphed into an ω. I suppose at this point in the course most people won’t notice anyway and it’s pretty inconsequential.
Yes, my edition is the English. The other was obviously a typo. And you’re right, most beginning students (truly beginning) wouldn’t notice, but at least the instructor should!
For one thing there’s no good reason to think that it was originally in iambic trimeters. You saw (ἀλλ’) ἔγωγε καὶ βέβρωκα καὶ πέπωκα and went on to force the rest, but your attempted restoration is grotesque; it distorts the sense, and is ill-constructed. And your ἀποθάν᾽ is apparently meant to represent αποθανῃ—quite impossible.
It is interesting that so many of the prose fables have metrical affinities and even have custom-made trimeter first or second halves requiring little or no modification,
e.g. Μυῖα ἐμπεσοῦσα …
ἔφη πρὸς αὑτήν …
… οὐκ ἐμοὶ μέλει.
or trochaics (ἀλλ’ ἔγωγε καὶ βέβρωκα | καὶ πέπωκα καὶ … )—before they irremediably fall apart.
In these contexts it’s precarious at best to try to “restore” actual verses.
On the other hand, if you look at Perry pp.101-2 you’ll find that Aesop’s mortifying speech to his adoptive son is stuffed with actual verses. You could have instructive fun pulling them out.
It seems clear that there are iambic sources reflected/mutilated in the different versions. Compare Babrius’s delightful choliambic rendition, now of a wise μῦς instead of μυῖα:
On the other hand, if you look at Perry pp.101-2 you’ll find that Aesop’s mortifying speech to his adoptive son is stuffed with actual verses. You could have instructive fun pulling them out.
Sure we can start a new thread. I remember this Polonius’ advice to Judas section when I read through it the other month, and thought that the author had simply copied in some list of gnomic proverbs (TLG search confirmed that the first couple showed up in a “Menander” list.)
There’s an earlier section that I thought had influenced Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew (the man who minds his own business brought to dinner).
Yes obviously a different thread would be best, since Joel whisked us far away from ημελλεν.
Babrius’ choliambic versions are admirably accomplished compositions, but I think it’s misleading to suggest that we can see iambic sources reflected/mutilated in them. Perhaps that’s not what you meant to suggest. The fables that Babrius so adroitly versified surely took much the same form as they take in Perry’s edition of the fables.
As to the trimeters embedded in the Aesop Life (only in Perry’s W version), they do largely coincide with some of the so-called Menandri Sententiae. I seem to remember that Jäkel in his edition of the Sententiae in the papyri prints this whole section of the Life, but the verses need extracting from it. You’ve made a good start on that, phalakros, and I was thinking it might be a good exercise for Joel to do without resorting to the TLG.
As to the trimeters embedded in the Aesop Life (only in Perry’s W version), they do largely coincide with some of the so-called Menandri Sententiae. I seem to remember that Jäkel in his edition of the Sententiae in the papyri prints this whole section of the Life, but the verses need extracting from it. You’ve made a good start on that, phalakros, and I was thinking it might be a good exercise for Joel to do without resorting to the TLG.
After working through a decent chunk, I have a few observations:
(1) Many, but not all, lines are indeed paralleled in the Menandri Sententiae, but the trimeter is often easy enough to spot without looking at any resources. It would be a good exercise in an introduction to verse composition (similar to the preliminary exercises in Sidgwick).
I especially enjoyed figuring out the trimeter behind ἄνθρωπος ὢν ἀνθρώπινα φρόνει.
(2) They seem to have been taken from an alphabetical collection, the first several lines coming from the alpha section (though this is obscured by the prose reworking).
(3) There are added prose caps and two separate clusters of prose that probably don’t go back to trimeters, at least from what I could see on a first pass.
(4) Taking a look at the secondary literature, I see that Westermann identified most of these parallels in his editio princeps (also a brief discussion in Perry’s “Text Tradition of the Greek Life of Aesop”).
The subsequent de-versification is interesting too.
For ανθρωπος ων ανθρωπινα φρονει I thought of ανθρωπος ων αει φρονει τανθρωπινα, but the lack of caesura tells against that, so I guess ανθρωπον οντα δει φρονειν ανθρωπινα may be more probable (and that rather than δει τανθρωπινα φρονειν). These things didn’t always circulate in identical form, of course.
And yes, in the απαντα θαλλει one the second παντα could well throw one off.
Nice try Chad, but I can’t imagine anyone writing your chiastic version. And I expect you know that απαντα θαλλει και παλιν μαραινεται is attested, far superior and clearly right.
As for the ανθρωπος ων / ανθρωπον οντα line, wouldn’t χρη have become δει by this time (what time?, you may ask), and isn’t φρονειν ανθρωπινα without article more natural than τανθρωπιινα (especially when it scans just as well)? But it’s a subtle point, and I don’t imagine Aristotle would greatly care either way.
). This is the text: