Everyone probably knew about this already–everyone but me, that is–but two new fragments of Sappho have been found in a papyrus and are going to be published. In the meantime, Dirk Obbink, the papyrologist who is publishing them, has posted a preliminary version of his paper online here:
Well, I’m sure that Prof. Obbink knows what he’s doing. He undoubtedly inspected the actual papyrus, not a photocopy, and he must have a very comprehensive knowledge of paleography. The Whitmarsh translation leaves a blank for the word αερ.η, suggesting that there is some uncertainty on the part of others, too. It does seem to call for a verb, not an adjective.
That a poem of Sappho is of course good news but the origin is disturbing. The papyrus was clearly plundered and far from being optimistic about other documents coming to light it makes me more worried about how much is being lost as Egyptian sites are turned over by people who are not merely greedy but clueless.
And while the collector did do the right thing by showing it to an expert, did he really not know that he was helping financing the illegal theft of archaeological sites?
We don’t know anything about the history of the Sappho papyrus, so let’s not rush to judgment.
There are a number of important private collections of papyri that are derived from “plunder” to no greater degree than those residing in universities. There’s a market for these things–some have been in circulation for 100+ years.
Some of the private collections are available to scholars.
Many of the university collections are the result of private collecting, to some degree by distinguished scholars themselves. And, untimately, you might say that the university collections themselves are the product of plunder. But if the plunder hadn’t occurred, the finds would never have been published. Most of the manuscripts on which ancient Greek texts are based were themselves plundered at one time or another.
Yes, you’re right, we don’t know its origin but we can be pretty certain that it wasn’t discovered by a legal archaeological dig. It may have been inherited from his father, it may have been in circulation for many years true. And maybe once a document has been plundered then paying up may the lesser evil. But it is the kind of dilemma that faces those who receive demands by kidnappers.
What I was really disagreeing with was the comment in one of the links that this find gives grounds for optimism for further finds. At the moment the plundering of sites is being conducted on an industrial scale. If this poem is from a recent theft it is pretty safe bet vastly more historical value was lost when the site was plundered than the remnant that the plunderers think worth selling.
So the poem itself is good news but the background of its origin is to me very depressing.
To me, Obbink’s original ἀέργη seems a better solution than ἀέρρη - I mean what would “if Larikhos raises his head and becomes a man” mean? At least I don’t remember encountering any parallels for such an expression. “If lazy-head Larichos were to become a man” seems more natural; I think this sort of expression with κεφαλή are very typical in poetry (Well, I don’t know Aeolic so well, but other poetry I’ve read).
ἄϊ apparently means ἀεί - this isn’t to be found in LSJ. I suppose both syllables are short?
μεγάλαν ἀήταν (pl gen) is another form that surprised me, I didn’t know this was Aeolic. Doric has this form, I think.
I have difficulties to make sense of the 4th stanza as it stands (I suppose it’s that one you mean, not the 3rd, Qimmik?).
The iota is probably long. The syllable has to be long to fit the meter. θρ could lengthen a preceding short vowel, but usually doesn’t, if I’m not mistaken (mute + liquid). I’m not sure whether ἄϊ is a genuine archaic Aeolicism or simply a 2d c. CE spelling due to the merger of iota and epsilon iota.
ἀέργη seems to leave the words preceding καὶ without a verb. And what noun does it agree with? Aeolic, like Doric, has long alpha where Attic/Ionic have eta in the first declension, but ἀεργός , όν, has no separate feminine form. A puzzle.
I was thinking it must be acc fem sg of ἀεργής, with recessive accentuation. The word isn’t in the online LSJ but is found in a more recent Spanish dictionary also included in Logeion, which apparently also has ἄϊ. But now I’m wandering if such an accusative in -η is proper Aeolic.
I don’t have access to anything correct now, I only found this 111 years old book online. Apparently, if ἀεργής were Lesbian, it should have as acc sg either the uncontracted -εα or the analogical formation -ην. But since ἀέργην and ἀέργη are metrically equivalent, I suppose the latter one could be a mistake for the first one, since it was the one that was current in later times.
I suspect though that this is the sort of thing where the discovery of new papyri etc. could have changed things in a century, so probably that old book is not so much good anyway.
Actually, the newest printed version of LSJ has both ἀεργής (1 attestation) and ἄϊ, while I couldn’t find neither one in online version.
“Actually, the newest printed version of LSJ has both ἀεργής (1 attestation) and ἄϊ, while I couldn’t find either one in online version.”
The on-line version is very deficient.
The text of the papyrus in the fourth stanza could well be corrupt. No one seems to be able to make sense of it. Someone did correct the papyrus text, but if the papyrus dates from the 2d c. CE, there’s a gap of 700-800 years between Sappho and the papyrus.
It doesn’t seem probable that ἀέργρη was mistakenly written instead of ἀέρρη.
Depends on the font, in Byzantine times I’d be like sure γ and ρ seem like something that could get caught up in terms of hand writing. Obviously this is much earlier but I still wouldn’t be surprised, especially since taking aergh as acc of resp seems typical to me.
EDIT: Papyrus seems to have gone offline for now so working off memory, I think I’ve held most of it in my head though tbh. The wonders of metre.
Also not to discourage David’s line of discussion, he’s right…there is infinite amounts of dodgy stuff at work in the procurements (and care) of antiquities, it sucks but that’s how it is. I mean I’ve seen stuff for sale I know damn well ought not to be, what exactly can I do?
I can’t recall eta or alpha in the first bit, 60% sure /aipsa/ belongs in the last bit. We need to wait till its back up to resume discssion I’ve only seen it like 3 times.
The debate seems to be whether the papyrus reads ἀέργη or ἀέρρη.
My point was that ἀέργη doesn’t appear to be the regular Aeolic acc sg form for ἀέργης; the regular form would be ἀέργην or ἀέργεα (if that 111 year old book is correct). However, I suppose this doesn’t rule out that the papyrus could read ἀέργη, since that would be the expected form later on, and this ἀέργη could be a corruption for ἀέργην. At least as far as I can see the accusative of respect interpretation makes good sense - “if lazy-headed Larichos were to become a man”.
I find the interpretation “if Larikhos raises his head and becomes a man” strange. But what do I know…
There could be of course far deeper corruption involved than the reading of this one word.
Of course, Obbink might have some other interpretation in mind for ἀέργη, but I can’t think what it could be.