mnemosyne 72 (2019) 705-716
brill.com/mnem
The Text and Metre of Sapph. fr. 111 V.
Felix J. Meister
Inst. für Altertumskunde, Universität zu Köln
felix.meister@uni-koeln.de
Received March 2018 | Accepted August 2018
Abstract
Sappho’s fr. 111 V. is an important specimen of Sapphic epithalamia and of Greek wedding songs in general. At its heart, however, are textual uncertainties that prevent a
comprehensive engagement with this fragment. This article offers a thorough reexamination of its text and metre. It first revises available approaches and discusses
fundamental problems underlying all of them. Then, it analyses the text of the fragment, which serves as a basis for a new interpretation of its metre and structure.
Keywords
Sappho – Hephaestion – Demetrius – Epithalamia – Lesbian dialect – Aeolic Verse
…
ἴψοι δὴ τὸ μέλαθρον,
ὐμήναον,
ἀέρρετε, τέκτονες ἄνδρες·
ὐμήναον.
5 γάμβρος †(εἰσ)έρχεται ἶσος Ἄρευι†,
⟨ὐμήναον,⟩
ἄνδρος μεγάλω πόλυ μέσδων.
⟨ὐμήναον.⟩1
1 Sapph. fr. 111. All references to fragments of Sappho and Alcaeus are from the edition of Voigt
1971.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/1568525X-12342575
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid
706
∵
Meister
The main sources for Sapph. fr. 111 are a passage in Hephaestion’s De poëmatis,
where it is quoted as an instance of a refrain separating lines rather than strophes (μεσύμνιον), and one in Demetrius’ De elocutione, where it is quoted as
an instance of the rhetorical device of recantation (μεταβολή).2 An additional
quotation is found in the collection of apophthegms assembled by Arsenius
Apostolius, a Greek scholar active in Italy at the end of the fifteenth and the
beginning of the sixteenth centuries.3 Since Arsenius seems to derive his quotation from Hephaestion, rather than an independent source, his testimony is
negligible for the present purposes.4
A crucial question of fr. 111 concerns the metrical interpretation of the individual lines and their relationship to one another. Nearly four centuries of
scholarship have produced a variety of approaches, but none of them is without difficulties. Older scholarship frequently attempted to scan the first half of
the fragment as epic hexameter by deleting the first instance of ὐμήναον (ἴψοι
δὴ τὸ μέλαθρον ἀέρρετε τέκτονες ἄνδρες vel sim.).5 However, given that Hephaestion explicitly cites these lines as an example for the meshymnium, it is an
unattractive assumption that one meshymnium should have entered the text
accidentally. Its absence in Demetrius offers no support, since this author frequently omits parts of quotations that are not immediately relevant to his discussions.6 Some editors also attempted to restore a hexameter in the second
2 Heph. Poëm. 7.1, p. 70 Consbruch: ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἐφύμνιον μὴ μετὰ στροφὴν ἀλλὰ μετὰ στίχον κέηται
περιλαμβανόμενον ἄλλῳ στίχῳ, μεσύμνιον καλεῖται [τὸ ποίημα], οἷόν ἐστι τὸ παρὰ Σαπφοῖ ‘ἴψοι
(ὕψοι sscr. ϊ A : ὑψοῖ I : ὕψοι rell.) δὴ τὸ μέλαθρον, ὑμήναον, ἀείρετε (C corr. ex -ατε : -εται A : -ατε
rell.) τέκτονες ἄνδρες, ὑμήναον, γαμβρὸς ἔρχεται ἶσος Ἄρηϊ (Ἄρευι A : Ἄρει I)’; Demetr. Eloc. 148:
ἔστι δέ τις ἰδίως χάρις Σαπφικὴ ἐκ μεταβολῆς, ὅταν τι εἰποῦσα μεταβάλληται καὶ ὥσπερ μετανοήσῃ,
οἷον· ‘ἴψω (Radermacher : νίψω codd.) δή, φησί, τὸ μέλαθρον ἀέρατε τέκτονες· γαμβρὸς εἰσέρχεται
ἶσος Ἄρηϊ, ἀνδρὸς μεγάλου πολλῷ μείζων.’
3 Arsen. 51.83, p. 460 Walz = Apostol. Cent. 17.76a, p. 2.705 Leutsch-Schneidewin: ὑψοῖ δὲ τὸ
μέλαθρον ὑμήναον ἀείρα τε τέκτονες ἄνδρες ὑμήναον, γαμβρὸς ἔρχεται ἶσος Ἄρει.
4 Against Demetrius, Hephaestion and Arsenius have the double meshymnium ὐμήναον as well
as ἔρχεται. More precisely, Arsenius seems to depend on Par. Gr. 2676 (Heph. cod. I), since
both read ὑψοῖ and Ἄρει against the other mss. of Hephaestion. This textual resemblance is
confirmed by the observation that Par. Gr. 2676 was brought from Constantinople to Florence by Janus Lascaris (cf. Speranzi 2007, 90 n. 28), and that Arsenius is known to have assisted Lascaris during this time (cf. Pratesi 1961, 611).
5 Barth 1624, 282; Bentley 1711, 460; Wilamowitz 1900, 72. The deletion of the first meshymnium
is printed in the editions of Hephaestion by Westphal 1866, 72 and Consbruch 1906, 70.
6 For example, at Eloc. 141, only the first half of what is now Sapph. fr. 104a.1 is transmitted. The
second half is preserved in other sources.
mnemosyne
72 (2019) 705-716
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid
The Text and Metre of Sapph. fr. 111 V.
707
half of the fragment, but these attempts are based on substantial, and largely
unconvincing, interventions in the text.7
Similar in spirit is the attempt, found in Carlo Gallavotti’s second edition
of Sappho, to reduce fr. 111 to two lines by reading ἴψοι δὴ τὸ μέλαθρον ἀέρρετε
τέκτονες ἄνδρες, ὐμήναον | γάμβρος ἔρχεται ἶσος Ἄρευ’ ἄνερος μεγάλω πόλυ μέσδων
and by interpreting these lines, it appears, as pherecrateans with four dactylic
expansions.8 Apart from the problematic deletion of the first meshymnium,
this interpretation is complicated by the fact that there are no parallels for
Aeolic cola with so many expansions.
Other scholars retain the first ὐμήναον and interpret ἴψοι δὴ τὸ μέλαθρον
as pherecratean and ἀέρρετε τέκτονες ἄνδρες (⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑) variously as
catalectic pherecratean with a dactylic expansion,9 as reizianum with a dactylic expansion,10 or as enhoplian.11 Assessment of the second half of the fragment causes more problems. Most scholars reconstruct from Demetrius the
sequence ἄνδρος μεγάλω πόλυ μέσδων (– – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –) and argue that this sequence is metrically equivalent to ἀέρρετε τέκτονες ἄνδρες, if anceps is assumed
in initial and final positions. Because of this similarity, these scholars assume a
four-line strophe of the type abab.12 Since γάμβρος (εἰσ)έρχεται ἶσος Ἄρευι is not
equivalent to ἴψοι δὴ τὸ μέλαθρον, the former sequence is variously altered in
order to produce a closer correspondence.13 However, these alterations involve
further problems.14
7 Bergk 1843, 620: γάμβρος ἐσέρχεται ἶσος Ἄρῃ, μεγάλω πόλυ μείζων (revoked in Bergk 1853,
688 and subsequently); Hartung 1857, 101: ὦ ὑμέναιον—ὁ γάμβρος ἐσέρχεται ἶσος Ἄρηι—|
ὕμην ὦ ὑμέναι’—ἀνδρὸς μεγάλω πόλυ μείζων.
8 Gallavotti 1956, 129.
9 E.g. Voigt 1971.
10 West 1982, 34.
11 E.g. De Martino and Vox 1996, 1183. The exact definition of ‘enhoplian’ remains controversial. The sequence × – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – × (×D×, also called ‘erasmonidean’) is grouped among
the enhoplian e.g. by Wilamowitz 1921, 93, 376; Dale 1968, 157 (but cf. criticism by Davison
1948, 159; Denniston 1948, 120); Itsumi 1991-1993, 244.
12 Perrotta 1948, 53-54; Gallavotti 1950, 114 nn. 1, 4; Gentili 1950, 115; De Martino and Vox 1996,
1183. Cf. also strophe A8 in the conspectus of Voigt 1971.
13 Bowra 1934, 126: γάμβρος δ’ ἴσος ἔρχετ’ Ἄρευι = p̭ hd/rd/enhopl (cf. also Bowra 1936, 450; not
retained in Bowra 1961, 216, where Lobel is printed, but followed by West 1982, 34); Lobel
1925, 49: γάμβρος εἶσ’ ἴσ’ Ἄρευι = ph (followed by Gallavotti 1947, 130, though not reprinted
in Gallavotti 1956, 129, see above; Page 1955, 120); Perrotta 1948, 56: γάμβρος ἴσος Ἄρευι
(– ⏑ ⏖ ⏑ – ⏑), interpreted as resolved ith (followed by Gentili 1950, 115); Gallavotti 1950,
114: γάμβρος ἔρχετ’ Ἄρευ’ ἴσος = gl (not adopted in Gallavotti 1956, 129, see above); Milne
1950: γάμβρος ἴσ’ ἔρχετ’ Ἄρευι = D×, treated as though equivalent to ph; Livrea 2008, 3:
ἐσέρχεται ἶσος Ἄρευι = enhopl; Slings 1994, 677 transposes ἔρχεται after γάμβρος ἶσος Ἄρευι,
which then scans as ph.
14 Lobel’s and Milne’s adverbial ἴσ(α) makes the comparison about gait rather than height
(cf. also Perrotta 1948, 54-55). Perrotta assumes not only resolution of a long element into
mnemosyne 72 (2019) 705-716
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid
708
Meister
In addition to individual difficulties, all of these treatments of fr. 111 are subject to two general points of criticism. The first concerns the transmission of
γάμβρος ἔρχεται (εἰσέρχεται) ἶσος Ἄρευι (Ἄρηϊ). The versions of Hephaestion
and Demetrius agree in all but the forms of the verb and of the name. Both
authors, writing in the first and second centuries ad,15 had individual access
to editions of Sappho and, apart from fr. 111, Sapphic fragments quoted by one
author are not found in the other. Moreover, given the different subjects of the
two texts, there is no reason to assume that one manuscript tradition would
have corrupted the other. The similarities of the two transmitted versions are
therefore likely to reflect the original text. This prohibits any substantial alteration, like transposition, deletion, or supplementation.16
The second problem concerns methodology. All approaches are motivated,
explicitly or implicitly, by the desire to reduce the transmitted text into familiar patterns of line arrangement. This desire is particularly palpable among
those scholars who attempt to reconstruct certain forms of strophes.17 At close
inspection, this approach proves unreliable. The original song of the fragment
was located, in all likelihood, in the last book of the Alexandrian edition of
Sappho. This book contained all those epithalamia that could not be grouped
in the other books, which appear to have been arranged by certain metrical periods or structures.18 As a collection of metrical miscellanea, the last book may
have contained a large variety of metrical structures now lost and unknown.
Epithalamia, with their roots in the wedding ceremony and popular traditions
of wedding songs, are particularly likely to have reflected the metrical diversity
of impromptu compositions.19 In fact, there are other fragments of Sapphic
epithalamia that contain otherwise unknown combinations of lines (frr. 104a,
114). Hence, there is no compelling basis for presupposing that the structure
15
16
17
18
19
a double short, but also short syllables in more than two consecutive positions. Neither
assumption is compatible with the known conventions of Aeolic verse.
On the dating of the author of De elocutione, cf. the discussion in Dihle 2007.
Gallavotti 1950, 113-114 is aware of this, but assumes, rather implausibly, a corruption in the
Alexandrian archetype.
An extreme case is Perrotta 1948, 53-54: “accettando la proposta di Bowra, avremmo una
strofe dello schema abbb; e tale schema non troviamo mai nè in Alceo, nè in Saffo. In
questi poeti lo schema più frequente è abab; troviamo talvolta aabc (strofe alcaica) e aaab
(strofe saffica), ma non troviamo mai abab. Anche lo schema del frammento 123 Diehl
sarà, dunque, abab; e nel v. 5 … bisogna cercare non un enoplio, ma un ferecrateo, uguale
al v. 1.”
Cf. Page 1955, 123-125. In general, cf. also Yatromanolakis 1999; Liberman 2007.
Yatromanolakis 2009, 265-269 recently pleaded that popular anonymous traditions
of song are not necessarily simpler than those songs that have survived in the form of
literature.
mnemosyne
72 (2019) 705-716
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid
The Text and Metre of Sapph. fr. 111 V.
709
of fr. 111 should resemble the pattern discernible, for instance, in the Sapphic
stanza predominant in the first book of the Alexandrian edition. Further uncertainty is added by the relative shortness of the fragment, which makes it
impossible to determine whether a supposed strophe is complete in its extant
form.
It follows from these considerations that a reconstruction of fr. 111 should
not depart from metrical preconceptions. Where the quotations of Hephaestion and Demetrius agree, this agreement needs to receive due acknowledgement. Where they disagree, other criteria need to be found for deciding between the alternatives. Such criteria are offered by the transmission of the fragment in the manuscripts of the two authors, by Lesbian conventions of dialect
and prosody, and by the dramatic situation of the fragment, located during the
wedding outside the house of the approaching bridegroom, and the rhetoric
that this situation requires. These criteria need to be examined carefully, before the resulting text can be assessed as to its metrical structure.
The first half of the fragment requires relatively little discussion. First, the
form ἴψοι, proposed by Albert Giese,20 is the best correction of Demetrius’ corrupt νίψω and Hephaestion’s banalisation ὕψοι,21 since ἴψος and derivatives are
attested for the Aeolic dialect by grammatical testimonies.22
Second, regarding the verb, editors are divided over whether an aorist
(ἀέρρατε) or present (ἀέρρετε) form of the imperative should be restored.23 The
aorist is found in manuscripts of both Hephaestion and Demetrius, whereas the
present is merely found in one manuscript of Hephaestion (Cant. Dd. XI 70 =
cod. C) as a correction of an originally aorist form. This distribution seems to
support ἀέρρατε. More support is offered by rhetorical considerations. Whereas it can be observed that present imperatives tend to stress the command as a
process with little or no emphasis on its completion, aorist imperatives tend to
stress completion.24 Hence, aorist imperatives tend to convey a greater sense
of urgency than present imperatives. This sense of urgency would seem to fit
20 Giese 1832, 788. ἴψοι seems to have been suggested independently also by Bergk 1843, 620.
21 In Ambr. I 8 sup. (cod. A) of Hephaestion, ϊ appears to be written above the υ, perhaps as
a correction after the model of the codex was checked.
22 An.Ox. p. 1.63.28-30 Cramer = Hdn.Gr. p. 2.364.1-2 Lentz, An.Ox. pp. 1.418.31-419.1 Cramer,
Hdn.Gr. pp. 1.393.21, 2.928.14 Lentz (Lesb. inc. fr. 14). Cf. also Hamm 1958, 27.
23 Aorist: Ahrens 1843, 544; Diehl 1925, 379. Present: e.g. Bentley 1711, 460; Lobel 1925, 49;
Lobel and Page 1955, 88; Gallavotti 1956, 129; Voigt 1971, 122. On the forms, cf. Hamm
1958, 30.
24 Cf. Kühner and Gerth 1898, 1.189-192.
mnemosyne 72 (2019) 705-716
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid
710
Meister
the dramatic situation of the fragment, where the bridegroom’s arrival is imminent and fast action is required.25
Third, ἄνδρες is preserved only in Hephaestion. However, given the frequency of omissions in Demetrius (see above), there is no reason to question the
authenticity of the term. Elsewhere in Greek poetry, forms of ἀνήρ are ubiquitously combined with terms denoting station, function, and craft.26 Moreover,
the particular phrase τέκτονες ἄνδρες has parallels in epic.27 If a specific evocation of these epic passages is intended in fr. 111, it may serve to elevate the present occasion of the wedding into quasi-mythical spheres.
More substantial problems are encountered in the second half of the fragment. A first question concerns the form of the verb. Hephaestion provides
ἔρχεται, Demetrius εἰσέρχεται, and the manuscript traditions of both authors
are unanimous in their respective forms. Some scholars reconstruct from Demetrius the form ἐσέρχεται, but this is based on an attempt to produce dactylic
sequences in this line.28 Editors who assume that Demetrius’ εἰσ- represents
the corrupt version of an original word usually fail to account for Hephaestion.29 The decision therefore has to be between the two transmitted forms.
At the outset, it would seem more likely that original εἰσέρχεται was simplified
to ἔρχεται in the tradition of Hephaestion than that original ἔρχεται was augmented to εἰσέρχεται in Demetrius. The dramatic situation, too, seems to favour εἰσέρχεται, since the raising of the roof is necessary only if the bridegroom
‘enters’ the house, not if he merely ‘arrives’ at the scene outside the house.30
25 Tzamali 1996, 415, arguing in favour of ἀέρρετε, states that present imperatives are more
commonly addressed to inferiors. This distinction, however, is not born out by the evidence; cf. e.g. Il. 6.264 (Hector to his mother): μή μοι οἶνον ἄειρε μελίφρονα, πότνια μῆτερ,
S. Ph. 886 (Neoptolemus to Philoctetes): νῦν δ’ αἶρε σαυτόν, E. El. 873 (chorus to Electra): σὺ
μέν νυν ἀγάλματ’ ἄειρε κρατί.
26 Cf. LfgrE s.v. ἀνήρ III 4aα, 862.20-863.13 and Sapph. fr. 105b.1 (ποίμενες ἄνδρες).
27 Cf. Il. 6.315, 13.390, 16.483, Od. 9.126, H.Ven. 12.
28 Volger 1810, 67 (also ἐπέρχεται); Seidler 1829, 175; Bergk 1843, 620; Hartung 1857, 101; Treu
1954, 226; Livrea 2008, 3. ἐσέρχεται is further complicated by the fact that, elsewhere in
Lesbian, ἐς tends to occur before consonant, εἰς before vowel; cf. Hamm 1958, 40-41. Unfortunately, Sapph. fr. 95.7 (= PBerol. 9722 fol. 4), for which Voigt 1971 prints ε̣ἴσηλθ’
�̣
, is too
mutilated to be decisive (pace Treu 1954, 226). In other forms, this tendency is observed;
cf. e.g. Sapph. fr. 23.3 (εἰσίδωσ[), Alc. fr. 112.16 (ἐσφερέ�τ̣ ω).
29 Lobel 1925, 49 assumes that εἰσ- is corrupt for εἶσ’, which was glossed with ἔρχεται, but he
fails to explain why ἔρχεται is in Hephaestion. Milne 1950 argues that εἰσ- replaced original
ἴσ’ and that ἶσος is a gloss, but he does not elucidate the presence of ἶσος in Hephaestion.
30 Tzamali 1996, 415-416 points out that εἰσέρχεσθαι elsewhere tends to be accompanied by
local information, conveyed either by a noun in the accusative or a prepositional phrase,
and that the absence of such information in fr. 111 makes ἔρχεται more likely. However, the
mnemosyne
72 (2019) 705-716
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid
The Text and Metre of Sapph. fr. 111 V.
711
A second question concerns the term ἰσος. Inscriptional evidence from
Crete and Arcadia and a testimony in Hesychius illustrate that an early form of
this word was ϝίσϝος.31 In epic, the effect of the digamma is noticeable in both
positions.32 Few exceptions aside,33 the first digamma here prevents hiatus
with preceding syllables ending with a vowel and lengthens those ending with
a consonant. The second digamma causes lengthening of the first syllable of
ἰσος and, consequently, accentuation as ἶσος. The treatment of this word appears to be different outside the epic dialect. Thus, in all unambiguous cases in
Sappho and Alcaeus, the first syllable is scanned as short, suggesting that the
original internal digamma has no effect.34 Hence, the word is usually accentuated as ἴσος. The same phenomenon can be observed in other words, where, in
contrast to epic language, original internal digamma does not cause lengthening of the preceding syllable (ἄρα, κάλος, μόνος).35 Similarly, in two cases, ἴσος
does not lengthen a preceding syllable ending with a consonant,36 and in one
fragment, ἴσα causes elision of the preceding diphthong -αι.37 This indicates
that the original initial digamma is without effect. This phenomenon, too, corresponds to a wider tendency in Sappho and Alcaeus.38 These considerations
would lead one to expect ἴσος in fr. 111. However, ἴσος cannot be reconciled with
the surrounding words. The first syllable of the following Ἄρευι/Ἄρηϊ is, in all
likelihood, short.39 Moreover, if the original initial digamma has no effect, hiatus occurs between (εἰσ)έρχεται and ἴσος, which would seem to result in elision
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
bridegroom’s house may be obvious enough to be implied here, especially if the original
song was performed outside that house.
ICr IV 20.1-2 (Gortyna, mid 7th to late 6th c. bc), ICr IV 41 col. II.2 (Gortyna, early 5th c. bc),
ICr IV 72 col. X.53 (Gortyna, 480-450 bc), ICr IV 79.6-7 (Gortyna, 480-450 bc), IPArk 15.4-5
= IG V 2.343 + BCH 39 (1915), 105 (Orchomenus, 360-350 bc), IG V 2.323A.21 (Mantineia,
425-385 bc). At Hsch. γ574 (γίσγον· ἴσον), γ seems to represent ϝ. Cf. also Schwyzer 1934,
308; Frisk 1960-1972, s.v. ἴσος.
Jacobsohn 1909, 88-94; Chantraine 1942, 144; LfgrE s.v. 1126.70-71.
Cf. the passages assembled at LfgrE s.v. 1226.71-1227.2.
Sapph. frr. 31.1, 58.16, 68a.3. Unclear are Sapph. fr. 96.11 (first position in glyconic), Alc.
fr. 117b.27 (first position in glyconic).
Cf. also Hamm 1958, 29-31; Bowie 1981, 69-70.
Sapph. fr. 31.1: κῆνος ἴσος (– ⏑ ⏑ –), Alc. fr. 344.2: κεν ἴσως (⏑ ⏑ –).
Sapph. fr. 58.16 (now with P.Köln XI 429.14): ὄρχησθ’ ἴσα (– – ⏑ ⏑).
Parry 1932, 30 = 1971, 348; Parry 1934, 140-144 = 1971, 400-403; Bowie 1981, 74-87.
The first syllable of Ἄρευς is unambiguously short at Alc. frr. 140.3, 349d. Unclear cases are
Alc. frr. 70.8 (second position in glyconic), 330 (anceps in Alcaeic stanza), 372 (first position in glyconic), 400.2 (first position in iamb?), Lesb. inc. fr. 6 (metre unknown). In epic,
short scansion of Ἄρης is predominant and appears to be primary, though lengthening
may occur where the metre requires it; cf. Chantraine 1942, 229; LfgrE s.v. 1247.26-1248.9.
A characteristic example is Il. 5.31 = 5.455: Ἆρες Ἄρες βροτολοιγέ, μιαιφόνε, τειχεσιπλῆτα.
mnemosyne 72 (2019) 705-716
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid
712
Meister
of -αι.40 Consequently, (εἰσ)έρχετ’ ἴσος Ἄρ- would involve short syllables in four
consecutive positions, which cannot be accommodated in Aeolic verse.41 Since
transposition is unavailable (see above), this difficulty can only be solved if,
contrary to the customs of the Lesbian poetic dialect, the form ἶσος is assumed.
Given that the phrase ἶσος Ἄρηϊ is established in epic, ἶσος in fr. 111 is conceivable as a deliberate adoption of the epic form.42 This is important for assessing
whether the sequence (εἰσ)έρχεται ἶσος involves hiatus. Many scholars argue
or imply that hiatus occurs, resulting in epic correption of -αι.43 However, this
scansion is influenced by the desire to introduce short syllables required for
dactylic interpretation. It is highly unlikely that the epic form ἶσος should cause
a phenomenon that it does not usually cause in epic. Instead, if ἶσος in fr. 111 is
an epicism, original initial digamma would, as in epic, prevent hiatus and leave
the quantity of -αι intact.
Another question concerns the form of the name. Manuscripts of Demetrius unanimously read Ἄρηϊ. Most manuscripts of Hephaestion also offer Ἄρηϊ,
while Par. Gr. 2676 (cod. I) provides Ἄρει and Ambr. I 8 sup. (cod. A) Ἄρευι.44
The reading of the Ambrosianus is now printed in all recent editions of Sappho. This presupposes that original Ἄρευι was standardised to Ἄρηϊ independently in the traditions of Hephaestion and Demetrius. A more economical
explanation would be that Ἄρηϊ is correctly preserved in most manuscripts of
Hephaestion and all of Demetrius, while Ἄρευι presents a particular mistake
of the Ambrosianus, perhaps as a result of attempted restitution. Ἄρευι may
be the expected form of the dative in Lesbian.45 However, if the metrically required form ἶσος already alludes to the epic phrase ἶσος Ἄρηϊ, the epic form
of the name might reinforce this specific allusion.46 Epic echoes are assumed
above for the phrase τέκτονες ἄνδρες. ἶσος Ἄρηϊ would further contribute to the
elevated style initiated by the earlier expression. Here, however, the purpose
40
41
42
43
Cf. Sapph. fr. 58.16 (see above). On elision of -αι, cf. also Hamm 1958, 40.
Cf. Maas 1923, 15 = 1962, 39; Gallavotti 1950, 97-98.
Il. 11.295, 11.604, 12.130, 13.802, 20.46, Od. 8.115. Cf. also Kazik-Zawadzka 1958, 25-26.
Implicitly in the scansions by Bergk 1843, 62; Hartung 1857, 101; Wilamowitz 1913, 88; Gallavotti 1956, 129; Livrea 2008, 3. Explicitly in Kazik-Zawadzka 1958, 20; Hamm 1958, 38
(cautiously).
44 For the reading of A, cf. Studemund 1886, 117. It is deplorable that Consbruch (1906, in
app.), who strongly favours the readings of A, does not record the majority reading Ἄρηϊ.
45 On the Lesbian declension of Ἄρης, cf. Schwyzer 1934, 576.
46 The disyllabic form Ἄρῃ is attested at Alc. fr. 140.3, indicating that epic forms of the name
may be used in Lesbian poetry. Lobel 1927, 55 obelises Ἄρῃ and Fränkel 1951, 254 n. 1 considers changing Ἄρῃ κεκόσμηται to Ἄρευι κόσμηται. However, Ἄρῃ is firmly transmitted in
Ath. 14, 627a. Epic Ἄρῃ, attested only at Il. 5.757, 21.112, 21.431, is itself not above suspicion;
cf. Chantraine 1942, 229.
mnemosyne
72 (2019) 705-716
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid
The Text and Metre of Sapph. fr. 111 V.
713
of these epicisms is more palpable. The application of the ideal of the epic
warrior to the bridegroom in unmistakably epic terms would seem excessively
hyperbolic and so give rise to the impression of a humorous, almost mocking
tone that is often seen in this fragment.47
In the remaining part of the fragment, which is transmitted only in Demetrius, there is no reason to assume any forms other than Lesbian. Hence, Christian Friedrich Neue must be right in restoring μεγάλω and μέσδων from μεγάλου
and μείζων.48 Neue’s πόλυ for transmitted πολλῷ is equally convincing, given
that πολλῷ (πόλλῳ) is never used by Sappho or Alcaeus, who instead use πόλυ
with comparatives.49 Lesbian custom also rules out the change of ἄνδρος to
ἄνερος, suggested by Wilamowitz and Gallavotti merely to produce more short
syllables, since ἄνδρος is the only form attested in Sappho and Alcaeus.50
Based on these observations on the text of fr. 111, an assessment of its metrical structure can be attempted. The sequence ἴψοι δὴ τὸ μέλαθρον (– – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑)
is easily interpreted as a pherecratean, where the last syllable is brevis in longo
and so indicates line end after μέλαθρον. The meshymnium ὐμήναον (⏑ – ⏑ ⏑)
appears to be an iambic metre and brevis in longo of the last syllable marks it as
an individual line, rather than a prefix to the following line. By analogy, the second ὐμήναον seems to indicate that ἀέρρατε τέκτονες ἄνδρες (⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑)
constitutes a line in itself. The various denominations for this sequence ( p̭ hd,
rd, enhopl) are presented above. In the second half of the poem, the observation
prevails that ἄνδρος μεγάλω πόλυ μέσδων is metrically similar to ἀέρρατε τέκτονες
ἄνδρες, which suggests in turn that γάμβρος εἰσέρχεται ἶσος Ἄρηϊ (– ⏑ – – ⏑ – – ⏑
⏑ – ⏑) forms an individual line. This line can be interpreted as a catalectic iambic prefix, or creticus, joined to a pherecratean via an additional long element,
or, alternatively, as a trochaeic prefix with a pherecratean. Though there is no
exact parallel for this line in Sappho or Alcaeus, it is identical, minus one syllable, to the third line in the strophe of Sapph. fr. 98 (– ⏑ – ⏓ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – × = A3
in the conspectus of Voigt 1971). It is conceivable, though impossible to prove,
that these lines were originally separated by additional meshymnia, as was first
proposed by Charles James Blomfield.51 I therefore propose the following text
and metrical interpretation of Sapph. fr. 111:
47 E.g. Page 1955, 120; Bowra 1961, 216.
48 Neue 1827, 70.
49 Cf. Sapph. frr. 16.6, 156.1, 167, Alc. fr. 298.4. Tzamali 1996, 417-418 entertains the possibility
that πολλῷ (πόλλῳ) is genuine, based on the (irrelevant) observation that Theognis is the
first poet where πολλῷ is attested with comparatives.
50 Wilamowitz 1900, 72; Gallavotti 1956, 129. For ἄνδρος, cf. Alc. frr. 7.5 (= POxy. XV 1789 fr. 6),
283.8 (= POxy. XXI 2300 fr. 1), 298.31 (= P.Köln. II 59).
51 Blomfield 1813, 20.
mnemosyne 72 (2019) 705-716
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid
714
5
Meister
ἴψοι δὴ τὸ μέλαθρον,
ὐμήναον,
ἀέρρατε τέκτονες ἄνδρες·
ὐμήναον.
γάμβρος εἰσέρχεται ἶσος Ἄρηϊ,
⟨ὐμήναον,⟩
ἄνδρος μεγάλω πόλυ μέσδων.
⟨ὐμήναον.⟩
ph
ia
p̭ hd
ia
i̭ a–ph
ia
p̭ hd
ia
On this interpretation, the lines of fr. 111 have little in common apart from the
pherecratean, which appears to be the fundamental unit underlying the four
main lines. The structure as a whole bears no resemblance with the strophes
of the type abab observed elsewhere in Sappho or Alcaeus. Closer parallels are
offered by what appear to be ad hoc strophes in popular songs. An Elian cultic
song for Dionysus, for example, which is preserved in Plutarch, consists of five
lines of very different metrical profiles, followed by a reduplicated refrain.52 In
light of this parallel, the peculiar metrical structure of Sapph. fr. 111 emerges as
unproblematic. Like the Elian song, the Sapphic epithalamium is involved in
a stage of ritual activity. Despite its artistic complexity, conveyed above all in
allusions to epic, it seeks a connection with traditions of popular, often improvised songs where ad hoc strophes may feature. The arrangement of different
lines in fr. 111 is perhaps best interpreted as such an ad hoc strophe.
Bibliography
Ahrens, H.L. (1843). De Graecae linguae dialectis, Vol. 2. Göttingen.
von Barth, C. (1624). Adversariorum commentariorum libri LX. Frankfurt a.M.
Bentley, R., ed. (1711). Q. Horatius Flaccus. Cambridge.
Bergk, T., ed. (1843). Poetae lyrici Graeci. Leipzig.
Bergk, T., ed. (1853). Poetae lyrici Graeci. 2nd ed. Leipzig.
Blomfield, C.J., ed. (1813). Sapphonis fragmenta. Museum Criticum or, Cambridge Classical Researches 1, pp. 1-31.
Bowie, A.M. (1981). The Poetic Dialect of Sappho and Alcaeus. Salem, NH.
Bowra, C.M. (1934). Two Notes on Sappho. CR 48, p. 126.
52 Plu. Quaest. Graec. 36 (Mor. 299b) = Carm. Pop. fr. 871 PMG: ἐλθεῖν ἥρω Διόνυσε | Ἀλείων
ἐς ναὸν | ἁγνὸν σὺν Χαρίτεσσιν | ἐς ναὸν | τῷ βοέῳ ποδὶ δύων, | ἄξιε ταῦρε, | ἄξιε ταῦρε. I am
indebted to the journal’s anonymous referee for directing my attention to this song.
mnemosyne
72 (2019) 705-716
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid
The Text and Metre of Sapph. fr. 111 V.
715
Bowra, C.M. (1936). Greek Lyric Poetry from Alcman to Simonides. Oxford.
Bowra, C.M. (1961). Greek Lyric Poetry from Alcman to Simonides. 2nd ed. Oxford.
Chantraine, P. (1942). Grammaire homérique, Vol. 1. Paris.
Consbruch, M., ed. (1906). Hephaestionis enchiridion cum commentariis veteribus.
Leipzig.
Dale, A.M. (1948). The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama. Cambridge.
Dale, A.M. (1968). The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama. 2nd ed. Cambridge.
Davison, J.A. (1948). Rev. of Dale 1948. JHS 68, pp. 158-159.
De Martino, F., and Vox, O. (1996). Lirica greca, Vol. 3. Bari.
Denniston, J.D. (1948). Rev. of Dale 1948. CR 62, pp. 118-122.
Diehl, E., ed. (1925). Anthologia lyrica Graeca, Vol. 1. Leipzig.
Dihle, A. (2007). Zur Datierung der Schrift des Demetrios Über den Stil. RhM 150,
pp. 298-313.
Fränkel, H. (1951). Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums. Frankfurt a.M.
Frisk, H. (1960-1972). Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. (3 vols). Heidelberg.
Gallavotti, C., ed. (1947). Saffo e Alceo, Vol. 1. Naples.
Gallavotti, C. (1950). Studi sulla lirica greca 8-10. RFIC 28, pp. 97-116.
Gallavotti, C., ed. (1956). Saffo e Alceo, Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Naples.
Gentili, B. (1950). Metrica greca arcaica. Messina.
Giese, A. (1832). Rev. of Matthiae, A. (1827). Alcaei Mytilenaei reliquiae. Leipzig, and Neue
1827. Allgemeine Literaturzeitung 1832, Ergänzungsblätter nos. 96-99, pp. 761-788.
Hamm, E.-M. (1958). Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios. 2nd ed. Berlin.
Hartung, J.A., ed. (1857). Die griechischen Lyriker, Vol. 6. Leipzig.
Itsumi, K. (1991-1993). Enoplian in Tragedy. BICS 38, pp. 243-261.
Jacobsohn, H. (1909). Beiträge zur Sprache und Verstechnik des homerischen Epos.
Hermes 44, pp. 78-110.
Kazik-Zawadzka, I. (1958). De Sapphicae Alcaicaeque elocutionis colore epico. Wrocław.
Kühner, R., and Gerth, B. (1898). Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache.
(2 vols). Hannover/Leipzig.
Liberman, G. (2007). L’édition alexandrine de Sappho. In: G. Bastianini and A. Casanova,
eds., I papiri di Saffo e di Alceo. Florence, pp. 41-65.
Livrea, E. (2008). Sapphica. ZPE 164, pp. 1-7.
Lobel, E., ed. (1925). Σαπφοῦς μέλη. Oxford.
Lobel, E., ed. (1927). Ἀλκαίου μέλη. Oxford.
Lobel, E., and Page, D., eds. (1955). Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta. Oxford.
Maas, P. (1923). Griechische Metrik. Leipzig [= Lloyd Jones, H., transl. (1962). Greek
Metre. Oxford].
Milne, H.J.M. (1950). An Emendation in Sappho. CR 64, p. 53.
Neue, C.F., ed. (1827). Sapphonis Mytilenaeae fragmenta. Berlin.
mnemosyne 72 (2019) 705-716
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid
716
Meister
Page, D. (1955). Sappho and Alcaeus. Oxford.
Parry, M. (1932). Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making II. The Homeric
Language as the Language of an Oral Poetry. HSPh 43, pp. 1-50 [= 1971, pp. 325-364].
Parry, M. (1934). The Traces of the Digamma in Ionic and Lesbian Greek. Language 10,
pp. 130-144 [= 1971, pp. 391-403].
Parry, M. (1971). The Making of Homeric Verse. The Collected Papers of Milman Parry.
Oxford.
Perrotta, G. (1948). Il frammento 123 Diehl di Saffo. Maia 1, pp. 52-61.
Pratesi, A. (1961). Apostolio, Arsenio (Aristobulo). In: Dizionario biografico degli Ita­
liani, Vol. 3. Rome, pp. 611-613.
Schwyzer, E. (1934). Griechische Grammatik, Vol. 1. Munich.
Seidler, J.V.A. (1829). Über einige Fragmente der Sappho und des Alcäus. RhM 3,
pp. 153-229.
Slings, S.R. (1994). Two Notes on Sappho’s Wedding Songs. Mnemosyne 47, pp. 677-679.
Speranzi, D. (2007). Per la storia della libreria medicea privata. Giano Lascaris, Sergio
Stiso di Zollino e il copista Gabriele. Italia medioevale e umanistica 48, pp. 77-111.
Studemund, W. (1886). Anecdota varia, Vol. 1. Berlin.
Treu, M. (1954). Sappho. Munich.
Tzamali, E. (1996). Syntax und Stil bei Sappho. Munich.
Voigt, E.-M., ed. (1971). Sappho et Alcaeus. Amsterdam.
Volger, H.F.M., ed. (1810). Sapphus Lesbiae carmina et fragmenta. Leipzig.
West, M.L. (1982). Greek Metre. Oxford.
Westphal, R., ed. (1866). Scriptores metrici Graeci, Vol. 1. Leipzig.
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1900). Die Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker.
Berlin.
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1913). Sappho und Simonides. Berlin.
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1921). Griechische Verskunst. Berlin.
Yatromanolakis, D. (1999). Alexandrian Sappho Revisited. HSPh 99, pp. 179-195.
Yatromanolakis, D. (2009). Ancient Greek Popular Song. In: F. Budelmann, ed., The
Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric. Cambridge, pp. 263-276.
mnemosyne
72 (2019) 705-716
Downloaded from Brill.com05/17/2022 03:46:56AM
via Universitat Frankfurt / BIOfid