View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by ZENODO

The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR

Additional services for The Classical Review:

Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here

The Elegies of Theognis

E. Harrison

The Classical Review / Volume 26 / Issue 02 / March 1912, pp 41 - 46 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00199482, Published online: 27 October 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00199482

How to cite this article: E. Harrison (1912). The Elegies of Theognis. The Classical Review, 26, pp 41-46 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00199482

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 137.132.123.69 on 08 Nov 2015 The Review

MARCH, 1912

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

THE ELEGIES OF THEOGNIS. The Elegies of Theognis and other Elegies en TI cannot easily be got out of the included in the Theognidean Sylloge. A MSS., and is no better than ovSev en in revised text, based on a new collation sense. But fir) Brjv fi in 352, and 7T6\a? of the Mutinensis MS., with introduc- in 1258, are worth considering. The tion, commentary, and appendices. use of brackets is somewhat arbitrary, By T. HUDSON-WILLIAMS, M.A., as in 626 and 1194; and the poem 237- Professor of Greek in the University 54 is ruined thereby. To prefix an College of North Wales, Bangor. asterisk to one word only3 in some four- Pp. xv + 262. London : G. Bell and teen hundred lines is to give a wrong Sons, Ltd., 1910. notion of the trustworthiness of the text. Misjudgment of the character of the THE chief value of this book lies in its inferior MSS. is shown here and there, illustrative commentary and its new col- as in the acceptance of their superfluous lation of the Mutinensis, A. The colla- 8' in 83. They give just such another 8', tion is minute, it commands confidence,1 to patch up the grammar and to make a and it supplies a felt want. Special bad link with the preceding couplet, in attention is paid to the strange fact, 821, where 0% K' . . . aTi/jbd^coai should observed by Jordan, that some busy- be read.4 A more serious instance of body has made erasures and substitu- the same fault is in 213, where A's Qvfik tions in A since Bekker's time. The is superseded, without comment, by the other MSS., it seems, are quoted ac- vulgar Kvpve, which helps to disguise cording to old collations. the difference between 213-8 and 1071-4. The new evidence about A, though it On the other hand, the editor is wisely clears up a wilderness of error, does little proof against the loose variants of the towards the improvement of the text; testimonia ; and on the whole his choice and the editor's few conjectures do little of readings and other men's conjectures more. In 112 /ivrjfia 8e xot/tr' (for S' is fairly discreet. exovXenophon, Dio, Athenaeus, Cyril, Suidas, he is sound enough. The Question. Ten years ago I wrote a e book called Studies in Theognis ; and no passage of the Meno proves to him the sooner was it born, and beheld the rays existence early in the fourth century of of the sharp sun, than Mr. Hudson- a book of poems attributed to Theognis, Williams began to heap earth upon its ' and this,' he says, ' is perhaps all that body. He gives it on the whole a fairly it does prove.' So far, good. Christian burial, so perhaps I ought not The 'Alien' Poems.—Failing ancient to insist too loudly that the book is still evidence for alien authorship, W. is alive. I certainly do not mean to defend chary of ascriptions, though he reports its character against all aspersions; but, a guess here and there in his notes. on the other hand, I am not at present But he follows the scholars who ascribe inclined to pluck up all its wild oats, or 467-96, 667-82, and 1345-50, to Euenus to make its peace with the Higher of Paros. He acknowledges (p. 34) that Criticism against the day when Hercu- 'the mere fact that Th. 472 was read laneum shall give up its dead. Yet among the poems of Euenus does not since my name, and divers compendia in itself entitle him to the whole elegy of it,4 often appear, and are often latent, in which it occurs'; but he thinks that 'several other considerations point in 1 E.g. 127, 287-8, 309-12, 513, 669, 806, 884, 1219, 1247. 428 : the 'parallel' between a 3 E.g., the poems are not arranged by catch- living man heaping together a bed of leaves and words ; they contain many complete poems, of a dead man piling earth over his own corpse— one couplet or more; they are not a school- a difficult feat—is not ' exact.' 843: a good book or a Cotnmersbuch; the pastime of label- counsellor would advise a man to leave a ling pieces with the names of Callinus, Chilon, drinking-bout, not ' when he sees things upside and the like, is full of risk; metrical and lin- down,' but rather earlier, n 33-4 : KtrraTrav- guistic tests have failed. aoptv is of course aor. subj., not fut. ind. 6 He discusses anew the question iv irolois 2 On 3 : some of the examples of the form (wea-iv; and the answer is iv roir eXeyetW o5 ' first, last, midst' are not to the point, and it is X£y« K.T.X., and thinks that the question may not the fact that ' there is no special reference refer not to metre but to matter. Then why to Ptolemy in the middle' of Theocr. 17: Pt. does the answer bring in a term of metre ? Or, comes next to Zeus in the prelude and the again, he thinks that iv IT. ?«•. may mean no epilogue, and he is the theme and substance of more than ' Where ? Then what does iv T. eX. the middle of the poem.—A note on the relation add to o5? In order to make the question between 239 and Iliad x. 217 is badly wanted.— relevant, he makes the answer irrelevant. The On 903 and 905 (p. 260): avak&xra in Plato Rep. interpretation of oklyov perafias which he follows 591E is verb, not noun (the error is perhaps may be right, but he does not commend it by borrowed from Stephanus-Dindorf or Ast); and asking, ' Would Socrates at one and the same the note on Karibciv wants further thought. moment refer to the poem as showing " a slight 3 See, e.g., 4, 11, 115, 175. change of standpoint " and " a direct self-con- 4 Which encourage me to shorten ' Professor tradiction " ? How many words to a moment ? Hudson-Williams ' to ' W.1 Forty or fifty words intervene. THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 43 the same direction.' They are scarcely This poem has suffered from its popu- a quorum. All three poems are ad- larity and has been changed to suit dressed to Simonides: but no Simonides the problem it discusses.' In the com- to whom the Parian poet should have mentary we read,' a popular revision of addressed them is known. W. appeals lines composed by Solon. ... A later also to M^Xto? irovroi in the riddling moralist distorted the original.' Here, poem 667-82 : but no sea called Melian then, six lines of Solon have been used is known, and the maps do not incline by a later writer, who has kept the us to think that the Parians would have framework of the original poem and so called ' the sea near Melos 'j1 so that many of its words, has given quite a the riddle is still unsolved.2 new turn to the main idea, and has pro- Where a piece of the Theognidea has duced a new-old poem formally complete. striking resemblances to a piece handed Lastly, in 933-8, the second and third down under another name elsewhere, couplets are based on six lines of W. accepts the other poet's authorship Tyrtaeus, which they shorten and in every case; indeed I fear I have strengthen; but the first couplet is impelled him to deny to Theognis even totally different from the couplet which I53"4. which most ejectors had spared precedes these six lines in Tyrtaeus, and in deference to Clement of Alexandria. this difference alters the whole bearing I had maintained that in each of these of the poem: the rewards which Tyrtaeus cases Theognis altered and appropriated had promised to patriotic valour are the older poet's lines. This cannot be transferred to apery ical icdXkos. W. proved independently in every case taken (p. 45) does not like the new poem, apart. For six3 of these ten doublets objecting that it gives ' a grotesquely textual variation and popular misquota- exaggerated account' of the respect paid tion might account at a pinch, but for to the man 'who has both virtue and the other four4 they will not; and when beauty': but when he translates apery the character of the four has been by ' virtue' he begs a question. I had decided, then, and then only, can we rendered it' excellence,' and W. himself judge of the six. What does W. make in another place and for another purpose of the four ? (in the note on 129) makes the word He does not explain exactly how he mean ' mental and corporal excellence.' accounts for the difference between apery (thus understood) and /caXXo? 1003-6 and their Tyrtaean counterpart; were a very strong pair in the land of but he gives the purpose of one of the Pindar and Alcibiades. changes which distinguish 227-32 from The conjunction of 933-4 with 935-8 their Solonian counterpart: a line of is not my doing; it is found in the texts Solon's ' was replaced by 230 to avoid of Bekker, Welcker, Ziegler, Sitzler, holding the gods responsible.' This Bergk, Hiller-Crusius; and it would not change, then, it seems, was not acci- be questioned if I had not drawn from dental but intentional. On 585-90 he the poem a logical consequence.6 Now, is more explicit (p. 46). ' 585-90 are oi xapi&vTes have a choice of evils. found in Solon. Here, besides a few (1) Like Welcker, they may assign insignificant changes in the wording, to Tyrtaeus not 935-8 only but 933-8. there are two important variations which Then they must be asked to explain the cannot be due to chance and which give relation between this poem and the lines quite a new turn to the main idea. . . . to which Tyrtaeus is sole claimant. There is no doubt that these changes Did he himself put a new headpiece on were intentional, and made as a protest some lines of his own ? Did he himself to " justify the ways of God to man." ... shorten and strengthen the part common to the old poem and the new ? Then 1 This suggestion is Hartung's, I think ; it was adopted by Blass. 2 The evidence given in the note on 1345 5 Prof. H. W. Smyth (C.R. 1903, p. 353) (cf. p. 58) perhaps points to a poet earlier than raises the strange objections that 933-4' destroy Euenus. the force' of Tyrtaeus' lines,' and leave ptv in 3 153-4. 315-8, 7i?V-28, 793-6, 1017-22, 1253-4. 935 without definite reference.' piv refers most * 227-32, 585-94, 933-8, 1003-6. definitely to the subject of 934. 44 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW he used the very mode of self-amend- In support of my view of these loans, ment which I ascribe to Theognis. I drew attention to 769-72, where it is (2) Like Reitzenstein, they may written that the servant and spokesman assign 933-8 to an imitator of Tyrtaeus. of the Muses must not hoard his wit, Who was this imitator, and what was aXka ra fiev /j,u>adai, TO Se BetKvvvai, he at ? A poet ? Then here is a poet aKXa 8e iroieiv. using the very procedure which I ascribe Quoting a parallel from Ecclesiastes, I to Theognis in dealing with another held that n&crOai, and Seticvvvai must poet's work. A schoolmaster or ' moral- mean parts of the poet's office which ist '? An odd one, if he thought fit to differ from iroielv. The suggestion has transfer the rewards of 935-8 from not been barren.3 But the best that W. patriotic valour to ' excellence' and can make of the words is this: '" Search beauty, or even to virtue and beauty. for new truths, point out to men truths (3) Like W. (p. 233), they may see in already known, practise others in his 935-8 a different version of the Tyrtaean own life " (or possibly " make up into lines, appended 'as a commentary on poetry").' Neither of his alternatives the first element in 933 '; that is to say, can be entertained. On the second, the on apery, but not on KOXKOS, nor on line gives a distinction without a per- both. Was this one-eyed commentator ceptible difference; on the first, the himself the abridger and strengthener poet, in baddish Greek, invites the of the lines of Tyrtaeus ? If so, it is odd charge of not preaching all that he prac- that a man so good at revision should tises, that is to say, of hoarding some be so bad at a gloss. If not, the origin of his wit, the very fault which he has of the shorter version of the lines still condemned. needs to be explained. The foundations of my theory, then, However that may be, W. acknow- remain unshaken. They are the witness ledges three examples of pieces inten- of Clement of Alexandria as to 153, the tionally changed or distorted by a later antitheses in 771, and the four passages hand: but he will not have it that the which resemble passages of Solon or hand was a poet's, for he thinks such Tyrtaeus but with important or essen- pettifogging plagiarism unworthy of a 1 tial differences such as to give them a poet, or of an honest man. ' What is a character of their own. The four pas- Poet ?' asked one of our own Poets. sages prove that the procedure which I The answer is not simple, nor is it the suppose was used by some person or same in every age. Literary honesty, persons at some time or times; the too, is not a thing fixed by rigid antitheses in 771 seem to show that and immutable laws. This is not the somebody at some time recognised some first time that harm has been done such procedure as part of the poet's by applying to ancient literature our province; the statement of Clement modern notions of originality and copy- attests (I do not mean ' proves') that right. The fallacy has often been this procedure was used in one instance pointed out, but as often recurs. I by Theognis; and the occurrence of might quote many warnings, but on the these passages in our MSS. under the present occasion a single witness may name of Theognis gives evidence (I do suffice. It is W. himself. ' We should not mean 'proof') about them all. not forget,' he says elsewhere (p. 31), ' that these early poets frequently imi- Parody.—Welcker found many 'paro- tated and appropriated the thoughts, dies ' in our text, W. finds but few. He expressions, and even the general frame- calls 1161-2 a ludicrous travesty of work of the elegies written by their lines are evidently modelled on Hes. W.D. 488 predecessors or contemporaries.' Good: sqq., with a clear attempt at differentiation.' So Theognis is at it again. Kal 17/tet? fjbapTvpa exp/Mev, rvXieXfiiSijv, 3 2 See T. W. Allen in C.R. 1905, p. 389; 7TO\LTT)V T&V ev TaXaria Tiaryyopeav. O. Immisch in Neue Jahrbiicher, xiii. 1904, p. 236, who concludes : ' Die Hauptsache ist in 1 See especially p. 47, n. jedem Falle, dass der Dichter das wirkliche 2 1197-1202 are addressed to Cyrnus under TTOKIV, also die Eigenschopfung im engeren the name JloXvrratSijs, and therefore (by W.'s Sinne nur fur einen Teil dessen, was er gibt criterion) they are by Theognis : yet ' these in Anspruch nimmt.' THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 45 409-10. Wherein lies the travesty? Fragments.—'An elegy may often be Not in the choice of words (for 8t8o>s a mere fragment,' says W. (p. 4); and does not mean ' hand your cash over'); again (p. 73) he speaks of ' the discon- not in the sentiment, unless we are to nected appearance of some elegies that laugh at hoc habeo quodcumque. dedi and irresistibly remind us of the poems that at what Mayor called 'the noble words' make up "the complete fragments" of of Martial, V. 42, 7-8; but in the lost poets in collections like Bergk's grammar. 'The writer . . . probably Poetae Lyrici or the Fragmenta Comi- regarded the bad grammar as an addi- corum; in both cases we have bits of tion to the joke perpetrated at the poetry that were found as detached expense of a moralist he learned to hate quotations in ancient writers.' Later in school.' A judicious investigation of on (p. 188) he is more cautious: 'it can- Greek MSS. and their variants would not be denied that a few fragments enrich Greek literature with many such have forced their way into our book.' jokes; in point of fact, too many. No: This wavering of opinion is reflected in the two couplets have a common part, the text, which is not very good at like 301-2 and 1353-6,1 but the one is deciding where one poem ends and not a travesty of the other. another begins. What author would Again, 578 seems to W. ' to have been have quoted such scraps as 1101-2 and introduced for the sake of burlesquing a 1278 a, b, dull relative sentences with well-known line which may have been no main clause? I have shown that composed by Theognis.' This well- these couplets are to be combined with the next. Again, 413-4 are feeble, known line is also Mwknown. Until it are turns up, W.'s suspicion is gratuitous. 1083-4 meaningless, without their The 'Repetitions.'—Some of the so- neighbours; 783-8 are a valuable addi- called repetitions W. tries to explain by tion to 773-82; 877-8 supply an address textual errors, in others he sees inten- to 879-84, and remove a difficulty in tional change. It is easy, though in- 884 which W. ignores. In these cases accurate, to call 1109 14 an 'abridge- W. seems to have adopted conventional ment ' of 53-60, and to speak of divisions based on principles which he ' childish variations' (pp. 49, 50): but does not altogether, or always, accept. who was this child, and why was he at The Preface.—I hold, with others, such pains ? Not a thief, it seems, since that the ' seal' which Theognis set on he retained the address to Cyrnus. his poems was the announcement of his Then who, and when, and why ? Against name at the beginning of his book. the view that these doublets may have W. thinks that such a seal could have come from different citations of the served no purpose. How so ? If a same passages, my objection still holds: man put forward as his own a poem of often as the Theognidea are cited in Theognis, could not captious critics ancient authors, not one of these doublets have pointed to its presence in the book is quoted in both forms, whereas pas- which Theognis had sealed ? That he sages which are quoted in widely arranged some at least of his poems in different forms appear only once in our the form of a book, W. believes (pp. 72, text. In criticising my views of the 76). ' repetitions' W. says little of the varia- W., with others, makes T&vpve the tions of meaning and context which I seal, but he does not think the lack of pointed out, but enlarges on the varia- Kvpve proof of another poet's hand. Yet, tions of wording, which he taxes with if Theognis used this tedious device childishness, laziness, and unimagina- seventy times or so, he must have set tiveness. If self-plagiarism is all these up a presumption that none was genuine things, then Euripides was a sluggard, without the label. By insuring his Demosthenes a dullard, and Empedocles copyright in this casual way, he stood a babe. to lose as much as he could gain. This seal would not avail against theft, since 1 ' I353 = 3OI.' says W. (p. 252); but it is not Kvpve could easily have been removed; so. What does he mean when he says (p. 62) nor against forgery, since anyone who that 301 ' hardly makes sense' ? wished to ape Theognis could introduce THE CLASSICAL REVIEW this handy vocative into his verses, as book, does not even end a poem. a poet has done in recent times. ' V. 253-4 Welcker, cui assensus est The Date of Theognis.—Here I will Herwerden, non recte separavit a prae- confine myself to the evidence of the gressis,' says Bergk. These two lines lines which mention the Medes. 773- are in structure2 and in purport an 82 were written from the standpoint of integral part of the poem 237-54; the Megara, and W. allows (p. 10) that they sting of the poem is in its tail. W. dubs ' may well have been composed by them ' a clumsy interpolation,' and Theognis'; but he refers them to ' the fancies that the length of the description dread of a Persian invasion in 545 B.C.' of the fame which Theognis has be- What is the evidence for such a dread ? stowed on Cyrnus, and its enthusiastic Sparta's cool message to Cyrus betokens tone, ' make it very unlikely that it is concern for the Greeks of Asia, but un- merely a preparation for the tag at the concern for herself.1 Besides this inci- end.' On the contrary, the very brevity dent, W. (p. 9) refers only to a sentence of the iraph Trpoarhoiciav is all to the in Herodotus' description of Marathon good. What would be thought of a (vi. 112) : Tew? Be r)v TOUT), "Ett^i ical critic who should strike off the last four TO ovvo/ia TO ^/Irfhcov napa