PARTHENIOS, EROTIKA PATHEMATA (20-36): A COMMENTARY A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London by Evangelia Astyrakaki Department of Greek and Latin University College London University of London 1998 ProQuest Number: 10610872 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10610872 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Z to v rarcepa p,oi) Mavo^ri, cttt| pjixepa h o d ZxeMxx K a i axr|v a5e^(prj jiod 'Etara y i a t t |v aaxeipeDxri ay&jrrj xoDq. 2 ABSTRACT Many scholars dispute as to what extent Parthenios was influential on Roman poets, but only a few focus on Parthenios per se. Thus, there is not yet an English detailed commentary on his prose work, the Erotika Pathemata. However, many reasons make this prose work interesting. Firstly, the work survives in a single manuscript, making thus a critical edition requiring a special attention. Secondly, the thirty-six stories of the Erotika Pathemata have been ‘de-hydrated’, since the collection was intended to be used as a model for poetry (primarily by Parthenios himself). This de-hydration makes these stories look more like cinematic scenarios, thus making an interpretation equal to a direction. Thirdly, the TtaOi^pxxTa derived from eros, ranging from incest to necrophilia, is a classic theme and there is a kind of continuity in motifs; this continuity unites somehow this collection not only with Greek and Latin literature but also with other narratives, like the Decameron of Boccaccio or even some urban myths of this century. Yet, there are also great difficulties in commenting on the Erotika Pathemata (20-36). The language consists of a mixture of dialects, and although it has been characterised by scholars as ‘Attic koine’, dealing with koine is a complex matter. The existence of only one manuscript is restrictive and it can often lead to arbitrariness. In the margins of the manuscript there are some ascriptions to other authors and works and although there is the view that these marginal notes indicate the sources, it will be argued here that they refer to parallels and that they were not written by Parthenios himself. Moreover, a ‘re­ hydration’ is attempted in order to demonstrate the narrative techniques of the author, aiming to prove that the collection is not just a mere copy but bears the signature of Parthenios. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank, first of all, A. Griffiths, who supervised me during my Ph.D. research at the University College London. His inspiring ideas and constructive criticism were always helpful and valuable. I should like also to express my deepest gratitude to Professor P. Easterling for her encouragement and her appreciative comments on my work. I am also indebted to Professor R. Janko who kindly read my thesis. I am grateful to the Universitatsbibliothek at Heidelberg for providing me with the microfilm of the single manuscript which preserves the Erotika Pathemata, codex Palatinus Graecus 398, and for permitting me to include this text in my thesis. Thanks are also due to the staff of the Library at the Institute of Classical Studies for being always helpful and kind. My friends from the Department of Greek and Latin and the Institute of Classical Studies were generous in their intellectual and moral support. D. Makris encouraged me in my final steps and I. Sandwell made the finishing touches to my English. Last but not least, I wish to thank my father Manolis for his endless love, support and his valuable comments on linguistic matters, my mother Stella for always being there, and my sister Elisabeth for her love and support. 4 CONTENTS Preface 6-8 Survey of modem scholarship 9-16 Codex Palatinus Graecus 398: 17-40 History of the manuscript 17-18 Dating o f the manuscript 19-21 Description of the manuscript 22-25 Marginalia 26-40 Usus auctoris 41-47 The Herodotean impact 48-52 Narrative techniques 53-56 Sigla 57-58 Letter to Gallus 59-80 EP20 81-91 EP21 92-114 EP22 115-125 EP23 126-137 EP24 138-150 EP25 151-163 EP26 164-175 EP27 176-184 EP28 185-193 EP29 194-206 EP30 207-217 EP31 218-226 EP32 227-237 EP33 238-250 EP34 251-263 EP35 264-277 EP36 278-292 Bibliography 293-312 Index of the Manuscript 313 Manuscript (fol. 173v - 188v) 314-344 i I 5 PREFACE Parthenios lived in the first century BC, which was a revolutionary period, according to historians.1 Parthenios lost his freedom when Mithradates the Sixth was defeated by the Romans but regained it due to his erudition.2 His qualities associated him with the literary circles of his era at Rome, where he lived after his capture. This association is demonstrated in the letter he sent to Cornelius Gallus. This is a letter which stands as a dedicatory preface to the prose collection of the Erotika Pathemata (henceforth EP). I live in the second half of the 20th century, which is a ‘revolutionary’ period regarding the modem approaches to the Greek and Latin texts. However, despite the abundance of methodological tools, there is always the problem of the modem reader’s reception. This is the reason I chose to transliterate the title of the EP instead of translating it (see the Letter for further discussion on this). This is also the reason I decided not to give the traditional form to what classical scholars call a ‘commentary’. First of all, the limitation of the words I had to face made me include in this commentary only EP 20-36, but the comments and the general conclusions were based on the whole of the EP (and naturally I included in my thesis also the letter to Gallus). Since each story is self-contained it does not make any difference if one starts the examination from the first story or not. Therefore, one can follow one’s own preference. My preference was for the second part because it contains intriguing stories. With the term ‘intriguing’ I mean: stories dealing with rare situations, such as necrophilia in EP 31, or posthumous dissection in EP 35; stories which can be compared with the extant work cited in the ascriptions in the margins of the single manuscript of the EP, such as EP 26 (usually the ascriptions refer to works no longer extant); stories in which Parthenios quotes a direct source, such as EP 21 and 34 (stories in the first part also include such quotations); stories that, due to their short length, look like film-scenarios and need to be ‘re­ hydrated’ by imposing certain questions.3 1 Habinek and Schiesaro (1997: xv) note that the transition from Republic to Principate at Rome has been described as revolution at least as early as in 1863 by Mommsen. 2 This information is given by the Suda (s.v. ITapOtfviog). All the testimonies regarding Parthenios’ life are collected in SH 605. See also the discussions of Martini (1930: 149-159), von Blumenthal’s article in RE (s.v. Parthenios), Calderon Dorda (1988: xii-xvi), Stem (1992: 97-100) and Francese (1993: 5ff.). Generally, the reference to Cinna in the Suda has been the subject of many discussions over the years in regard to the identification of this Cinna with Cinna the poet. Francese (1993: 18) lists the various views regarding the identity of the Cinna mentioned in the Suda. Generally, modem scholars agree with the view that the Suda refers to Cinna the poet. 3 Chatman 1978, who studied the narrative structure in fiction and film, would find these stories particularly interesting. 6 I had to decide whether in this commentary I should give the text of Martini’s standard edition or my own. Since I was permitted to include the original pages of the single manuscript in my thesis, I took the step of making a critical edition (keeping always in mind West’s question: is this edition really needed?). Things are easier in terms of comparison when you are dealing with a single manuscript but the fact that you have to rely only on one causes problems itself. As I mention in the usus auctoris, in some cases it is really difficult to decide among the MS readings and the emendations proposed (e.g. see the case of Kpaxepox; in the usus auctoris). Parthenios’ preferences are not always a safe guide since he likes variety most of all. Applying classical canons is surely an inadequate way of approaching the EP, if we do not take into consideration the characteristics of the language of that era (see the usus auctoris for a discussion on Parthenios’ language). Due to the short length of most stories I preferred to give the text and the translation side by side on the same page (the length of EP 36 was a bit problematic). The commentary is divided into three parts. In the first part I deal with textual problems, with specific Parthenian usages (e.g. how Parthenios uses the particles at the beginning of each story in order to give a continuous character to the text) and with distinctive words that might imply Parthenios’ association with other authors.