Variants of Sappho's Songs in Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae

Journal of Hellenic Studies 136 (2016) 59–72 doi:10.1017/S0075426916000057 © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 2016

Οὔκ ἐστι Σαπφοῦς τοῦτο τὸ ᾆσμα: VARIANTS OF SAPPHO’S SONGS IN ATHENAEUS’ DEIPNOSOPHISTAE

MARK DE KREIJ Stockholm University*

Abstract: Sappho and her songs became popular throughout the Greek world very soon after her death, as reflected on Attic vases, in comedies and in the many references to her songs by authors of all times. One important source for her songs, especially before the discovery of the papyri at Oxyrhynchus and elsewhere, is Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae. This article presents a close analysis of three fragments of Sappho that were transmitted within this work, in order to establish the form of the fragments as they were incorporated by Athenaeus. Divergence from Sappho’s original need not be the result of scribal error, but may represent a variation born in performance or active reception of the poems by Athenaeus or his source. Furthermore, the fragments demonstrate that it is insufficient to describe Athenaeus’ engagement with the Lesbian dialect as atticizing. By extension, the idiosyncracies of his quotations of Sappho’s songs should be reflected in editions of the Deipnosophistae.

Keywords: Sappho, Athenaeus, transmission, variation, quotation

Sappho’s songs, composed in the seventh and sixth centuries BC, are lost to us, and we have to make do with reflections in image and text. Her elusive corpus has been the subject of prodigious research,1 and the scholarly frenzy over recent discoveries demonstrates her continuing popularity.2 Already in antiquity we find active engagement with Sappho and her work, ranging from textual fragments to vase paintings, imitations of her songs and comedies about her. These early reflections – now in many ways more tangible and contextualized than Sappho’s original compositions – deserve to be the subject of research in their own right.3 S. Nicosia (1976) is the first scholar to devote extensive attention to the divergence between the direct and indirect transmission of the Lesbian poets. On the basis of a number of test cases he applies philological methodology in order to establish where Sappho’s fragments end and later interpretation or reuse begins. In his analysis of Sappho 2 V he comes to similar conclusions as I do about Athenaeus’ use of that song in his Deipnosophistae, though his interest is solely philological. D. Yatromanolakis (2007) explores the transmission of Sappho’s songs before the Alexan- drian edition, and his study of the oral transmission of her songs provides an important backdrop against which variants of Sappho’s songs can be analysed. Following up on the work done by P. Brunet,4 in this study I consider the fragments of Sappho’s songs in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae with the intent of establishing what Athenaeus may have written, and what this tells us about his attitude towards the original songs.

* [email protected]. This article is the result of 2 The newest Sappho papyri, extensive fragments work conducted for a Masters degree by research at the from book 1, were published by Obbink (2014) and Radboud University Nijmegen. In the process of writing Burris et al. (2014). Scholars have jumped on the mate- and revising, I have benefitted greatly from the feedback rial, and, besides numerous journal publications, a of André Lardinois, Ewen Bowie, Philomen Probert, research volume, Bierl and Lardinois (2016), is already Theodora Hadjimichael and Anna Bonifazi. I would also available. like to thank the anonymous reviewers of JHS for their 3 See Lardinois (2006) and De Kreij (2015) for this valuable comments and Roger Brock for his efforts in approach to classical texts. preparing the piece for publication. 4 Brunet (2003) 74: ‘les citations de Sappho chez 1 For recent bibliographies, I refer the reader to Athénée sont peut-être à réévaluer’. In his article he Yatromanolakis (2007) 371–426; Bierl and Lardinois begins this task, but his notes remain cursory. (2016) 493–525.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.202.226, on 02 Oct 2021 at 00:48:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0075426916000057 60 DE KREIJ

The Deipnosophistae – Learned Banqueters – contains a myriad of quotations from all genres of Greek literature, lyric featuring prominently among them.5 Athenaeus sets the scene of a banquet, and imagines the conversations between fictitious symposiasts for the exposition of his own broad literary knowledge. By close examination of Athenaeus’ references to Sappho and her work, combined with knowledge of the context in which Athenaeus worked, I argue that (1) some of Sappho’s fragments quoted in Athenaeus may retain variants born in performance, (2) it is insufficient to describe Athenaeus’ engagement with the Lesbian dialect as simplifying or atticizing and (3) we should not assume that Athenaeus is always interested in faithfully replicating the original at his disposal.

I. The early transmission of Sappho’s songs After composition and initial performance, probably on Lesbos, Sappho’s songs made their way to Attica. Although they were probably diffused elsewhere too, Attica is our main source for material in the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Sappho’s songs seem to have made her famous in Athens very early on, as suggested by an Attic hydria dated to 510–500 BC which depicts a female figure and attaches the name ΦΣΑΦΟ.6 How her songs travelled across the sea from Lesbos remains conjectural. The evidence we have on the status and diffusion of writing in this period is difficult to interpret. T.A. Hadjimichael has gathered the evidence for the written transmission of lyric poetry in the Classical period,7 and I follow her conclusions here. The route for the transmission of Sappho’s songs into the fifth or even fourth century seems to have been performance, which would make this the most likely way they reached the mainland.8 Nonetheless, the medium of writing was established at this point, and anyone capable of writing down a song was surely free to do so. Based on quotations in Plato, the existence of some lyric texts from the late fifth century onward is likely, but this does not entail the existence of full editions for any poet.9 The fact that we have no papyri or other portable written recordings of songs from this early period precludes us from coming to any firmer conclusions. What is more important, however, is that a written transmission is not a condicio sine qua non for Sappho’s songs to have reached Athens. Moreover, the hypothetical written record envisaged above would have been far from what might be considered an edited text, let alone a corpus.10 Editions, in the sense of normalized collections of entire corpora, are productions of a later period, probably, in the case of most lyric authors, this was no earlier than the scholars of the Alexandrian Mouseion. This makes the following passage from Athenaeus all the more surprising. In a list of riddles from literature, Athenaeus quotes from the Sappho of Antiphanes, a comic poet who worked in the early fourth century BC. The author introduces Sappho by presenting a riddle to another unnamed character: ‘What female creature (φύσις) is mute yet can be heard anywhere in the world?’ The man answers that it must be the πόλις, but he is wrong. Sappho then

5 The most complete manuscript, the codex Venetus (2016). Hadjimichael (2011) 161–67 demonstrates that Marcianus 447 (A), misses the first two books, part of the scarce evidence for lyric in the Aristotelian corpus the third and a few pages here and there. I refer to it ‘offers support for the view that an element of orality through the apparatus in the edition of Kaibel (1887– continued’ into his time (167). 1890). The gaps in A are filled using an epitome that was 9 Hadjimichael (2011) 200–01. preserved complete in two manuscripts (C and E); for the 10 Although Pöhlmann (1994) 15 argues that there edition of the epitome starting from book 3, see Peppink were local collections of Sappho’s songs on Lesbos; cf. (1936–1939) vols 1 and 2. Hadjimichael (2011) 193–94 on another vase depicting 6 Warsaw, National Museum, inv. no. 142333; cf. Sappho holding a book roll, which Edmonds (1922) Yatromanolakis (2007) 68–69. adduces as evidence for pre-Alexandrian editions of 7 Hadjimichael (2011) 186–207. Sappho. I concur with Hadjimichael that this is an unwar- 8 On the early transmission of Sappho, cf. Nagy ranted inference. (2004); Liberman (2007); Lardinois (2008); Bowie

gives the answer: the female creature is a message (ἐπιστολή) and her children the letters (γράμ- ματα). ‘Even though they’re mute, they speak to anyone they want who’s far away. And if someone else happens to be standing nearby, he won’t hear the man who’s reading.’11 For the riddle to have worked, we must assume that the fourth-century BC audience could imagine someone reading silently. However, it is unlikely that Sappho’s poetry was enjoyed in silent reading this early on in her reception. Especially for lyric composers like Sappho, early transmission of the songs is hidden in the shadows of history, and assumed to have been at least partially oral; even early written recordings probably had a performative function.

II. Sappho in the symposion A natural habitat for Sappho’s songs in Classical Athens was the symposion. Songs of all kinds were sung at symposia; they formed one of the main forms of entertainment. A symposiast could choose to sing a song of one of the melic poets, and if he was able he could accompany himself on the lyre. He might also sing a short poem, a skolion, either of his own devising or by another author, known or unknown. In similar exchanges, excerpts from the lyric poets, tragedians or Homer could be used, either quoting faithfully or consciously adapting the lines.12 This brings us back to the question of oral composition and oral transmission. As regards composition, it is relevant to the symposion in the sense that a song may have been incorporated into extemporaneous compositions by symposiasts. Moreover, one might argue with G. Nagy that reperformance is never anything less than recomposition, even if the symposiast aims to recreate the original song faithfully.13 For the symposion, then, it is hard to draw a line between oral composition and oral transmission. In order to avoid the pitfalls surrounding ‘orality’, I will speak of transmission through performance to describe the general nature of transmission independent of the creation and use of written copies. It is a book-culture version of a sympotic context that Athenaeus invokes in his Learned Banqueters. Athenaeus shows his pedigree as a book scholar when he discusses the following poetic ‘dialogue’ between Sappho and Anacreon reported by Chamaeleon.14

σφαίρῃ δηὖτέ με πορφυρῇ Throwing his purple ball once more, βάλλων χρυσοκόμης Ἔρως golden-haired Eros calls me out νήνι ποικιλοσαμβάλῳ to play with a girl συμπαίζειν προκαλεῖται, with many-coloured sandals. ἡ δ᾽, ἐστὶν γὰρ ἀπ᾽ εὐκτίτου But she – she must be from well-built Λέσβου, τὴν μὲν ἐμὴν κόμην, Lesbos – finds fault with my hair, λευκὴ γάρ, καταμέμφεται, white as it is, πρὸς δ᾽ ἄλλην τινὰ χάσκει. and gapes at another. Anacr. fr. 358 PMG15

11 Ath. 10.451a–b: ἄφωνα δ’ ὄντα <ταῦτα> τοῖς 13 Cf. Nagy (1996). When imagining Sappho’s songs πόρρω λαλεῖ οἷς βούλεθ’· ἕτερος δ’ ἂν τύχῃ τις πλησίον being sung at a symposion we are at a disadvantage. The ἑστὼς ἀναγιγνώσκοντος οὐκ ἀκούσεται; tr. Olson (2006- songs are preserved as texts only, in the best case accom- 2012) 5.159. panied by accents, but never by musical notation. 12 For the argument that Sappho performed at Attic However, the accents may yet provide some idea of the symposia, see Yatromanolakis (2007). Bowie advances melody of her songs. For discussions on the possible link the possibility that Sappho’s songs were originally meant between pitch accent and melody, see Winnington- for and performed in male symposia ((2016) 152). Reit- Ingram (1955) 64–73; Pöhlmann (1960) 17–29; West zenstein (1893) 3–44; Collins (2004) 63–166; and espe- (1981); (1992) 198–200; Pöhlmann and West (2001). cially Vetta (1995) study the evidence for poetic practices 14 Ath. 13.599c–d; cf. Too (2000) on the bookishness at symposia in Classical Greece in general. of the Deipnosophistae; for Chamaeleon’s work on the lyric poets, see Schorn (2008). 15 Translations are mine, unless indicated otherwise.

κεῖνον, ὦ χρυσόθρονε Μοῦσ᾽, ἔνισπες That’s the one you spoke of, golden-throned Muse, ὕμνον, ἐκ τᾶς καλλιγύναικος ἐσθλᾶς the hymn from that famous land of pretty women, Τήιος χώρας ὅν ἄειδε τερπνῶς that the Tean sang with pleasure, πρέσβυς ἀγαυός. the wondrous old man Fr. adespotum 953 PMG

Chamaeleon introduces the anecdote with ‘some say’, and S. Schorn shows that Chamaeleon himself did not believe it to be true.16 Athenaeus may be basing himself on Chamaeleon’s work when he says that the second poem was not composed by Sappho in response to Anacreon – in fact, she and Anacreon did not even live in the same period.17 He thus concludes that the song is clearly not by Sappho: ὅτι δὲ οὔκ ἐστι Σαπφοῦς τοῦτο τὸ ᾆσμα παντί που δῆλον. The nature of this discussion suggests that Sappho’s songs were still associated with interactive performance such as that in the symposion.18 Answering one piece of famous poetry with another is a sign of knowledge and – if done well – of wit. The fact that some people (τινας) associated Sappho’s songs with such dialogicity in the fourth century BC may reveal little about the relation- ship between Anacreon and Sappho, but it points to a sympotic performance context for her songs in the said period.19 Athenaeus’ choice of words in this passage is instructive; whereas he generally speaks of Sappho ‘saying’ or ‘mentioning’,20 here he calls the poem an ᾆσμα – a song – even though he concludes it cannot be by her.21 The passage also illustrates the budding scholarship on lyric in this period. Chamaeleon wrote a work on Sappho, which suggests that some kind of written version of her works was at his disposal. At the same time, Athenaeus rightly discounts the fragment of Sappho he found in Chamaeleon’s work as misattributed; so the written recording of Sappho’s songs clearly did not eliminate problems of transmission and attribution. Not even the Alexandrian redaction in the third century BC could bring an end to that.

III. The Alexandrian edition Chamaeleon’s anecdote of a poetic exchange between Anacreon and Sappho suggests that in the fourth and third centuries BC Sappho had a written transmission while her songs were still being performed, probably in a sympotic context.22 The corpus of Sappho’s songs was established in the Alexandrian collection of seven, eight or nine books.23 Although this edition did not make it through the Middle Ages (as part of Pindar’s edition did), we have scraps of the Alexandrian collection in papyri from the second and third centuries AD from Oxyrhynchus. The recent discovery of P.Köln 429, P.Sapph.Obbink and P.GC inv. 105 has contributed signifi- cantly to our knowledge of the Alexandrian edition of Sappho.24 The Cologne papyrus is the only one that possibly predates the standard edition, yet it gives a text that is practically identical to

16 Schorn (2008) 58–60. 21 Athenaeus uses ᾆσμα and derivatives only to 17 Earlier in the same book (13.598b–99b), denote poems by lyric poets like Stesichorus, Alcman, Athenaeus quotes a long piece from Hermesianax, who Anacreon and Sappho. claims that Alcaeus and Anacreon vied for Sappho’s 22 Cf. Yatromanolakis (2007) 211. hand. In response to this, Athenaeus writes: ἐν τούτοις ὁ 23 On this issue, cf. Acosta-Hughes (2010) 99; Ἑρμησιάναξ σφάλλεται συγχρονεῖν οἰόμενος Σαπφὼ καὶ Liberman (2007); Yatromanolakis (1999). It is not clear Ἀνακρέοντα. that there was only one standard Alexandrian edition of 18 See Nagy (2007) 233; Yatromanolakis (2007) Sappho’s songs. Heph. (Περὶ σημείων 128) claims that 179: ‘Anakreon’s song did not converse with Sappho. It in his time Aristarchus’ edition of Alcaeus was different was made to do so at a later period’ and 357–58. from Aristophanes’, showing that for the other lyric poet 19 Ath. 13.599c: Χαμαιλέων δ’ ἐν τῷ περὶ Σαπφοῦς from Lesbos different editions were in circulation and in καὶ λέγειν τινάς φησιν εἰς αὐτὴν πεποιῆσθαι ὑπὸ active use in the second century AD. Ἀνακρέοντος τάδε. 24 Editions in Gronewald and Daniel (2007); Obbink 20 The words used are generally forms of λέγω, φημί (2014); Obbink et al. (2014), respectively. or μνημονεύω.

that in P.Oxy. 1787 from the third century AD – as far as they overlap.25 The latest fragments from Sappho book 1 also overlap with other extant fragments, and they give a unique insight in the Sitz im Leben of editions of Archaic lyric in Graeco-Roman Egypt. G. Ucciardello rightly argues that we should not simply regard the papyri we find as editions in the modern sense, since most of them must have been private possessions.26 It is hard to reconstruct how these personal copies were created, but the recent finds demonstrate a remarkable stability in the texts of Sappho’s songs in second- and third-century Egypt. This matches the conclusions reached by Ucciardello about the Pindar papyri,27 and it reinforces my point about the importance of judging indirectly transmitted fragments within their own context. If even in local, personal copies the texts are so consistent, there remains very little reason to assume that Athenaeus did not have such a text at his disposal, and any significant differences between his quotes and the Sapphic texts on papyri must therefore be intentional rather than accidental. In their editions, the Alexandrian scholars gathered and edited the texts attributed to Sappho into an edition that was both comprehensive and linguistically consistent, by establishing a set of rules concerning the Lesbian dialect.28 The language we find in the Alexandrian edition may very well differ from the actual Lesbian dialect in the sixth century BC and thus the language Sappho composed in; but, in any case, it seems to have been the point of reference for all editors, grammarians and other authors writing thereafter.29 The Lesbian dialect was famous for its recessive accent; with very few exceptions, the pitch accent was placed as far from word-end as possible, within the basic rules of accentuation. We cannot reconstruct how this may have sounded to a listener from Athens, for example, but it was applied throughout Lesbian texts from the Alexan- drian edition onwards, although our understanding of this is based more on statements by grammarians than on primary sources.30 Of the papyri, only P.Oxy. 1787 has integral accentuation, and it shows recessive accents throughout.31 For quotations in manuscripts of other authors, the accentuation is more problematic because of the transmission history of the early Middle Ages. When the format of the codex took over from the papyrus roll, the uncial or biblical majuscule became the most popular font for texts. As this script in capitals was rarely accented, accentuation for many texts was lost until the introduction of the minuscule in the ninth century AD.32 When the accents were reintroduced, one should imagine entire works being redone, and I cannot imagine that the medieval scribes had either the time or the skill to identify all the fragments embedded in longer prose works and accent them according to the rules of their respective dialects. In practice, the entire set of texts was most probably accented using one system,33 and the Lesbian accentuation would, in a majority of cases, have been lost.34

25 The only differences are in orthography (not and that it was completely unaspirated: Hooker (1977) dialect) and of course the verses in P.Oxy. 1787 missing 18–20; Bowie (1981) 51–52. Indeed, the evidence we from the Cologne papyri, discussed below. have is not enough to establish if the actual sixth-century 26 See Ucciardello (2012) 126–27. Lesbian dialect had these characteristics, but it appears 27 Ucciardello (2012) 139–40. that both rules were followed almost completely in the 28 Hooker (1977) collects the evidence for the papyri. Lesbian dialect in the ancient grammarians: 13-34. 31 The papyrus is assigned to the third century AD; 29 See Hooker (1977) 12. Nagy (2004) 38–40 P.Oxy. 1231, about a century older, also gives accents in advances the possibility that Sappho’s songs were atti- some places. cized as soon as they arrived in Athens and only reverted 32 Probert (2006) 48. to Lesbian in the actual Alexandrian edition. 33 See Probert (2006) 49–50 for the relevant 30 The two most recent works on the dialect of the evidence. Lesbian poets, Hooker (1977) and Bowie (1981), provide 34 The same development will have erased many a framework that is based on epigraphic evidence and traces of the fact that Lesbian was an unaspirated ancient descriptions of the dialect. This produces a set of (‘psiloted’) dialect; only when the breathing at the start rules that appears to have been followed quite closely by of a word would influence the final consonant of the the ancient editors of poetic texts as found in the papyri. preceding word can we hope to see a trace of this dialectal Both scholars have some reservations concerning the characteristic. See De Kreij (2015) 30 on the variant idea that Lesbian was accented recessively throughout εφαινεθ in P.Oxy. 220, col. ix, 12 (Sappho 154 V).

This historical development should make the researcher careful when judging accents and breathings of quotations of Sappho in non-technical works such as the Deipnosophistae. Knowing that in Athenaeus’ time editions of Sappho’s songs were in principle available, and that Athenaeus was clearly no stranger to books, we must assume that he had the opportunity to produce exact quotations, as indeed he does for other poets.35

IV. Sappho 2 V The end of Sappho 2 V, preserved on the Sappho ostrakon and quoted by Athenaeus (manuscript A), provides a good test case for Athenaeus’ approach to the language and text of Sappho’s songs.

(...) ενθα δη συ στεμ[ There you , holding [ ], ελοισα Κυπρι χρυσεαις εν κυ Kypris, skilfully pouring λικεσσιν ακρως εμμει in golden cups χμενον θαλιαιεσσιν nectar mixed νεκταρ οινοχοεισα with festivities PSI XIII, 1300: the Sappho ostrakon

Athenaeus’ version of these lines differs from that on the ostrakon, even if the latter is hard to decipher.36 Several factors may be relevant to the divergences in form between the two variants: the provenance of the ostrakon, the modes of early transmission of this song and the reception of the passage by Athenaeus.

ἐλθέ, Κύπρι, χρυσείαισιν ἐν κυλίκεσσιν ἁβροῖς συνμεμιγμένον θαλίαισι. νέκταρ οἰνοχοοῦσα τούτοισι τοῖς ἑταίροις ἐμοῖς γε καὶ σοῖ. Come, Kypris, in golden cups mixed with gentle festivities,37 pouring nectar for these friends of mine and for yourself. (Ath. 11.463e)38

It is often tacitly assumed that ‘Athenaeus or his source’ replaced the ‘rare Aeolic forms with more common ones’,39 but this does not adequately represent the reality of the text. His quotation of the end of Sappho 2 V shows a mix of dialectal features. We find the non-Attic dative ending -σι(ν) twice, as well as the peculiar Lesbian -εσσι(ν) dative once.40 Right after, however, we find the adjective ἁβροῖς, with the Attic ending.41 Unsurprisingly, the accentuation found in the manuscripts is not recessive. Note also χρυσείαισιν, a Homeric form; in Lesbian it would be χρυσίαισιν,

35 Cf. Bowie (2000) on Athenaeus’ apparent refe- 38 The text given here is from A (fol. 212v, col. B); rence to books of iambic and elegiac poets. Note, cf. Olson (2006–2012) 5.224. however, Gorman and Gorman (2007) on Athenaeus’ 39 Olson (2006–2012) 1.116 n.172; see also Yatro- loose adherence to the original texts of historical works. manolakis (2007) 346 n.267: ‘for Athenaios and other 36 The reading of the ostrakon is extremely proble- authors this [i.e. atticizing the Greek] was the usual prac- matic. Different researchers (Norsa (1937); (1953); tice in quoting the texts of Sappho and Alkaios’; Nagy Theiler and Von der Muehll (1946); Lanata (1960); Lobel (2009) 192. and Page (1955)) have all come up with different readings. 40 Several theories have been put forward to explain As I have not been in a position to access anything other this dative plural that we find generalized for all i-stems than a decent photograph, I have decided to follow and consonant stems in Lesbian. J. Wackernagel explains Norsa’s reading. What is beyond doubt is that the ostrakon it from the analogy of nom. pl. -οι > dat. pl. -οισι ergo and Athenaeus do not give the same reading. For metrical nom. pl. -ες > dat. pl. -εσσι, and this seems the most reconstructions, see Norsa (1953) 47; Lanata (1960) 89– economical explanation; cf. Wackernagel (1903); 90; and all modern editions of Sappho. The presentation Morpurgo-Davies (1976). here recreates the word breaks of the ostrakon. For the 41 Voigt (1971) reads Bergk’s (1867) emendation reader’s benefit, I have added word division. ἄβρως. 37 The translation follows the construction suggested by the punctuation in the manuscript, which means that the sentence is ungrammatical.

in Attic χρυσέαις. In the metrical scheme, a short syllable is needed here (see below), so, unlike in another fragment of Sappho (143 V), we cannot accept χρυσείαισιν here as an influence from epic.42 However, in contrast with χρυσέαις on the ostrakon, the form in Athenaeus is certainly not Attic. Athenaeus may even have believed that he wrote an original Lesbian form, since with the loss of quantitive distinction from the early Roman period onwards, ει and ι become interchange- able spellings of an /i/ indifferent in length.43 In other words, -ειος may represent -ιος with short iota, leaving open the possibility that χρυσείαισιν is merely an orthographic variant of Lesbian χρυσίαισιν. The other peculiarity is οἰνοχοοῦσα. Lesbian is regarded as conjugating contract verbs as athe- matic verbs, with lengthening of the stem vowel: -ημι, -αμι and -ωμι. In this case, we expect the participle οἰνοχόεισα, which some editors actually read on the ostrakon.44 However, quite apart from the uncertainty about the actual rules of the Lesbian dialect,45 we have to keep in mind the possible influence from epic, mentioned above. The form οἰνοχόουσα need not be an Attic form introduced by Athenaeus (or an atticizing source) but may have been an epic form in Sappho. In other words, Athenaeus gives a mixture of possibly original Lesbian forms and Attic forms. Both the Attic ending of ἁβροῖς and contracted participles in -οῦσα are found in epic, which undoubtedly influenced both Lesbian poets.46 Above I already established that we cannot trace the non-Lesbian accentuation back to Athenaeus with any certainty. This fragment demonstrates that it is reductive to describe Athenaeus’ engagement with Sappho’s language as only simplifying and atticizing – more evidence emerges from the other fragments. Besides the language, there is a clear textual difference between the two versions. The final words in Athenaeus (τούτοισι τοῖς ἑταίροις ἐμοῖς γε καὶ σοῖ A), absent from the ostrakon, have been the subject of much discussion among commentators.47 Some dismiss it out of hand as a later addition to Sappho’s song, because it does not easily fit the metre and because they cannot see Sappho addressing male companions in one of her songs. Others have tried emending the line to accommodate either or both of these objections: most change the words and/or their order.48 Note- worthy is G. Kaibel’s proposal; he changes not only the word order but also the gender of the words, in order to accommodate his interpretation of the song’s original performance context.49 Whatever the merit of these emendations, they focus on reconstructing a hypothetical song by Sappho, not on establishing what Athenaeus wrote. The manuscript evidence gives us no reason to regard the lines as in some way disconnected from the rest of the fragment, since the scribe has punctuated after θαλίαισι, drawing the two final words of the version on the ostrakon – νέκταρ οἰνοχοοῦσα – into a syntactic whole with the additional line found in Athenaeus.50 In any attempt at a faithful representation of a song on paper one might expect that there would not be a great departure from the original metre.51 Here, however, there is clear metrical disconti- nuity after νέκταρ οἰνοχοοῦσα. The first lines of the fragment fit quite easily into the metrical form of the ostrakon poem, the Sapphic stanza,52 the best-known (if not necessarily most used) form of

42 143 V: χρύσειοι δ᾽ ἐρέβινθοι ἐπ᾽ ἀιόνων ἐφύοντο. 49 Kaibel (1887–1890) 3.10 in app.: ταῖσδε ταῖς 43 See Gignac (1976) 189–91, 325. ἐμαῖσι <καλαῖς> ἑταίραις. 44 Norsa (1937), Lanata (1960) and Voigt (1981) 50 The punctuation between θαλίαισι and νέκταρ read -εισα; while Theiler and von der Muehll (1946) and strongly suggests that the scribe (or the scribe of his Lobel and Page (1955) read - αισον. original, etc.) regarded the sentence νέκταρ ... σοῖ as a 45 Cf. Bowie (1981) 124. whole. 46 On the influence of epic language on Sappho’s 51 Exceptions to this rule that may be expected are lyric, see Hooker (1977) 39–55; Bowie (1981) 47–67. variations of orthographic nature, such as scriptio 47 See Nicosia (1976) 96, nn.48–50 for an overview; plena, where elision would be effected in the actual also Brunet (2003) 67; Yatromanolakis (2007) 344–47. performance. 48 See Nicosia (1976) 96 n.50 for the proposed 52 Cf. Norsa (1937) on the attribution to the first emendations. book; Norsa (1953) 46–47 for a further note on the discussion.

Sapphic songs, gathered in book 1 of the Alexandrian edition.53 The last line, however, very clearly does not fit into this schema. It is not a problem that the sense would run over from one stanza into the next, as we can see this in Sappho fragment 1 V, in the transition from stanza two to three, for example.54 The problem is that the line as it stands has 12 syllables instead of the required 11, and is heavy in long syllables and misses the double-short. The first line of the Sapphic stanza looks like this: – ͜ – x – ͜ ͜ – ͜ – – , whereas the last line of the fragment in Athenaeus has the following quantities: – – ͜ – ͜ – – ͜ – ͜ – –. With most Sappho editions (Bergk (1867); Lobel and Page (1955); Voigt (1971)), I would refrain from emending this line to accommodate the metre and accept it as a later addition. The most economical hypothesis is that the last line was added without any serious attempt to recreate the metre of a first line of a new four-line stanza. The question remains whether this addition should be attributed to Athenaeus or if he is quoting from some other source. Yatromanolakis believes that the addition was composed at some point in an actual symposion,55 while Nagy says that either option is ‘compatible with the singing of Sappho’s songs by men and boys at Athenian symposia’.56 With Nicosia, I am inclined to think that in this instance it is more likely an invention by Athenaeus himself.57 He might have imagined it as a witty addition by his character, the imaginary symposiast Plutarch, to fit the sympotic context, while the form gives away its non-sympotic origin. Athenian symposiasts may be expected to have been more attuned to the melody and metre of the song than Athenaeus himself, and to have produced an addition that did not depart so blatantly from the metrical schema. He begins his quotation of the fragment not at the beginning of a stanza, but just past the middle of the first line, and he adds his addition in prose.58 If we accept this possibility, then it becomes clear that there is no good reason to adapt the rest of the text of the fragment to a possible Sapphic original. If Athenaeus could add a line to the fragment in whatever form happened to please him, why could he not also write χρυσείαισιν?

V. Sappho 141 V With the last line after Athenaeus’ ‘quotation’ from a stanza of Sappho 2 V, a picture starts to emerge of an author gratefully borrowing from a great poetess, but not overly concerned with staying faithful to his source. This is understandable, as one may use a source text in different ways depending on the goal one has in mind and on the assumed knowledge of the source text of the audience. There is one fragment of Sappho that is quoted twice within the Deipnosophistae, which could have provided a unique test case of the internal consistency of the work. However, the quotation occurs in book 2, only extant in the epitome, and in book 10, where it is only given in the full work, not in the epitome.

ἀμβροσίας μὲν κρατὴρ ἐκέκρατο, κῆ δ᾽ ἀμβροσίας61 μὲν κρατὴρ ἐκέκρατο, Ἑρμᾶς δ᾽ ἑλὼν ἕρπιν θεοῖς ὠνοχόησεν59 *Ἑρμαῖς δὲ ἑλὼν ὄλπιν θεοῖς οἰνοχοῆσαι62 Ath. Epit. 2.39a60 Ath. 10.425c–d

53 On the probable relative overrepresentation of the complete form) in Stob. Here it seems clear that Plutarch Sapphic stanza, see Acosta-Hughes (2010) 92–104. is not concerned with metre at all, focusing only on 54 Sappho 1V ll. 8–9. content and quoting clearly unmetrical lines; cf. Grando- 55 Yatromanolakis (2007) 346 argues that the line lini (2005) 15. ‘might be viewed as part of the Athenian performative 59 ‘With ambrosia the bowl had been mixed/and transmission of Sappho’s songs’. Hermes, taking the wine, poured it for the Gods.’ 56 Nagy (2009) 192. 60 This is the reading found in both manuscripts (C 57 Nicosia (1976) 97–98; he adduces a parallel from and E) of the epitome. Ath. 9.366a, where a quote from Homer is followed by 61 κη δαμβροσι ας A, a reflection of scribal despair ἐμοί τε καὶ σοί, ὦ Τιμόκρατες. just as in εροσα ελιω in 58 V; see discussion below. 58 A similar case, which falls outside the scope of the 62 ‘And there with ambrosia the bowl had been current study, is Sappho 55 V, quoted twice in Plut. Mor., mixed,/and “Hermais” taking the flask to pour wine for once in Clem. Al. Paed. and once (in an apparently more the Gods.’

G. Kaibel’s (1887–1890) still standard edition of Athenaeus as well as the very recent Loeb edition by S.D. Olson (2006–2012) conflate the different versions from books 2 and 10 into one and print the same text (minus κῆ δ᾽ in book 2) in both places.63 Athenaeus adduces the passage first to argue that nectar was drinkable, not edible, and in the second instance to illustrate that messengers used to be called upon to pour wine. Neither fragment shows unambiguously Lesbian accentuation and the breathings are just as they would be in Attic, as expected, but the vocabulary shows some divergences. Most notable is *Ἑρμαῖς in 10.425d, which caused much discussion in ancient scholarship. It is attested in two ancient grammarians64 and printed by both Lobel and Page (1955) and Voigt (1971) in their editions of Sappho, but linguistically the form is problematic. It has been established from inscriptional evidence that long vowels resulting from the second compensatory lengthening (for example Attic *λύσανς > λύσᾱ ς) are rendered as iota diphthongs in Lesbian (*λύσανς > λύσαις). This makes the αι and οι diphthongs more frequent in Lesbian than in Attic, and apparently had the effect that scholars thought that any long alpha was rendered αι in Lesbian. In a work attributed to Herodian (Περὶ παθῶν 2.266), we find the claim that the ‘Aeolians’ wrote αι for ᾱ in masculine nouns with a nominative in -ᾱς, unless it produced an unpleasant sound, as for instance in *Αἴαις. P.Bour. 8 makes the claim without reservation: παρ᾽ Ἀιο[λ]εῦσ[ι] ὁ Ἑρμᾶς Ἔρμαις.65 J.T. Hooker argues that the existence of these spurious -αις forms must have been the result of grammarians making lists of Attic forms in -ᾱς found as -αις in Lesbian and then applying the rule to all words ending in -ᾱς, regardless of the underlying linguistic law described above. Ἑρμᾶς is the result of a contraction of Ἑρμέας (once in Hom. Il. 5.390: Ἑρμέαι), which yields a long alpha in Lesbian, not -αις.66 Apart from this mysterious form, the linguistic features of both fragments that diverge from those expected in Lesbian are only the dative θεοῖς, where one might have liked to see θεοῖσι – in this case subsequently elided to θεοῖσ’ – and the accentuation and breathings. These are exactly the things that would have suffered in the transmission. The fragment that contains the anomalous Ἑρμαῖς form, moreover, starts with κῆ, the Lesbian form of ἐκεῖ.67 Without diacriticals, then, this fragment might as well be a text in the Lesbian dialect as a text with mixed forms; only Ἑρμαῖς is certainly wrong, but a mistake probably resulting from hypercorrection. The other difference lies in the word ἕρπιν/ὄλπιν: the first meaning wine,68 the second flask. Although ὄλπις usually designates an oil flask, there is not enough evidence to see a problem in reading it as a wine flask here. In this case it is particularly unfortunate that the two quotations do not occur in the same manuscript, but there is one further piece of relevant evidence for the reading in the now lost book 2 of the Deipnosophistae. None of the extant manuscripts of the Deipnosophistae contain book 2, but it is likely that Eustathius still had the full work at his disposal. In his commentary on Odyssey 9.359, he adduces all the quotations about nectar that we find in the epitome in the same order (Anaxandrides, Alcman, Sappho), and after the fragment from Sappho (with ἕρπιν) he adds ἔστι δὲ ἕρπις Αἰγυπτιστὶ ὁ οἶνος (ἕρπις is ‘wine’ in Egyptian), further adducing Lycophron as a witness.69 Then follows a fragment from Ibycus, which is also in the epitome, at which point Eustathius moves on to the next verse. The exact coincidence in form and order of the quotations suggests that ἕρπις is what Eustathius read in his source, most likely the full text of the Deipnosophistae. Moreover, the reference to Lycophron, an author elsewhere quoted frequently in the Deipnosophistae, may have

63 Kaibel (1887–1890) 1.90, 2.425; Olson (2006– 66 Ἔρμας is represented in the inscriptions from 2012) 1.222, 5.28. Understandably, it is regarded as one Lesbos by the genitive Ἔρμα (IG XII,2 73.4 and IG XII,2 fragment in editions of Sappho: 141 V. 96.3) and dative Ἔρμαι (IG XII,2 97.2); cf. Blümel 64 See Hooker (1977) 32–34 for a short exposition (1982) 61. of the sources. 67 Cf. Schwyzer (1934) 613c; Hamm (1957) 113. 65 Wouters (1979) no. 25, text on 277, commentary 68 The word is Egyptian in origin; cf. LSJ s.v. ἕρπις. on 285. 69 Eust. Comm. in Od. 1.347, l. 18. The reference is presumably to Lyc. Alex. 579.

formed part of the full work, even if it was omitted in the epitome. This makes Eustathius an independent witness for the reading of ἕρπις certainly in the epitome, and possibly in the now lost second book of the full work. Kaibel and Olson are thus not justified in printing ὄλπιν in both instances: the differences found in the manuscripts need not automatically be blamed on the transmission of Athenaeus’ text.70

VI. Sappho 58 V A similar case is the now famous Sappho 58 V, initially consisting of two lines found in Athenaeus, but later matched to a larger composition found in two papyri.71 The quotation in the Deipnosop- histae reads as follows:

ἐγὼ δὲ φίλημμι ἁβροσύναν, καί μοι τὸ λαμπρὸν εροσα ελιω καὶ τὸ καλὸν λέλογχε I love delicacy, and love72 of the sun has granted me brightness and beauty. (Ath. 15.687b)

This fragment presents two problems: the nonsensical εροσα ελιω73 and φίλημμι, a non-existent form.74 As for the first textual problem, I would not hesitate to adopt the small emendation of detaching the α from the first word and attaching it to the second, creating the perfectly understandable – and Lesbian – ἔρος ἀελίω.75 This was probably the reading in Athenaeus (if not necessarily in the Sapphic original).76 A mistake like this illustrates how slavishly scribes could copy texts. The scribe left the letters he found even if he could not make sense of them, rather than changing them so that they might yield sense to him; a further argument for exhibiting caution in reconstructing Sappho’s originals within Athenaeus’ text. The word φίλημμι is analogous to Ἑρμαῖς, another attempt to provide the text with Lesbian colouring. The -μι ending is expected, based on what we know about the Lesbian treatment of contract verbs (see above). As for the double μ, it is reminiscent of Lesbian, where the result of the first compensatory lengthening (for example ἔσμι > εἶμι in Attic) is an assimilation of the sigma to the following μ, giving ἔμμι. However, since no such compensatory lengthening underlies this verb form, the double μ has no place here.77 We find similar confusion in a fragment of Heraclides of Miletus, as reported by Eustathius.78 Heraclides argues that ἔμμεναι comes from ἤμεναι by adducing the parallel forms πόθημι/πόθεμμι and φίλημι/φίλεμμι. There is no evidence for the latter forms, however, either in literature or in inscriptions, and ἔμμεναι is in fact the result of the assimilation of a sigma (<*ἔσ-μεναι).79 It remains to be established whether such forms were originally part of Athenaeus’ text or later corruptions. We find scribal interference in unaccented letter strings, as seen above, in passages where the text appears to have been altered in an attempt to make sense of it, and of course in the

70 Cf. Brunet (2003) 68–69: ‘l’éditeur d’Athénée doit 3 (1806) vol. IV, pp. 121 and following. For ἀελίω, see résister à la tentation d’unifier les deux versions’. Sappho 96.7 V; Alcaeus 38a V, 112 V ([ἀ]ελίω). 71 See Nicosia (1976) 111–14 for an overview of the 76 West (2005) 7–8 argues for the reading ἔρος attempts at reconstructing this line before the find of the τὠελίω (given in Lobel and Page (1955)): see there for Oxyrhynchus papyrus. references to more discussions of the passage; Livrea 72 Following the emendation explained below. (2007) 67–81 offers counterarguments. It must be clear 73 The words are transmitted without accents in the that I do not find this reading likely for Athenaeus, A manuscript of the Deipnosophistae: a clear sign that regardless of its indubitable merit for the original compo- the scribe did not know what to make of it. sition by Sappho. 74 Also, one would expect elision here, but this could 77 See Thumb and Scherer (1959) 81–82; despite the simply be a result of the scribe choosing to render the objections by Blümel (1982) 172, n.168. line in scriptio plena. There are no other instances of 78 Eust. Comm. in Od. vol. 1, 45 l. 16 = Heracl. Mil. possible elision in the fragment to allow for comparison. fr. 48.14. 75 Voigt traces the emendation back to an anonymous 79 Notably, Voigt retains φίλημμι both in Hamm review of Schweighäuser’s edition of the Deip- (1957) 141 and in her 1971 edition. nosophistae in the Jenaische Allgemeine Litteraturzeitung

case of mechanical errors (especially dittography and haplography). Hypercorrections such as Ἑρμαῖς and φίλημμι, I submit, are more likely to have originated in active reception, for example in quotations by authors like Athenaeus, than in the scribal tradition. Even grammarians of the first and second centuries did not have a solid grasp of the Archaic dialects, as Heraclides’ work shows. Besides the linguistic issues, the find of a papyrus (P.Oxy. 1787) has also revealed a textual divergence. The papyrus text supplies one word, τοῦτο, and demonstrates that the form of the fragment in Athenaeus is a strong departure from the metrical schema of a two-line stanza:

ἐγὼ δὲ φίλημμ’ ἁβροσύναν [ – ͜ ͜ ] τοῦτο καί μοι τὸ λαμπρὸν ἔρως ἀελίω καὶ τὸ κάλoν λέλογχε. Sapph. fr. 58 V 25–26 (underlined = the letters extant in P.Oxy. 1787)

The papyrus was found after Kaibel made his edition, but Olson adapts the fragment by visually marking the lacuna, though without including τοῦτο. Of the two, only Kaibel changes φίλημμι to φίλημ᾽, clearly having Sappho’s possible original in mind. But, in fact, there is no good reason to assume that a few words fell out of the quotation from Sappho’s song in the transmission of the Deipnosophistae, while the rest was transmitted quite completely. Rather, it is more economical to posit that Athenaeus never gave the full quotation because he was not aware of or interested in its original metrical form. A further find (P.Köln 429), from the third century BC, overlaps largely with P.Oxy. 1787, with the difference that in the Cologne papyrus the poem stops just short of the two lines quoted by Athenaeus, and is instead followed by a later composition inspired by Sappho’s poetry.80 Whether or not these lines were at some point regarded as belonging to fr. 58 – now generally called the Tithonus poem – is an open debate.81 If we assume that they were part of it, the two different ‘editions’ of the song (in P.Oxy. 1787 and P.Köln 429) may be variants born in performance that ended up in separate written versions.82

VII. Conclusions A closer adherence to the text offered by the best manuscripts of the Deipnosophistae and its epitome make Athenaeus’ text a more valuable tool and object of research. Normalizing a text according to what we can reconstruct about Sappho’s original obscures exactly those elements that make Athenaeus such a valuable independent source for her songs. After all, just as an edition of Sappho aims to provide a text that is both true to the sources and philologically plausible, an edition of the Deipnosophistae should aim at recreating the text that Athenaeus produced. This approach to the text yields several kinds of variation between the text in Athenaeus and the (reconstructed) songs. The following analogies may illustrate the different kinds of variation engendered by different kinds of transmission. As for variation resulting from transmission in performance, D.C. Rubin provides invaluable material. In his 1995 work Memory in Oral Traditions he shows how rhythm and rhyme are instrumental in remembering songs. Consider the following examples of lines from different songs by the Beatles as recorded by undergraduates (between square brackets the correct words and between round brackets the undergraduates’ substitutions):83

And you know you [should be glad] (can’t be sad) I sit and [meanwhile] (lean right) back Wonder how you manage to [feed the rest] (be caressed)

80 The edition is Gronewald and Daniel (2007); for 81 Lardinois (2009) 43–48 outlines the discussion; extensive discussion of the fragment, see the contribu- he believes the scribe of P.Oxy. 1787 regarded the four tions in Greene and Skinner (2009); Buzzi and Aloni lines as belonging to the Tithonus poem. (2008). 82 See Nagy (2009) 186. 83 Rubin (1995) 188.

The ‘wrong’ substitutions are clearly restricted in form by the existing rhyme and rhythm, on the one hand, and by semantic association, on the other. As regards Sappho’s songs, rhyme is not a relevant factor. Rhythm, however, is directly connected to metre – a factor whose importance has been argued above. Just as any substitution in a Beatles’ song will try to do as little damage as possible to the existing rhythm, any performed variant in a song of Sappho would have had to fit the metrical pattern at least in such a way that the number and length of syllables was roughly retained. A possible example of such variation might be found in Sappho 141 V, where different sources give ἕρπιν and ὄλπιν.84 The words are metrically equivalent, can both be used in the context and even sound similar. It is likely that Athenaeus’ corpus has here preserved a variant born in performance, produced either in his own day or earlier.85 As the fragments discussed above suggest, however, this kind of variation in Athenaeus is the exception rather than the rule. By far the majority of variations belong in the often-dismissed domain of written transmission. To understand better the boundary crossed at some point in the transmission, take the following often-heard complaint: ‘Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’. The original is from William Congreve’s The Mourning Bride: ‘Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned’.86 In general, the shorter quotation captures the sense of the longer line, but loses a large part of its form. The crucial information of the quotation is enclosed in the second line, and with the necessary adjustments this part can be used inde- pendently. This only works, of course, if speaker and audience are not bothered overmuch with the form of the original; otherwise the quotation will not achieve its communicative goal. My first and third examples (from Sappho 2 V and 58 V) suggest a variation that is the result of the phase of written transmission, or at least of a phase in which written transmission coexisted with performance, so that form could become secondary to content – just as it did for the quotation from Congreve. The hypercorrections *Ἑρμαῖς and *φίλημμι of examples 2 and 3, moreover, are parallelled in the variant hath/has. Although hath is a correct form, it is also an attempt to recreate an archaic form that in fact was never there. The process of dialectal (re)construction, typically a part of the later transmission, likewise had an active influence on the form of Sappho’s language in Roman times.87 Contrary to common opinion, however, I hope to have shown that this influence cannot be correctly described as atticizing. These two kinds of variation are not mutually exclusive, at least synchronically. Students of early modern English drama will most probably be unhappy with a faulty quotation of Congreve, even if the rest of the English-speaking world is not even aware of the discrepancy. Similarly, participants in the Roman equivalent of a symposion would probably not have got away with a prose re-enactment of a song, while an author trying to capture the essence of a thought was much less bound to render its original form faithfully. Different modes of transmission engender different types of variation, and different types of variation thus reflect different stages in the transmission of Sappho’s songs. The mistakes, misreadings, selections and reworkings in Athenaeus may be obstacles to a reconstruction of Sappho’s original compositions, but they also make his Deip- nosophistae an invaluable source of information for the transmission of her songs from the Clas- sical to the Imperial period. What emerges from the passages discussed is that Athenaeus’ engagement with Sappho is multifaceted, but the passages he quotes are no longer Sappho’s songs, παντί που δῆλον.

84 Cf. Yatromanolakis (2007) 209: ‘music may not establish to what extent these sources reflect contempo- have been a secure mnemotechnic aid for the preserva- rary practice. tion of the words of a song’. 86 William Congreve, The Mourning Bride (1697) 85 Although there is some evidence for performances act 3, scene 8. of Sappho in Roman times (Gell. 19.9.3–7; Ael. fr. 190, 87 Cf. Hinge’s (2006) discussion of the dialect of in Stob 3.29.58; Plut. Mor. 611c, 722d), it is hard to Alcman, especially 345–48.

Bibliography Acosta-Hughes, B. (2010) Arion’s Lyre: Archaic Lyric into Hellenistic Poetry (Princeton) Bergk, T. (1867) Poetae Lyrici Graeci III. Poetas melicos continens (Leipzig) Bierl, A. and Lardinois, A.P.M.H. (eds) (2016) The Newest Sappho. P. Sapph. Obbink and P. GC inv. 105, Frs. 1–4 (Leiden) Blümel, W. (1982) Die aiolischen Dialekte. Phonologie und Morphologie der inschriftlichen Texte aus generativer Sicht (Göttingen) Bowie, A.M. (1981) The Poetic Dialect of Sappho and Alcaeus (Salem) Bowie, E. (2000) ‘Athenaeus’ knowledge of early Greek elegiac and iambic poetry’, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and his World (Exeter) 124–35 — (2016) ‘How did Sappho’s songs get into the male sympotic repertoire?’, in A. Bierl and A.P.M.H. Lardi- nois (eds), The Newest Sappho. P. Sapph. Obbink and P. GC inv. 105, Frs. 1–4 (Leiden) 148–64. Brunet, P. (2003) ‘Sappho au banquet des savants’, Kerylos 14, 63–76 Burris, S., Fish, J. and Obbink, D. (2014) ‘New fragments of book 1 of Sappho’, ZPE 189, 1–28 Buzzi, S. and Aloni, A. (eds) (2008) Nuove acquisizioni di Saffo e della lirica greca: per il testo di P. Köln inv. 21351 + 21376 e P. Oxy. 1787 (Alexandria) Collins, D. (2004) Master of the Game (Cambridge MA) de Kreij, M. (2015) ‘Transmission and textual variants. Divergent fragments of Sappho’s songs examined’, in A.P.M.H. Lardinois, S. Levie, A.H. Hoeken and C. Lüthy (eds), Texts, Transmissions, Receptions: Modern Approaches to Narratives (Leiden) 17–34 Edmonds, J. (1922) ‘Sappho’s books as depicted on an Attic vase’, CQ 16.1, 1–14 Gignac, F.T. (1976) A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods I. Phonology (Milan) Gorman, R.J. and Gorman, V.B. (2007) ‘The tryphê of the Sybarites: a historiographical problem in Athenaeus’, JHS 127, 38–60 Grandolini, S. (2005) ‘Saffo in Plutarco’, in S. Grandolini (ed.), Lirica e teatro in Grecia. Il testo e la sua ricezione (Naples) 7–20 Greene, E. and Skinner, M.B. (eds) (2009) The New Sappho on Old Age (Cambridge MA) Gronewald, M. and Daniel, R.W. (2007) ‘429. Sappho’, Kölner Papyri 11 (Paderborn) 1–11 Hadjimichael, T.A. (2011) Bacchylides and the Emergence of the Lyric Canon (Ph.D. Diss. University College London) Hamm, E.-M. (1957) Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios (Berlin) Hinge, G. (2006) Die Sprache Alkmans. Textgeschichte und Sprachgeschichte (Wiesbaden) Hooker, J.T. (1977) The Language and Text of the Lesbian Poets (Innsbruck) Kaibel, G. (1887–1890) Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum Libri XV (3 vols) (Leipzig) Lanata, G. (1960) ‘L’ostracon fiorentino con versi di Saffo’, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 32, 64–90 Lardinois, Α.P.M.H. (2006) ‘Have we Solon’s verses?’, in J. Blok and A.P.M.H. Lardinois (eds), Solon of Athens: New Historical and Philological Approaches (Leiden) 15–35 — (2008) ‘“Someone, I say, will remember us”: oral memory in Sappho’s poetry’, in A. MacKay (ed.), Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World (Leiden) 79–96 — (2009) ‘The new Sappho poem (P.Köln 21351 and 21376). Key to the old fragments’, in E. Greene and M.B. Skinner (eds), The New Sappho on Old Age (Cambridge MA) 41–57 Liberman, G. (2007) ‘L’edition alexandrine de Sappho’, in G. Bastianini (ed.), I papiri di Saffo e di Alceo (Florence) 41–65 Livrea, E. (2007) ‘La vecchiaia su papiro: Saffo Simonide Callimaco Cercida’, in G. Bastianini (ed.), I papiri di Saffo e di Alceo (Florence) 67–81 Lobel, E. and Page, D. (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta (Oxford) Morpurgo-Davies, A. (1976) ‘The -essi datives, Aeolic -ss-, and the Lesbian poets’, in A. Morpurgo-Davies and W. Meid (eds), Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European Linguistics Offered to Leonard R. Palmer (Innsbruck) 181–97 Nagy, G. (1996) Poetry as Performance (Cambridge) — (2004) ‘Transmission of Archaic Greek sympotic songs: from Lesbos to Alexandria’, Critical Inquiry 31, 26–48 — (2007) ‘Did Sappho and Alcaeus ever meet?’, in A. Bierl, R. Lämmle and K. Wesselmann (eds), Literatur und Religion. Wege zu einer mythisch-rituellen Poetik bei den Griechen (Berlin) 211–69

— (2009) ‘The “new Sappho” reconsidered in the light of the Athenian reception of Sappho’, in E. Greene and M.B. Skinner (eds), The New Sappho on Old Age (Cambridge MA) 176–99 Nicosia, S. (1976) Tradizione testuale diretta e indiretta dei poeti di Lesbo (Rome) Norsa, M. (1937) ‘Versi di Saffo in un ostrakon del II sec. a. C.’, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 2.6, 8–15 — (1953) ‘Dal primo libro di Saffo’, Papiri della Società Italiana 8, 44–50 Obbink, D. (2014) ‘Two new poems by Sappho’, ZPE 189, 32–49 Olson, S.D. (2006–2012) Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters (8 vols) (Cambridge MA) Page, D. (1955) Sappho and Alcaeus. An Introduction to the Study of Ancient Lesbian Poetry (Oxford) Peppink, S.P. (1936–1939) Athenaei Deipnosophistarum Epitome (3 vols) (Leiden) Pöhlmann, E. (1960) Griechische Musikfragmente (Nürnberg) — (1994) Einfuhrung̈ in die Überlieferungsgeschichte und in die Textkritik der antiken Literatur I. Altertum (Darmstadt) Pöhlmann, E. and West, M.L. (2001) Documents of Ancient Greek Music (Oxford) Probert, P. (2006) Ancient Greek Accentuation. Synchronic Patterns, Frequency Effects, and Prehistory (Oxford) Reitzenstein, R. (1893) Epigramm und Skolion (Giessen) Rubin, D.C. (1995) Memory in Oral Traditions (New York) Schorn, S. (2008) ‘Chamaileonstudien’, in K. Hermann and K. Geus (eds), Dona sunt pulcherrima. Festschrift für Rudolf Rieks (Oberhaid) 50–80 Schwyzer, E. (1934) Griechische Grammatik. 1. Allgemeiner Teil. Lautlehre. Wortbildung. Flexion (Munich) Theiler, W. and von der Muehll, P. (1946) ‘Das Sapphogedicht auf der Scherbe’, MH 3, 22–24 Thumb, A. and Scherer, A. (1959) Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte. Zweiter Teil (2nd edition) (Heidel- berg) Too, Y.L. (2000) ‘The walking library. The performance of cultural memories’, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and his World (Exeter) 111–23 Ucciardello, G. (2012) ‘Ancient readers of Pindar’s Epinicians in Egypt: evidence from papyri’, in P. Agocs, C. Carey and R. Rawles (eds), Receiving the Komos: Ancient and Modern Receptions of the Victory Ode (London) 105–40 Vetta, M. (ed.) (1995) Poesia e simposio nella Grecia antica (Bari) Voigt, E.-M. (1971) Sappho et Alceaus (Amsterdam) Wackernagel, J. (1903) ‘Zur griechischen Nominalflexion’, Indogermanische Forschungen 14, 367–75 West, M.L. (1981) ‘The singing of Homer and the modes of early Greek music’, JHS 101, 113–29 — (1992) Ancient Greek Music (Oxford) — (2005) ‘The new Sappho’, ZPE 151, 1–9 Winnington-Ingram, R.P. (1955) ‘Fragments of unknown Greek tragic texts with musical notation II: the music’, Symbolae Osloenses 31.1, 29–87 Wouters, A. (1979) The Grammatical Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt (Brussels) Yatromanolakis, D. (1999) ‘Alexandrian Sappho revisited’, HSPh 99, 179–95 — (2007) The Making of Sappho (Cambridge MA)