An edition with commentary of the Batrachomyomachia Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford Matthew Hosty St John’s College Michaelmas Term 2013 ii CONTENTS Abstract v Acknowledgements vii Note on abbreviations ix Introduction 1 I. Date and Authorship 1 II. Parody and Pastiche 23 III. Frogs and Mice 36 IV. Language and Style 51 V. Reception and Influence 82 VI. Text and Transmission 96 Text and apparatus criticus 117 Note on the apparatus 117 ΒΑΤΡΑΧΟΜΥΟΜΑΧΙΑ 119 Deleted lines 131 Translation 135 Commentary 145 Bibliography 357 Appendix A: images 367 Appendix B: lines omitted and retained in the principal MSS 369 iii iv An edition with commentary of the Batrachomyomachia Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Matthew Hosty, St John’s College, Oxford Michaelmas Term 2013 ABSTRACT The thesis consists of three main sections: the Introduction, the text (with apparatus), and the Commentary. The Introduction begins with a survey of the available evidence for the poem’s date and authorship, before moving on to consider its generic affiliations and influences, focusing on two particular areas: its links with the ill-defined genre of παρῳδία, and its relationship to animal-narratives elsewhere in ancient literature (particularly fable) and visual art. This is followed by a detailed analysis of the poem’s style and metre, a brief tour of its Nachleben up to the 13th century, and a summary of the notoriously tangled manuscript tradition. The text is new, and differs substantially from both that of Allen (in the OCT) and of West (the most recent English edition). The apparatus, as explained in more detail on p. 117, is somewhere between the two: it takes into account the readings of only nine MSS from the 80-100 extant, and does not attempt to represent every single textual variation even among these nine, but it is much fuller than the minimalist apparatus of the Loeb. It aims to provide a useful source for scholars interested in the poem’s many and serious textual cruces, while remaining more succinct and user-friendly than the dense and sometimes baffling apparatus of Ludwich’s monumental 1896 edition. The text is followed by an English prose translation: this makes no claims to beauty, and is simply intended as a relatively literal guide to the sense of the Greek. The Commentary, finally, is twofold. Any commentary on the Batrachomyomachia will inevitably spend much space and ink on purely textual issues, and on the fundamental task of unearthing meaning from the dizzying range of wild and nonsensical variants available. Interspersed with these textual points, however, this commentary includes considerations of the poem not as a mechanics problem but as a sophisticated Hellenistic work of art – exploring its intertextualities, its characterisation, its dramatic effects, its dry sense of humour, and subjecting it to the serious literary analysis it has often been denied. v vi Acknowledgements My supervisor, Adrian Kelly, has improved this thesis on every level, from grand principles of organisation to the smallest possible matters of citation and typography. His diligence and attention to detail have saved me from errors too numerous and embarrassing to count, and I have also been glad of his support and encouragement at bleaker moments. James Worthen was working on a study of the Batrachomyomachia at the time of his death, aged 22, on May 10th 2009. We never met, but in the initial months of the project I relied heavily on a short bibliography for the poem which he had compiled, passed down to me by Chris Pelling. It was the best possible starting-point for exploring the scholarship; consulting one rare volume, I found his stack request slip still tucked between the pages. I should like to thank him here for his help, and hope he approves of the finished product. I am grateful to Gregory Hutchinson, Richard Rutherford, Tim Rood, and Jane Lightfoot, all of whom have read sections of the thesis and offered useful comments. Martin West allowed me to see the edition of the text he prepared while working on his 2003 Loeb of the poem; it has been invaluable throughout. I have profited from the erudition and advice of a large number of other scholars: Gail Trimble has been an especially frequent source of help, but I should also like to take this opportunity to thank Tim Whitmarsh, Ollie Thomas, Emma Aston, Claire Gruzelier, Patrick Finglass, and Andrea Rotstein. Most of the thesis was written while a doctoral student at St John’s College; the final adjustments were made while short-term Tutor in Classics at Jesus College. I am grateful to both colleges and all their Classicists, in particular Malcolm Davies, Nicholas Purcell, Katharine Earnshaw, and Armand D’Angour, as well as to the Arts and Humanities Research Council for financial support. I owe a further debt of thanks to everyone who has spent the last few years listening to me complain about textually suspect Homeric mice: Ben Raynor, Guy Reeves, Helen Austin-Brooks, Lizzie Nabney, Seb Atay, and most of all Tamsyn Muir. As always, my staunchest allies have been my parents, Christine and Thomas Hosty. This thesis is dedicated to them. vii viii Note on abbreviations All ancient works not named in full are abbreviated as in LSJ and Lewis & Short. The only exceptions to this are the Batrachomyomachia itself, which is BM throughout, and the Homeric epics: for these titles are not generally given, but books are identified by Roman numerals – upper-case for the Iliad, lower-case for the Odyssey (so e.g. II.295 = Hom. Il. 2.295, ix.240 = Hom. Od. 9.240). Fragments are cited from the following editions unless stated otherwise. Alcaeus: Voigt 1971 Epic Cycle: Bernabé 1996 Alciphron: Benner and Fobes 1949 Euboeus: Brandt Alcman: PMG Eudemus: Wehrli 1969 Anacreon: PMG Hegemon: Brandt anonymous Anacreontea: West 1993 Hesiod: Merkelbach and West 1967 Aratus: Supp. Hell. Hipponax: West 1989 Archestratus: Olson and Sens 2000 Matro: Olson and Sens 1999 Archilochus: West 1989 Nicolaus Damascenus: FHG Aristotle: Rose 1966 Panyassis: Matthews 1974 the Attic tragedians: TrGF Pindar: Maehler 1975 Berossus: FHG Porphyrius: Smith 1993 Bion: Gow 1952 Simonides: PMG Callimachus Aetia: Harder 2012 Stesichorus: PMGF Callimachus Hecale: Hollis 1990 Theophrastus: Wimmer 1866 the comic poets: PCG Tyrtaeus: West 1989 Diocles Carystius: van der Eijk 2000 Xenophanes: Diels-Kranz Eustathius’ commentaries on Homer are cited from the editions of van der Valk 1971-87 (on the Iliad) and Stallbaum 1825-6 (on the Odyssey). Gregory Nazianzenus is generally from MPG unless stated otherwise; the Christus Patiens attributed to him, however, is from Tuilier 1969. The corpus Hippocraticum is from Littré 1839-61; Galen is from Kühn 1826, and the alchemist Zosimus from Berthelot and Ruelle 1888. Longus is from Dalmeyda 1934. The remains of Timotheus of Gaza’s On Animals are those collated by Haupt 1869, ‘Excerpta ex Timothei Gazaei Libris de Animalibus’ (Hermes 3, pp. 1-30). Aesop is from Hausrath and Hunger, though the ‘dodecasyllable’ versions are from Chambry. George Choeroboscus is from Hilgard 1889. The sign * has been used to show that a word or phrase appears in the same metrical sedes as the text under discussion. ‘Homer 12x, *7x’ means that this word or phrase appears twelve times in Homer, and that in seven of these cases it is in the same sedes as the example quoted. ix x I. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP Any student of Greek parody knows that dealing with the BM is a frustrating business in which certainty may not always be ascertainable. - Bliquez 1977, p. 25 A. DATE i. References to the poem The first secure references to the BM in extant literature both date from the second half of the 1st century AD: HOMERI BATRACHOMACHIA perlege Maeonio cantatas carmine ranas et frontem nugis solvere disce meis (Mart. 14.183) sed et Culicem legimus et Batrachomachiam etiam agnoscimus, nec quisquam est illustrium poetarum qui non aliquid operibus suis stilo remissiore praeluserit. (Stat. praef. ad Silv. 1) From the joint evidence of these two passages we can conclude that there was at the time a light-hearted poem in circulation, known as the Batrachomachia or Battle of the Frogs, which was believed to have been written by Homer himself. Martial makes the attribution explicit in the title of his epigram; Statius does not, but the fact that he couples the poem with the pseudo-Vergilian Culex and then refers to ‘our famous poets’ puts it beyond reasonable doubt that he considered the Batrachomachia a work of Homer.1 Martial Book XIV is unlikely to have been published earlier than AD 84 or later 1 Although the titles given to Martial’s epigrams are generally of later date (Lindsay 1903, p. 34ff.), those attached to the Apophoreta are very likely to be the poet’s own (Leary 1996, p. 57), since he acknowledges in 14.2 that his provision of lemmata (on which see Kay 1985 p. 161) is unusual. Even were the title of 14.183 a late addition, however, Martial’s views on the authorship of the BM are clear: ‘Maeonian’ in Latin poetry usually designates Homer (cf. Hor. Od. 4.9.5-6 Maeonius... Homerus, Ov. Tr. 2.377), and the epigram is part of an alternating sequence (183 BM, 184 Iliad and Odyssey, 185 Culex, 186 the works of Vergil) which only makes sense if the BM stands in the same relationship to Homer as the Culex does to Vergil. Indeed, Leary 1996, p. 248 argues from this epigram and Petr. 56.7-10 that the BM might have been a customary Saturnalia present.