CC BY
10
BLACK AND WHITE: SCHOLIA AND GLOSSOGRAPHERS ON THE COLOUR OF ppsvsg
Резюме: Выражение XeuKaig mO^aavia qpaoiv у Пиндара (Pyth. 4, 109— 110), удовлетворительного объяснения которому не найдено до сих пор, вызывало споры уже в античности. Схолиасты и глоссографы чаще всего отталкивались от гомеровской формулы ppsveg (щщ)-/usXaivai, значение которой также не ясно, но которая воспринималась как антоним ppsveg XeuKai. Потому обе экзегетические традиции (с одной стороны, ad Pyth. 4, 109-110; с другой стороны, ad II. 1, 103-104 и ad Il Od. 4, 661-662), следует рассматривать вместе.
В статье предпринимается попытка проследить различные подходы античных филологов к проблеме ppsveg XeuKai у Пиндара и ppsveg (d^qi)^eXaivai у Гомера, а также, по мере возможности, восстановить аргументы, которыми они руководствовались. Несмотря на то, что убедительное решение так и не было найдено, изучение схолий и глосс ясно показывает, сколь богатой была античная экзегеза: из предлагавшихся решений лишь малая часть оказывается не подкрепленной солидными филологическими доводами.
Ключевые слова: схолии; глоссы; Пиндар; Гомер; ppsveg (d^^i)^sXaivaV; ppsveg XeuKai; александрийская филология и поэзия; scholia; glossographers; Pindar; Homer; ppeveg (d^tyi)^eXaivaV; ppeveg XsvKai; Alexandrian philology and poetry.
1. In Pindar’s Fourth Pythian ode, young Jason characterizes Pelias’ conduct towards his parents in the following terms:
nevOo^ai yap viv neXiav dOe^iv Xeu-
Kaig mO^aavm qpaoiv
a^exsprnv dnoovXdoai fiiairng dpxediKav zoKsrnv
(Pind. Pyth. 4, 109-110)1.
1 “[...] for I am told that the lawless Pelias gave in to his white wits and usurped it by force from my justly ruling parents” (transl. W. H. Race). The translators tend to render XsvKai ypeveg literally: this avoidance of interpretation is, of course, an eloquent sign of the difficulties that this expression presents. The one exception is Friedrich Holderlin’s translation of Pindar:
, ,Ich erfahre nemlich sie Pelias ungerecht Den hellen vertrauend den Sinnen
The expression Ієишїд mO^aavxa <ppaoiv (literally, “giving in to his white wits”) has been much discussed in modern times. It raises numerous questions: what exactly does the epithet Хєшод refer to? is it used literally or metaphorically? is it in agreement or is it opposed to the pejorative tone of the passage? what is the exact relationship between Хєиші фpЄvєg and the Homeric фpЄvєg ajityi^Xaivai? Although numerous solutions have been proposed, none is universally accepted, and some scholars prefer to declare this passage an unsolvable crux2.
The understanding of this obscure passage is not a specifically modern problem: ancient readers and scholars did not agree on the exact meaning of Хєшод either, as may be seen from the explanations offered by the scholia and glossographers. These ancient opinions are regularly cited in modern works on the colour of фpЄvєg^; however, to our knowledge, a thorough study of the ancient tradition has yet not been undertaken. It is the aim of this article to delineate different trends in the ancient exegesis of the passage, and, when possible, attempt to reconstruct the scholars’ argumentation. As this article is concerned with the history of ancient readership, with traces of the debate that can be gleaned from scholia and glosses, we shall suspend all judgement as to the intrinsic scientific value of these interpretations. Admittedly, none of them permit to establish with certainty what Pindar actually meant by Хєюші фpЄvєg, or what Homer meant by the corresponding expression фpЄvєg [лє.Xaivai; but, when examined together, they permit to see the general outlines of a discussion in which very few of the surviving glosses were not corroborated by solid philological argumentation3.
Den Unsrigen habe geraubt
Mit Gewalt den ersturtheilenden Eltern“
Although the expression helle... Sinne seems to render accurately the Pindaric XevKai ppeveg, it does contain an element of interpretation, because in German the adjective hell is used as synonym for klug (cf. the two uses of the word “bright” in English).
2 A list of modern interpretations is given in the Appendix 2. Cookesley (1853: 163), Goram (1859: 269), Schroeder (1922: 40-41), Burton (1962: 157), Farnell (1965: II 156), Gentili - Bernardini - Cingano - Giannini (1995: ad loc.) treat this passage as unsolvable.
For a modern interpreter, there may be one practical use in this historical sketch: it may serve as a guide, preventing misuse of the ancient exegesis on the “black” and “white” qpeveq (cf. section 5.2 of this article).
Overview of Pindaric scholia on ppsvsg XsvKai
2.1. The first particularity of the exegesis on Pyth. 4, 109-110 is the chasm between the interpretations found in the scholia, and those found in the lexicographers. The scholia offer three interpretations of the expression XevKai ppsvsg:
Schol. ad Pyth. 4, v. 193. BDEGQ nevdo^ai yap iiv neXiav dde^iv: KazaKovm Ss zdv aSiKov neXiav zaig avo^zoig neiodsvza ypeoi z&v ^jUETspav yovernv anoooXijoai z^v fiaoiXeiav.
“nevdo/iai yap iiv neXiav adejiiv: I have heard that the unjust Pelias, obeying [his] senseless wits, has usurped the reign from our parents”4
Schol. ad Pyth. 4, v. 194 a. BDEGQ XeuKaig md^oavza ypaoiv: XeuKdg sine qpevag Kazd to svavziov zaig nap' 'O^pm fieXaivaig, dg SKeivog and z&v sv fiddei Sia^aivo^svrnv bSdzmv Kazd fiezayopdv
> r \ \ \ y r f) rsi t Q r ^ 0 > > c» >
mvo/iaoe. zd /iev ydp sninoXaia zrnv vSazrnv Siavyq Kai XeuKd, zd Ss sv fiddei fisXava • SiOnep zdg jusv emnoXaiovg XeuKdg qpevag sine, zdg Ss sv fiddei ieXaivag "Ompog.
“XeuKaig mdqoavza ypaoiv: [Pindar] calls ypeveg white in opposition to black ypeveg in Homer, who called them so metaphorically, from the appearance of water in the deep: for the waters on the surface are translucent and white, and those in the deep are black; for this reason [Pindar] called a superficial ypeveg ‘white’, and Homer called deep-lying ypeveg ‘black’”.
b. DGQ aXXmg • omeirnzeov ozi zdg Kevdg omrng einev.
“Alternatively: it should be noted that [Pindar] thus designated an empty mind”.
The lexicographers, on the other hand, attribute to XsuKai ppsvsg the following meanings: XevKai ppsvsg • jiaivojievai, Xajmpai, ayaOai, ^jiepoi (“white wits: mad, brilliant, good, radiant”) 5.
4 Translations of scholia, of glossographers, and of some of the literary quotations are mine, unless it is indicated otherwise.
5 Hesychius, X 717; the same meanings are given by Suidas and Photius (although the latter omits Xa^npai). One other entry from Hesychius’ lexicon is regularly cited in modern works on the subject, XevK&v npaniSmv KaK&v ypev&v (X 746). However, it is doubtful whether this parallel is pertinent for the Pindaric passage or not: the form of the lemma, XevK&v npaniSrnv, as well as the fact that Hesychius does not connect it with XevKai ppeveg, both suggest that it comes from another context that is unknown to us.
2.2 At first glance, most of these interpretations seem to be invented ad hoc, attributing to ppsvsg XsvKai a meaning that could suit the context of blame, and at the same time would not stray too far from the normal use of the adjective XsvKog6. The conflict of the two tendencies is most visible in the glossographic tradition (in Hesychius, Photius and Suidas): the first interpretation, XsvKai ppsvsg- fiaivofisvai is consistent with Jason’s disapproval of Pelias’ conduct; the latter two (or three) interpretations, XsvKai ppsvsg-(Xa/mpai) ayaOai, tf/ispoi run counter to the general tone of the Pindaric passage (unless it is understood ironically), but are consistent with the positive connotations of the epithet XsvKog.
2.3 Scholium 194 a (BDEGQ), however, stands out among the rest, both for the reference to Homer it contains, and for the subtlety and thoroughness of its interpretation. Two aspects of this scholium may be noted at once. First, the scholar who drafted it was clearly taking into account more than just the Pindaric passage, where nothing suggests the metaphor of deep or shallow waters: nor does this meaning fit the context (Pelias, in usurping the throne, would seem anything but ‘shallow’). Second, the scholium states clearly that ppsvsg XsvKai correspond to the Homeric ppsvsg jieXaivai, which shows that it is the semantic, and not the syntactic, aspect that interested the interpreter. For if latter was the case, he would have no doubt contrasted the expression XsuKaig niO^aavxa ypaoiv with the following passage from the ninth book of the Iliad, where Agamemnon expresses regret at having offended Achilles:
all’ snsi aaaa^yv ppsai levyals^ai md^aag,
ay eOelrn apeaai do^evai t’ anepeiai’ dnoiva 7.
The fact that the scholiast, instead of relating XsvKaig niO^aavxa ypaoiv to this syntactically identical parallel, chooses to view ppsvsg XsvKai against the background of an antonymic expression shows that he is concerned exclusively with the use of XsvKog. Having once established the dependence of the Pindaric expression from the formular ypevsg [...] ^sXaivai8, the scholiast deduces that the
6 This impression of the scholiast’s indulging in guesswork is a fallacious one, as we shall try to show in section 5 of this article.
7 “Yet since I was blinded, and yielded to my wretched passion, I wish to make amends and to give abundant atonement.” (Il. 9, 121-122)
8 Homer uses the formular verse-end ppsvsg a^pi^elaivai (or ppevag a^pi ^elaivag) five times in his poems: II. 1, 103; 17, 83; 17, 499; 17, 573; Od. 4,
adjective IsvKai must denote a quality of the ppsvsg that is the exact opposite of the quality referred to by islaivai.
Overview of Homeric scholia on ppsvsg jieXaivai
3.1 This same reference to Homer suggests Homeric exegesis as a possible source for the comparison of ppsvsg to (deep or shallow) waters in the Pindaric scholia. In fact, we do find this same interpretation in the Homeric scholia to two identical passages, one from the Iliad, the other from the Odyssey, describing Agamemnon’s and Antinous’ anger respectively:
[...] jUEVsog Ss fisya ypsveg a^pi^slaivai munXavz', oaae Ss oi nupi Xaunezomvzi eikt^v9
(Il. 1, 103-104 = Od. 4, 661-662)
The meaning of fisXaivai ppsvsg was only one of the numerous questions that interested the scholiasts in Il. 1, 103-104 and Od. 4, 661-662: for the scholia mention the relationship between the two passages, and the suitability of Od. 4, 661-662 to its immediate context; the exact sense of jusvsog, a word that can denote different emotions in the Homeric epic10; the vexed question of whether should be constructed with fisXaivai or with mjunXavzo; the image evoked by the verb (djupi)mjunXavzo. However, once we eliminate the information that does not immediately pertain to the meaning of fisXaivai ypsvsg, the interpretations given by the scholiasts may be summarized as follows:
661. The exact form of the epithet was debated in antiquity: many of the scholiasts insist that the expression was ypEveg ueXaivai, interpreting auyi as a prefix in tmesis (auyi... munXavz’). Most of the manuscripts, on the other hand, present auyiueXaivai as one word (the meaning of this adjective would be ‘black on both sides, black all over”). The scholiastic and the scribal tradition are not, however, as opposed as Kirk’s commentary would present them (cf. scholia Es to Od. 4, 661 auwiuEXaivai [...] ai auwozepmQev ueXavmOeiaai z& kokv& zov Ovjuov [Pontani], discussed infra). Risch (1949: 31) includes aiyiiEXaivai among other composita without further discussion; M. Leumann (1950: 73) and Heubeck - West -Hainsworth (1988: 234) admit that the morphological function of a^yi might have been reinterpreted, but consider it most likely that Homer understood aiyiiEXaivai as a compound.
9 “And his black heart was filled [to the rim] with anger, and his eyes were like blazing fire”.
10 See Apollonius Sophista on fievog and ieveaivm; Hesychius and Photius s.v. jusvog.
(1a) usXaivai = sv fiaOsi Ksiusvai, “those that lie deep” (Ge ad II.
I, 104a; D ad Il. 1, 104; Hesych. u 633; Suid. u 465; schol. in Pind. Pyth. 4, 104a; PTurner 13, ll. 19-21) and (1b) usXaivai = fiaOsiai, “deep” (Y ad Od. 4, 661; POxy 2405, 4.118; Eustath. Comm in Il., vol. 1, p. 92; vol. 2, pp. 85-86).
(2) usXaivai = usXavwOsiaai z& KanvS zov Ouuov, “blackened by the smoke of anger” (Es ad Od. 4, 661; Eustath. Comm in Il. vol. 1, p. 92; 4, pp. 85-86).
(3) usXaivai = zszapayusvai vnd ztfg opytfg, “perturbed by anger” (Ge ad Il. 1, 104a; D ad Il. 1, 104)
(4) a person characterized by usXaivai ypsvsg is oKozsivoq, “dark”, and “resembles the night”, vvKzi soiKwg (Eustath. Comm in
II. vol. 1, p. 92).
(5) usXaivai = avvszai, “intelligent” (Ge and D ad Il. 1, 104). These interpretations should be supplemented by the evidence
that is found in the glossographers.
Hesych. p 633 peXaivai ppsvsg- ai fiaOeiai, Kai dyadai, Kai nuKvai, tf ai dsivai, Kai la/upai, [Kai dsiXai]
“Black ypeveg: the deep ones, and good, and solid; or terrible, and powerful11.”
Suid. p 465: MsXaiv^: fiaOeia. MsXaivai ds ppeveg, ai sv fidOei Ksipevai- to yap fiaOb peXav.
“In the black: in the deep. And black [are called] the qpeveg that lie deep: for the depth is black”
These explanations are of very different nature, and stem from different philological approach to the text. In some cases, the demarche is easy to reconstruct, in other cases less so.
3.2 The easiest case is when the problematic usXaivai is replaced with another adjective which would suit the Homeric verse jusvsog Ss jieya ppsvsg du^ijieXaivai | niunXavz'. Such is the greater part of Hesychius’ variants (dyaOai, Ssivai, iaxvpai; although fiaOsiai and nvKvai must be excluded from this list). Such is also the interpretation zszapayjievai vnd ztfg opytfg (found in Genevensis 44 and in the D scholia) that links the colour of the qpsvsg with the emotion by which they are touched: a relatively neutral, unremarkable verb is chosen to characterize their state (zapazzw, ‘agitate’, ‘perturb’, is
11 The last suggestion Kai dsiXai (“and cowardly”), was deleted by Latte: it is probably a variant due to scribal error (cf. tf ai dsivai) that was afterwards incorporated in the text.
12
used regularly of any kind of strong emotion ). Some of these glosses may stem from prosaic paraphrases of the Homeric text.
From the point of view of method, the structure of Genevensis 44 and the D scholia is of special interest: both explain the epithet UsXaivai through the water-image, and then add a second gloss, indicating a meaning of the (ppsvsq usXaivai as ’intelligent’ (avvszai):
Ge 104 a. [ppevsg appipsXaivai] avvszai, <dno rijg z&v bdarmv ps>Tapopag ■ <zd yap vdara> psXav <zd xp&pa> KEKzqvzai <si peya sxouai> to fiaOog - “‘intelligent’, from the metaphor of waters: for waters acquire black colour, if they are very deep.”
D ppevsg djupijusXaivai. ai sv fiaOsi Ksipsvai Kai auvsrai diavoiai avrov. tf TSTapaypevai, did t^v opytfv. - “‘those that lie deep,’ and his thoughts are intelligent. Or ‘disturbed’, by anger.”
In both cases, the scholiasts do not go against the explanation of “black” (ppsvsq as waters that lie in the deep; at the same time, they are aware that this explanation does not suit the Homeric context. Their solution is to indicate the “etymological” explanation, and at the same time to describe the Homeric usage in this particular context. The idea of rendering autyiusXaivai as avvszai was probably influenced by the observation that usXaivai (ppsvsq is rather a positive characteristic in Homer13, and so usXaivai ppsvsg are ones that function as they should; it follows that the person who has them is capable of thought. What is remarkable, however, is that the wording of both scholia shows that this was no random choice of two interpretations, but a deliberate attempt to approach the expression
12 Cf. schol. ad II. 6, 41b (pofiov/usvoi Kai rapaaaousvoi), schol. A ad II. 10, 226; schol. T ad Il. 15, 7a (psrd Xvnqg TapaTTopevoug), etc. However, another explanation is also possible - see section 4.2.
13 Cf. Aristonicus’ criticism of the verses Od. 4, 661-662, where the expression qpevsg dupiueXaivai is used in the description of Antinoos’ anger. Aristonicus, and no doubt Aristarchus (see Heubeck - West -Hainsworth [1988: ad loc.]), suspected that these verses had been unduly transposed from the Iliad: dxybpsvog — siKvtfv (662)] sk rijg ’IXiadog [A 103— 104] jUSTqvexOnaav ov dsovrmg oi arixoi. Scholium ad Od. 4, 661b shows that the main reason behind this athetesis was that Antinoos had no one to blame, but himself: pevsog ds: opa t^v dvaiaxuvriav. axsrXiaZsi ydp Kai opyiZsrai rng dsivd nsnovOmg, aXXrn ovdsvi sx^v syKa'Xsiv tf rij saurov paOupia. However, the fact that Antinoos is the only negative character to whom the expression qpkvsg dppipsXaivai is applied probably had a bearing on the question as well.
from two angles, by stating its origins and then by reconstructing the meaning best adapted to the Homeric passage.
3.3 Another approach consists in explaining typsvsg (autyi)-usXaivai through similar expressions in Homer. Thus, the source of the fourth interpretation (found only in Eustathius) of black typsvsg as proper to a sombre person (aKozsivog), is stated clearly: it is the Homeric expression vvKzi soiKwg14 applied to Apollo some fifty lines earlier in Homer. The reasons that prompted this parallel are evident: the two expressions are situated in proximity (both occurring in the beginning of Iliad 1); the connection of black colour with the night is easy to make (and the epic formula vvktI juslaivfl, 5x, might have served as a ‘bridge’). Though explicitly stated only in Eustathius, this explanation was probably much older, if one can judge from the gloss XsuKai (ppsvsg- [...Jtffispoi in Hesychius, Suidas and Photius. This gloss seems to be derived from the same exegetical tradition. just as the scholium that explains XsuKai typsvsg as ‘superficial’ was inverting the Homeric exegesis of usXaivai typsvsg as ‘deep’, the gloss XsuKai (ppsvsg- [...Jtffispoi takes as its starting point the equation usXaivai typsvsg = oKozsivai in order to explain the opposite expression, “white typsvsg”, through the antonym tfuspoi.
One of Hesychius’ variants, nuKvai, also may be traced to this type of textual exegesis: it must originate from a scholium concerning the verse "EKzopa S' aivdv axog nvKaas typsvag autyi usXaivag (Il. 17, 83)15. It author must have pointed out the connection of usXaivai typsvsg with the verb nvKaZw, which its turn, led to the identification of usXaivai and nuKvai; the description of Zeus’ desire for Hera, wg S' iSsv, &g uiv epwg nuKivag typsvag auysKaXvysv... (Il. 14, 294) may have played a certain role in the discussion16.
14 o d' tfie vvkti soiKrng (II. 1, 47)
15 So Latte in his edition of Hesychius (see entry p 633: pslaivai cppeveq, p. 641). Erbse notes in the apparatus of his edition (19: IV, 346, ad Il. 17, 83), “ceterum non liquet, ceterum sch. fuerit de v. dp^ipelaivag (= vulg.). cf. Eust. 1096, 31: To ds „dpqipelaivac,“ Tiva t&v dvnypaymv ov piav gvvOstov o’idaai le^iv dlla dvo, iva leyfl ‘dppi ppsvag pelaivag’”. It is true that there is no evidence for a syntactical-morphological scholium concerning the function of dpyi; but Hesychius’ gloss nvKvai suggests that there did exist a scholium concerning the meaning of dpyipslaivai that has not come down to us.
16 Latte (ibid.) does not point his out. Expression nuKivai cppeveo, occurs only in Il. 14, 294. Note the closeness of nvKivag ypevag dpyeKalvyev to Il. 1,
3.4 The origins of the first two explanations on our list, i.e. ‘black’ as connected with depth and ‘black’ as connected with the ‘smoke of wrath’, are less evident. We shall start with the latter because, as its attestations are rarer, but uniform, the reconstruction of the philological thought presents less problems.
The interpretation jieXavwOeioai z& KanvS zov Ovjiov presents a metaphor that is the exact opposite of the water-image. Moreover, it seeks to reduce the bipartite description Agamemnon’s and Antinoos’ anger, through black heart and blazing eyes, to one single image of the anger as an inner fire. The combination of these two facts suggests that jieXavwOeioai z& KanvS zov Ovjiov was invented later, in opposition to the universally accepted explanation of usXaivai as referring to deep waters. The fact that scholia ad Od. 4, 661e specifies that the ppsvsg are blackened on both sides, ai dfi^ozepwOev jieXavwOeioai z& KanvS zov Ovjiov, suggests that the exegesis took for its starting point the compound di^iisXaivai (and not the simple usXaivai that seems to be the reading accepted by scholiasts in favour of the water-image explanation).
Although the smoke metaphor does eliminate the contresens of “filling up deep waters”, it has the double disadvantage - that of weakening the striking antithesis isXaivai - nupi Xa/unszowvzi in the Homeric passage, and that of giving an explanation that has no
1 7
parallel to support it in the epics . The scientific tone of these scholia, however, may be an indication of a philosophical (possibly, presocratic) influence. In particular, there is a relatively close parallel in the scholia on Il. 16, 161:
peXav vdrnp: Ava^ayopag Ensi qvoei peXav Kai yovv o Kanvog pslag eaxiv ek zov vdarog z&v '^vXrnv dvis/usvog18. A
103: both speak of strong emotions that exert their influence on the ^psvsg; both contain dpqi-. In fact, II. 14, 294 is regularly quoted in modern commentaries as a parallel to Il. 1, 103 (see Kirk and Latacz - Nunlist -Stoevesand on Il. 1, 103).
17 Cf. Eustathius’ explicit criticism of this theory: ezepoi de xoXpnpoxepov E^nyovjusvoi yaaiv, oti... (Eustath. Comm. in Il., 1, p. 93), where ToXpnpozspov is clearly an elative.
18 Anaxag., 59 A 98 (D - K): “Black water: [according to Anaxogoras], because it is black by nature; and even smoke is black, because it is released from the water [contained in] the logs”. It is doubtful whether the explanation of the smoke’s blackness is Anaxagorean. I would like to thank V. Gysembergh for pointing out to me that Kai yovv suggests that this part
3.5 As regards the explanation of 'black' as connected with depth,
it seems necessary to study tv fidвєг кєі^аг and вавєїаг as two
distinct interpretations. Despite their resemblance, the two glosses
evoke very different kind of imagery: tv fidвєг кєі^аг presents the
(pptveq as lying deep down; вавєїаг, on the other hand, qualifies
them as simply ‘deep’, and the image underlying this explanation is
that of a deep vessel that can be “filled up” with anger. The
metaphoric interpretation of jutlag as /Завід is quite frequent in the
scholia and in glossographers19, and its application to фр&єд would
be further suggested by the Homeric zdv S' аход о^Ь ката (pptva тщє 20
вaвєїav , as well as by lyric epithets fiaevypwv (Solon, fr. 33, 1; Pind., Nem. 7, 1; Alcman, fr. 3, 82) and вавівоиХод (Aesch., Pers.142). The gloss tv вdвєl кє^uєval, on the other hand, seems to have originated with the explanation of “darkness” of the фрєуєд by means of the comparison with deep waters, where depth appears as the tertium comparationis. However, when the scholiast gives only tv вdвєl кє^uєval, it is difficult to say whether he had the water-image in mind. At some point, tv вdвєl кє^uєval came to be reinterpreted in the anatomical sense - an explanation that we find in Eustathius: иєХамад St фр&ад ёрц д пощщд Зга тд tvTdg аютад tv вdвєl кєїаваг каі ич дpdaвal21 seems to be a further reinterpretation of the same tradition - in an anatomical sense.
of the scholium is a pseudo-philosophical deduction of the Homeric commentator.
In any case, in view of this “scientific” explanation, it seems all the more paradoxical that the scholiasts disregarded the anatomical interpretation of pptvsg apyiptlaivai, which would have been suggested, in particular, by the formula utXav аща (II. - 11x; Od. - 1x).
19 This is particularly evident from the entry in Suidas (u 465): MeXaivy: /Завеш. MtXaivai St pptveg, ai tv /3a6si Keipevai • to yap /ЗабЪ ptlav. The first part of the gloss, psXaiv^: вавеш , refers to the Homeric 6ofi пара vqi /usXaivfl (II. 1, 300), as the dative shows (although modern commentators understand the epithet ptXaiva as a reference to the pitch that covered the boat’s hull, the explanation of “black ship” as “deep ship” was regular in the ancient times). The structure of the lemma, and especially the use of particle St, makes it clear that the author considered the two uses of ptXaiva as
related.
20
“So she spoke, and sharp pain struck him deep in his pptvsg” (II. 19,
125).
Eustath. Comm. in II., 1, p. 93: “The poet called the pptvsg ‘black’ because they lie deep inside and may not be seen”; cf. Eustath. Comm. in II., vol. 4, 86. Curiously enough, the “anatomical” interpretation of the epithet utXaivai is found only in Eustathius, although the step from the formula
The glosses sv fiaOsi Ksijusvai and fiaOsiai are the oldest attested explanations: they are found in the scholia minora preserved on the papyri. P. Turner 13 and POxy 2405 are almost contemporary (both date from the end of 2nd century or the beginning of 3rd century AD22). Both present Homeric glossaries, though their choice and presentation of lemmas is different.
POxy 2405 is a glossary to the Ilias 1, characterized by its editor, Rev. John Barns, in the following terms: “the present text [...] is doubtless, like others of its kind, a product of the schoolroom. The orthography is bad and corrections are frequent”. Line 118 of this glossary reads: a[uqi usXjaivai fiaOsiai. Unfortunately, the following line 119 is missing, and we are left to conjecture as to its contents. However, seeing that l. 120 contains the gloss oaas oqKO/aXjioi, it can be surmised that l. 119 probably contained a gloss on the verb mfunXavToP, and not a further explanation of a[uqi JusXjaivai. This is in accord with the simple form of the other lemmas (the explanation is rarely longer than one word), and the pedagogic aims of this glossary.
The glossary preserved in PTurner 13, on the other hand, contains not only glosses, but also longer explanations24: the latter were probably taken over from a lexicon. Although the entry qpsvsq duqiU^Xaivai is frustratingly fragmentary, the use of the direct case fiaOog in line 20, as well as the participles of line 21, show that it no doubt contained an explanation (probably, an explicit comparison to deep waters).
These papyri show how the two glosses that seem to result from different sources could co-exist: the simpler variant fiaOsiai would be
pelav aipa would have been easy to make. One of the reasons may be that the scholia seem to distinguish typkveg in the anatomical sense from typkveg in the context of emotions: cf., in particular, поті де ypeveg am& enovro] rag атратікад leyei ypevag (schol. ad II. 16, 504b). Although it is not possible to ascertain whether in this case Eustathius is drawing on some predecessor or whether the explanation діа то evrog avrag ev вавеї кеїаваї каі u4 opaaOai is in fact his own, the passage aims at reconciling the traditional ev вавеї Kei/uevai with the physical representation of ypeveg.
22 Cf. Schwartz (1981: 60) who thinks that PTurner 13 was of slightly earlier date than POxy 2405.
23 Cf. schol. ad 4, 662a; PTurner 13, col. II [VII], l. 22). Of course, the possibility that l. 119 contained a further explanation of вaвеїal cannot be excluded, but the nature of the glossary makes it highly unlikely. Cf. Schwartz (1981: 68).
24 For the description, see Henrichs (1971: 118ff) and Schwartz (1981: 68).
preferred in school; sv fiaOsi Ksi/usvai would be preferred in scholarly hypomnemata and lexicons25. What remains unexplained is the origin of the interpretation of a^qi^slaivai through the comparison of (ppsvsq to deep waters.
The origins of the water-image
4.1 In the two Homeric passages (II. 1, 103-104 and Od. 4, 661662) suggests the comparison with waters; moreover, the image of deep waters is incongruous with the word ni^nXavxo. Both these facts show that this metaphoric explanation was not invented for this context, but that it had been inspired by some other passage. Luckily, it is possible to recover that original context.
We find the same explanation of anger as connected with dark waters in the scholia on the verse nolla 8s oi KpaSitf nopyvps jusvovzi26. The verb nopyvpw (its etymology remains unclear) in its literal sense designates the surging, heaving motion of the sea, and can be metaphorically applied to a heaving heart (II. 21, 551; Od. 4, 427; 4, 572; 10, 309). This metaphor is explicit in the comparison of Nestor cogitating on the battle-field to the agitated sea:
mg S’ ots nopyvpfl nslayogjusya Kv/uan Kmy& oaaopevov Xiysmv ave/uwv Xaiyqpa KsXsvOa amrng, ovS’ dpa ts npoKuXivSsTai ovSsTEpmas, npiv Tiva KSKpipevov KaTafitfjusvai sk Awg ovpov,
&g o yeprnv oppaivs Sai'Zojusvog KaTa Ovjudv
SixOdSi’, psO’ opiXov ioi Aavaav TaxunrnXrnv,
tfs ust’ ATpsiSnv Ayaueuvova noipsva Xa&v22 (II. 14, 16-22).
However, popular etymology very early connected this verb with the colour designated as nopqvpsoq: it is probably under the
25 On subliterary genres and their characteristics, see Montanari (1995b) ; and in connection with the structure of the papyrus, Wilson (1967: 248249).
As A. T. Murray translates it, “many things did my heart darkly ponder as I went” (Od. 4, 427 = 4, 572).
27 “And as when the great sea swells darkly with a soundless swell, foreboding the swift passage of shrill winds, though but vaguely, nor do its waves roll forward or aside until some settled gale comes down from Zeus, so the old man pondered, his mind divided in two ways, whether he should go into the throng of the Danaans of swift steeds, or go find Agamemnon, son of Atreus, shepherd of the men.” (trans. A. T. Murray, revised by W. T. Wyatt).
influence of the maritime use of noppvpw that the epithetum ornans of the sea, noppvpsn, acquired a second meaning, ’heaving’28. The verb nopwvpw disappears after Homer, and resurges only in the
0 Q
Hellenistic poetry , where acquires two different senses, “to swell”
1 A
and “to turn red” . It is therefore not surprising to find that the scholia, when commenting on the metaphorical use of nopyvpw in descriptions of depict strong emotion, refer both to the movement of the sea, and the colour of its waters:
Schol. ad Od. 4, 427 b1: noppupe kiovti] ev fidOei Tijg diavoiag dievoeiTo, ekiveito, ETapdooeTo, onep ovpfiaivei Enl t&v bddTmv a sk fidOovg Kivovpeva pelaivETai. BDEHMaP VYy
“noppvpe kiovti: in the depth of [his] thought he pondered, was moved, was perturbed, as it happens with waters that blacken, when they are moved from the deep”.
Schol. ad Od. 4, 572 d: noppupe kiovti] ev fiddei Epepipvnoe. ^ peTapopd and t&v fiaOvTdTmv ppedTmv, anva did t^v dyav fiadmnTa noppupiZovTai Kal pelava paivovTai. T
“noppvpe kiovti: in the depth [of his soul] he was anxious. The image [is taken] from the deepest wells, those that because of their extreme depth are purplish, and seem black”31.
The transfer of the explanation originally invented for KpaSin noppvps to ppsvsg djiqijieXaivai would be rendered even easier by the special insistence regularly found in the scholia that the verb noppvps refers not to red colour, but to a dark hue (jusXaivszai, jieXaiva paivszai). The meaning of the verb noppvpw seems to have come into discussion with the earliest Alexandrian scholars; and it is
28 Thus Chantraine, DELG (s.v. noppvpm); Vieillefond (1938: 409-410).
29 See, for example, Rengakos (1994: 131-132).
30 For the verb noppvpm as 'heave': e.g., Ap. Rhod. 1, 935; 2, 546; 3, 23; Arat. 158 and 296; Artem. 2, 23. For the meaning 'grow red': Bion 2, 18-19; Quint. Smyrn. 14, 47; Nonnus, Dion. 44, 106; 45, 308. This double meaning can even become the source of deliberate poetic wordplay, as in Ipepa dvQ ’ vdarng pehm ydla, Kal tv de, Kpddi, | oivrn noppvpoig (Theocr. 5, 124-125) and, perhaps, [ploya] povim ofieoev aipan noppvpouoav (Apoll. Rhod. 4, 668).
Cf. scholia in Aratum to v. 158 (eiv all noppupovoy: pelaivopevy ■ Kivoupevn ydp bnd t&v dvepmv TavTnv noieiTai t^v ovoTaoiv) and to v. 296 (bnd oTeipyoi.. noppvpei: pelaivETai, KiveiTai bnd vn&v) that explain the use of noppvpm primarily through colour, although Aratus is clearly evoking the movement of the sea.
probable that the explanation of ppsveg ajupijusXaivai as referring to the colour of deep waters is also very old. The wide attestation of this explanation and its transposition to explain the Pindaric ppsveg XeuKai would also be in favour of an ancient date.
4.2 In the light of the scholia’s interpretation of ppsveg djiqijieXaivai and Kpadin nopyvpe as resulting from the same image, one point should be noted in regard to the gloss gloss ppsveg antyi/isXaivai] zezapayjievai i>nd ztfg opytfg (Ge and D on Il. 1, 104) that has already been discussed in section 3.2. The possibility cannot be excluded that it may take its origins in the same exegetical tradition (cf. the wording sv fiaOei ztfg diavoiag dievoeizo, sKiveizo, szapaaaezo). The sole difference is that, in this case, the scholia Ge and D on Il. 1, 104 concentrate on the movement of the sea, leaving aside, or even deliberately eliminating, any colour associations that the verb nopyvpw might evoke.
Pindaric exegesis on XeuKai ppsveg
5.1 In the light of the discussion on the Homeric ypsveg afAtyifAsXaivai, the first impression of guesswork in the ancient interpretations of the Pindaric expression XeuKai ppsveg must be revised. The most striking feature of the Pindaric exegesis is that not only the explanation of XeuKai as “shallow” takes as its starting point the exegetical tradition of ppsveg jisXaivai; other glosses seem to do the same:
• the explanation of XeuKaig ypaaiv as zaig avorjzoig presents the
opposite of [ppsveg antyinsXaivai] avvezai (found in the Genevensis and the D scholia on Il. 1, 104). Both stem from
32
the paraphrastic tradition ;
• the explanation zac Kevac ovzwg einev is clearly based on the
Homeric verse nsveog ds jieya ppsveg ajiqijieXaivai | ni^nXavz' (and Hesychius’ gloss nuKvai probably reflects the same tradition);
• the gloss XeuKai ppsveg- [..Jr^epoi no doubt originated from
the interpretation of ppsveg fisXaivai as proper to a person who, in his anger, “resembles the night” (vvKzi soiKwg).
32 On the paraphrases, see Rutherford (1905: 336ff.); Pfeiffer (1968: 285, addenda on 219.5); Montanari (1995a) speaks of “translation from Greek into Greek”. More specifically on Pindaric paraphrases, see Deas (1931: 68-69).
In each of these cases, the expression XsvKaTg <ppaaiv is treated as the antonym of ppsvsg jisXaivai, and the explanations of scholia and of the glossographers are accordingly the exact opposite of what is found in the exegetical tradition on Homer33. In fact, the only interpretations that seem independent of Homeric text and of Homeric exegesis, are the three glosses jiaivojievai, Xajmpai, ayaOai found in Hesychius, Suidas, and Photius. The latter two adjectives are listed only as regular synonyms of XsvKog, and not because they can elucidate the Pindaric passage. The former, however, calls for a separate study: it is evident that it aims at finding a meaning that would correspond to the pejorative context; but why does it choose to connect XsvKog with madness?
5.2 The gloss XevKai ppsvsg- jiaivojievai is regularly quoted in etymological dictionaries in support of the etymology of Xvaaa (“rage, fury, rabies”) as connected with the adjective XsvKog34. This does not seem justified. It is true that jiaivojiai and jiavia are used to explain Xvaaa and related words; however, it should be kept in mind that jiaivojiai and jiavia are the neutral synonyms used regularly in glosses for the whole word-field denoting madness, whatever the glossed word’s root35. Now, none of the glossographers gives an ancient etymology for Xvaaa, but it is preserved in the scholia to the Iliad: Xvaaa Ss napa zd XeXvaOai zag ypsvag and Xvaaa yivezai napa zd zag awag Xveiv ypsvag (bT on Il. 13, 53b), [XvaawSyg] Xvaaa napa zd XeXvaOai zag ypsvag (Ge on Il. 13, 53). The ancient tradition thus clearly connected Xvaaa with the verb Xvw, and there is no indication that the gloss XevKai ppsvsg ■ jiaivojievai referred to Xvaaa
36
in any way .
33 Explaining Pindar through Homer was not, of course, an uncommon practice: see Feine (1883: 261sqq.); Deas (1931: 9-11), who mentions several cases where Aristarch’s reliance on Homeric parallels led to a misinterpretation of Pindar’s text.
34 See Appendix 2.
35 E.g. aXyvtfq- paivopevog (Hsch., a 2938), fiaKxevovzsg- paivopevoi (Hsch., 121), yaarpipapyoi • zij KoiXia paivopevoi (Hsch., y 198), EKnXayovpsvai •
EKnlnzzopsvai. paivopevai (Hsch., e 1625), Epfipovznzoq^ napansnXnypsvog zyv didvoiav, paivopsvog (Hsch., e 2322), etc.
3 Once again, it is not the aim of this article to evaluate the etymology of Xvaaa is correct or not. Our sole objective is to give a picture of the ancient thought; and from this point of view, the inference that Hesychius connected the expression XevKai ppsveg with the word Xvaaa seems to have no basis.
I would like to suggest another source for the gloss XsuKai (ppsvsg • fiaivdfisvai. This interpretation may also be taking Homer as a starting point: only instead of searching for an antonym of (ppsvsg jisXaivai, the scholiast used dXX' snsi daaamv ypsai XsvyaXsyai niOtfaag (II. 9, 121-122) as a parallel attributing to Pindaric XsuKaig ypaaiv the same qualities that were expressed by the verb daaamv in Homer. If this surmise is correct, then the gloss XsuKai ppsvsg-iaivdisvai would preserve the only trace of the explanation of XsvKaig niOtfaavza ypaaiv by the syntactic (ypsai XsvyaXs^ai niOtfaag), and not by the semantic (mpsvsg isXaivai) Homeric
i<7
parallel .
Conclusion
Thus, when dealing with the obscure expression XsuKaig niOtfaavza ypaaiv in Pindar, the scholiasts tended to take Homer’s text and Homeric exegesis as a starting point for their explanation; and therefore the two traditions have to be analyzed together. Among scholiastic suggestions, the image of deep waters that appear black occupies a special place: it seems to have been by far the most influential explanation, despite the fact that it was not well suited to the Pindaric XsuKaig niOtfaavza ypaaiv, and not at all suited to the Homeric isvsog 8s jisya ppsvsg djiqijisXaivai | m/mXavx'. Different scholiasts deal with this discrepancy between the explanation and the text in different ways:
(a) by clearly separating the ‘origins’ of the expression and the way it is used in Homer (that is the solution of Genevensis 44 and of the D scholia);
(b) by simplifying the wording, and also the image (from a detailed description to the phrase sv fiaOsi Ksifisvai, and then to simple fiaOsiai);
(c) by direct opposition to the prevailing explanation (this is the case of the smoke-image, jisXavwOsiaai z& KanvS zov Ov^ov).
As for the origins of this explanation by sea metaphor of the different colours that a person’s ppsvsg can acquire depending on his emotional state, it may well stem from a avyypaju/ua that explicitly brought together the three expressions, i. e. noXXa 8s oi KpaSin
37 This “syntactic” interpretation of XevKaig mOqaavza ppaaiv as analogical to ypeai Xsvyals^ai niOqaag is one of the most influential in modern scholarship (see Appendix 2).
nopyvps and ypsvsg duymsXaivai | niunXavz' in Homer, and XsuKaTg
38
niO^oavza ypaoiv in Pindar . Although there are no indications of authorship, most likely, this piece of exegesis belonged to an early scholar, and an authoritative one. The idea was later incorporated into the scholia on the corresponding passages, but the omission of details made this explanation (originally, of great philological subtlety) appear less well-argued than it no doubt was.
Appendix 1
Homeric scholia and glossographers on ypsvsg (djiyi)jisXaivai
1. Scholia ad II. 1, 103-104:
ex. </isvsog Ss jisya> ypsvsg djiyijisXaivai </ nijinXavz'>: ^ djiyi npdg zd nijinXavzo, and ztfg z&v bSdzwv jiszayopdg ■ A b (BC) T <bg yap sk Kspd/iov bnsps&xsTzo o Ov/iog. b
“a^i [should be constructed] with ni^n^avxo; it comes from the metaphor of waters” A b (BC) T “for the anger flowed down as if from a vessel.” b
(BC) T | sioi Ss z&v svzooOiwv ai ypsvsg ■ „nXsvpag by' ^nap Kai
ypsvag” (Soph. Trach. 931).
ijSn Ss oi vswzspoi jisXaivag rag ypsvag yaoiv. A
“The ypsvsg are part of the entrails: ‘[piercing] her side under the liver and the ypsvsg” (BC) T “Also the later poets say that the ypsvsg are black.” A
Ge 104 a. [ypsvsg a/iyi/isXaivai] ovvszai, <dnd ztfg z&v bSdzwv jis>zayopdg ■ <za yap vSaza> jisXav <zd xp&/ia> KSKz^vzai <si jisya sxovoi> zd fidOog.
b. [a/iyi/isXaivai] zszapayjisvai Kaza z^v opy^v.
a. “[ypsvsg a/uyi/usXaivai] : ‘intelligent’, from the metaphor of waters: for waters acquire black colour, if they are very deep.”
b. “[diyiisXaivai]: perturbed by anger.”
D ypsvsg djiyijisXaivai. ai sv fidOsi Ksijisvai Kai ovvszai Sidvoiai abzov. j zszapayjisvai, Sia z^v opy^v.
38 The conclusions of such separate treatises on a given question often found their way into the scholia: the treatises on Archilochus’ expression dxyu-pevq oKuzakn written by Apollonius Rhodius and Aristophanes of Byzantium, are quoted as an example of such obyypappa - see Pfeiffer (1968: 144; 181).
“ypsvsg djiyijisXaivai: ‘those that lie deep’, and his thoughts are intelligent. Or ‘perturbed’, by anger.”
P. Turner 13 = P. Strasb. inv. Gr. 33 + 39 + 40 + 41
16 jisvsog opyyv Xa[
17 Suva/iswg
18 axyv/isvoq Xun[oujisvog
19 y[ps]v[sg] ai^i!sXai[vai
20 ] Kai flaOog [ ] . [
21 jis]vai n Kaz[a]y[
22 nijinXa]yzo sn[Xnpouvzo
“of anger - wrath...”
“of strength”
“vexed - grieved”
“ypsvsg black all over”
“and (?) depth”
“[end of participle] or[beginning of participle]” “were filled - became full of”
POxy 2405, 4.118
a[jiyi jisX]aivav fiaOsiai [].......“black all over: deep”
1. Scholia in Od. 4, 661 (Pontani)
a. djybjisvoq - sikzyv (662)] sk ztfg ’IXiaSog [A 103-104] jisxnvsxOnoav ov Ssovzwg oi ozixoi. H
a. “axvvjusvog - siKznv (662)] these verses have been transposed, without any need, from the Iliad1’
b. isvsog Ss: opa zqv avaioxuvziav. oxszXiaZsi yap Kai Opyi^szai wg Ssiva nsnovOwg, aXXw ovSsvi sxwv syKaXsiv j zfi sauzov paOujiia. HP1
b. “isvsog Ss: note the impudence. For [Antinoos] utters indignant complaints and is wroth, as if he were the victim, whereas he has no one to blame, but his own heedlessness” HP1
r C л ' r f r Л 7 ' \ r r f
c. jisvsog Ss jisya ypsvsg ajiyijisXaivai] jisyioz^g Ss оруцд ai ypsvsg ai Sia fiaOovg Ksijisvai. EMa
c. “jisvsog Ss jisya ypsvsg ajiyijisXaivai] with greatest anger [were] the deep-lying ypsvsg [filled].” EMa
d. jisvsog] Opytfg DGYs / Oujiov BG
d. “jisvsog: with anger” DGYs / “with wrath” BG
e. ajiyijisXaivai] ai sv fiaOsi Ksijisvai, j ai ajiyozspwOsv jisXavwOsioai тф Kanv& zov Oujiov. Es / ai fiaOsiai Y
e. “a/Mpi/isXaivar. ‘those that lie deep’, or ‘those that have been blackened on both sides from the smoke of anger’” Es / “the deep ones” Y
2. Eustathius on ypsvsg djityijieXaivai
Eustath., Comm. in II. 1, pp. 92-93: peXalvag дє qpevag єфц o жощщс, діа тд svzdg amag ev в&бєі кєїаваї Kal p^ opaadai • ц Kal aXXrng peXalvag Tag tov eupoupevou Kal щ exovmg щєрюд, dXX' oiov okoteivov Kal vuktI єоікотод, onep enl eupoupevou ’AnOXXrnvog einev
t У \ У \ tr y-T C* Л t r У ** tf C* Л 0 r
o жощтцс Kal em EKTopog дє opoirng epei. єтерої дє ToXpnpoTepov e^nyovpevol yaaiv, оті, enel Tobg o^eaXpovg tov eupoupevou nupl XapneTOrnvn eoiKevai Xeyei, діа tovto Kal Tag ypevag tov toiovtou peXalvag pqal Xeyrnv • «peveog дє peya ypeveg dpyipeXaivai nlpnXavTo», iva eiev dpyipeXaivai ypeveg ai дікцу Kanvov тф вщф peXaivOpevai, mg oia Kanvov tovtou avvOvmg тф KaTa rfv тpaymдlav «avnyawTrn nupl» tov eupov. [...] тд дє nlpnXavTo тд noXv д-nXoitov eupov. ov yap dnX&g exei pevog, aXXa nlpnXami peveog єк pemyopag T&v ЬдpoдOxmv dyyelrnv, a nlpnXami vypov.
“The poet called the ypeveg ‘black’ because they lie deep inside and may not be seen; or alternatively, ‘black’ because they belong to a person in anger who is not radiant, but [who is], so to speak, sombre and ‘like the night’, as the poet has already said of Apollo, and will [later] speak in a like manner of Hector. Other interpreters of greater daring say that since [Homer] states that the eyes of the angry person are like blazing fire, for this same reason he calls ypeveg of such a person ‘black’ saying, ‘with rage was his black heart wholly filled’, so as to present the dpyipsXaivai ypeveg as blackened by the smoke of anger, as if this smoke accompanied the anger that the tragic poet has styled ‘the fire not of Hephaestus’ making’. [...] As to the verb ‘filled up’, it is quite evident that by anger. For he does not simply possess pevog, but he is being filled by pevog, from the metaphor of vessels adapted to hold water that are being filled with liquid.”
Eustath., Comm. in Il. vol. 4, pp. 85-86: Kal opa тд «dpqipeXalvag» ovk enl opylXou Tivdg Xexeev, iva Kal oiov кол^ф Tivi тф вupф Xeyoivrn peXalveaeai Kaednep dXXaxov, dXX' dnX&g omrn д-nXovv rfv ev edeei eeaiv tov t&v qpev&v anXdyxyou.
“And note that [the epithet] dpcpipeXalvag is not said of an angry person (so that [the ypeveg] would be said to have been blackened by anger as if by some smoke, as elsewhere), but that it simply indicates the deep position of ypeveg in the intestines.”
Appendix 2
Modern scholarship on the colour of ppsveg
This panoptic of ancient exegeses of XeuKai (ppsveq and (ppsveq afityifisXaivai calls for a comparison with modern interpretations. Although many of the explanations can be found both in the ancient and modern traditions, there are two striking points of difference. Firstly, while ancient exegesis sought to deduce the meaning of Pindaric XeuKai ppsveg from the parallel ppsveg ajiqijieXaivai, modern scholars tend to prefer the syntactically closer parallel ypeoi XevyaXsym mdrjaag. Secondly, the most authoritative modern interpretation of (ppsveq isXaivai as “suffused with blood” finds no trace in ancient scholarship, which is surprising, because the formulaic expression isXav aifia would have suggested it to ancient readers as readily as it does to modern readers.
The mentions of XeuKai ppsveg and ppsveg ajiqijieXaivai are so numerous that it would be presumptuous to hope that it is exhaustive. We have tried, however, to represent all suggestions that have been made. Modern opinions on this question in this Appendix are quoted only by references (those that we were not able to consult directly are marked by an asterisk). This was necessary to gain space, but we also hoped to make a point that would, in a way, justify our attempts at reconstructing the possible reasoning behind the surviving ancient glosses: interpretations of reputed modern scholars tend to appear bleak and implausible, if they are quoted as a list, without the underlying argumentation (which is exactly the form in which ancient exegesis has come down to us).
1. A list of modern interpretations of XsvKai ppsvsg
“unresponsive, insensitive”: Irwin (1974: 150-151); Darcus (1977: 97-98); cf. Braswell (1988: 199-200) retains the interpretation of XeuKai (ppsveq as implying that Pelias is a “dispassionate, calculating villain” (as preferable, though not certain). deviating from blackness as the normal state of the (ppsveq, and thus “unnatural, abnormal, unhealthy”: Onians (1951: 25); Burton (1962: 157-158)
“envious”: Dissen (1830: ad loc.), “pallidis, invidis”; Sandys (1915: ad loc.); Gildersleeve (18902: ad loc) ; Postgate (1889). “commotis, acribus, cupidis turbidis, ut hominis tyrannidem affectantis” Boekh (1821: II.2, 273),
“fierce”, “spirited”: Donaldson (1841: ad loc.).
as describing “animum vehementer commotum”, and referring to the image of white foam on a stormy sea: Schultz (1905: 15). “careless” or “reckless”: Seymour (1882: ad loc.).
“bad”, reproduces Hesychius’ gloss (1 746) Isvkwv npamSwv KaKwv (ppev&v: W. Christ (1896: ad loc.), mentions it as possibility;*Palm (1962), quoted by Darcus (1977: 96).
“vocatur stulta mens [...] propter senectutem”: *Portus (1583 : 326), the passage quoted in full by Hummel (1999: 579).
“cowardly”: *Scholefield, quoted by Cookesley (1853: 163); Bowra (1964: 246-247); cf. Stanford (1952: 42ff.), who also notes the pun on Pelias’ name (nsliag ~ nohog ~ XevKai ppeveg). a wordplay on Tyro, name of Pelias’ mother, emphasized by the n -V alliteration: Drager (1993: I, 166ff.).
“raging”, as related to Xvooa: this explanation is to be found in most
TQ
etymological dictionnaries . It is also accepted by Fennell (1893: ad loc.); “seinem aufgeblasenen d.h. ubermutigen Sinn”, Mezger (1880); Sandys (1915: ad loc.) mentions it among possible solutions; Lasso de la Vega (1952: 38ff.).
“baneful”, as related to Xsvyog and refering to ypsoi Xsvyalsfloi niOqoag: Hermann (1839: 139-140; 289); W. Christ (1896: ad loc.); Reiter (1962: 39ff.); Forsmann (1966: 91); *Coppola (1931) quoted by Darcus (1977: 96); Farnell (1932: ad loc.) mentions it as one possible solution.
2. A list of modern interpretations of ppsvsg (djupijjuslaivai
anatomical interpretations:
1. “suffused with blood”: Trollope (1827: I, 22); Daremberg (1865: 50-51); Rusch (1930: 41-42); LfgrE (1955-1979: I, s. v. dji<vijieXaivd); Combellac (1975); Darcus (1977: 95-96); Kirk (1985: 64); Latacz, Nunlist, Stoevesandt (2000: 65);
2. the idea that a strong emotion is betrayed by blood “rushing to one’s face” is transferred to the inner organs: *van der Muhll quoted by Kudlien (1973: 56)
39 See the dictionaries of Boisacq, Frisk, Specht, Pokorny. The idea was criticized by Ernout (1949: 154); Chantraine (DELG) analyzes the Pindaric passage under the entry “2 I£uko<;”, distinguishing it from the normal use of leuKo^; Beekes reports Specht’s and Pokorny’s conclusions, but pronounces no judgement on the subject.
3. as referring to the bluish-grey colour of the human lung; it follows that black is the normal colour of the ppsvsg : Onians (1951: 25), criticized by Kudlien (1973: 53-56);
4. as related to melancholia: Kudlien (1973).
as combination of “physical and metaphysical notions” (i.e., “the dark blood and the gloom of anger”): Paley (1866: I, 9); cf. Cunliffe (1924: s.v. juslag): “darkened by deep emotion (i.e. the double organ was filled with fury (so as to be) black in both parts”.
“capable of reacting to emotion”: Irwin (1974: 150); cf. Darcus (1977: 95-96).
“proleptice dictum est”: Doderlein (1863: I, 5); Cunliffe (1924: s.v. uslag); Kudlien (1973: 55); Latacz - Nunlist - Stoevesandt (2000: 65).
“das Kennzeichen des reifen, erfahrenen, charakterfesten Mannes”: Hartmann (1933).
as simple epithetum ornans (original sense: “dark, as hidden in the body”): Fr. A. Wolf in Usteri’s edition (1830: 84); Freytagius (1837: 58-59); Duntzer (1866: I, 38); Willcock (1978: I, 189); et al.
Bibliographical references
Adler 1928-1938 - Svidae Lexicon / ed. A. Adler. Vol. 1-5. Leipzig, 192838.
Barns 1957 - Barns J. W. B. № 2405. Glossary to Homer, Iliad i // The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 24 / ed. with translations and notes by E. Lobel, C. H. Roberts, E. G. Turner, J. W. B. Barns. London, 1957. P. 132-141.
Boeckh 1821 - Pindari opera / ed. A. Boeckh. Vol. 2. Lipsiae, 1821.
Bowra 1964 - Bowra C. M. Pindar. Oxford, 1964.
Braswell 1988 - Braswell B. K. A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar. Berlin; New York, 1988.
Burton 1962 - Burton R. W. B. Pindar’s Pythian Odes. Oxford, 1962.
Christ 1896 - Pindari carmina prolegominis et commentariis instructa / ed. W. Christ. Lipsiae, 1896.
Combellack 1975 - Combellack F. M. Agamemon’s Black Heart // Grazer Beitrage. 1975. Bd. 4. P. 81-87.
Cookesley 1853 - Pindari carmina / ed. G. G. Cookesley. Vol. 2. Etoniae, 1853.
Coppola 1931 - Coppola G. Introduzione a Pindaro. Roma, 1931.
Cunliffe 1924 - Cunliffe R. J. A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect. London, 1924.
Darcus 1977 - Darcus S. An Echo of Homer in Pindar, Pythian 4 // Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. 1977. Vol. 107. P. 93-101.
Daremberg 1865 - Daremberg Ch. La medicine dans Homёre. Paris, 1865. Deas 1931 - Deas H. R. The Scholia Vetera to Pindar // Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 1931. Vol. 42. P. 1-78.
Deroy 1948a - Deroy L. А propos du nom de la pourpre : le vrai sens des adjectifs homeriques nopyvpeog et akrnoptyvpoq // Les etudes classiques. 1948. Vol. 16. P. 3-10.
Deroy 1948b - Deroy L. La renaissance des mots homeriques // Les etudes classiques. 1948. Vol. 16. P. 329-353.
Dissen 1830 - Pindari carmina quae supersunt cum deperditorum fragmentis selectis / ed. L. Dissen. Gotha, 1830.
Doderlein 1863 - Homeri Ilias / ed. L. Doderlein. Lipsiae; Londini, 1863. Donaldson 1841 - Pindar’s Epinician or Triumphal Odes in Four Books / ed. J. B. Donaldson. London, 1841.
Drachmann 1903-1927 - Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina / ed. A. B.
Drachmann. Vol. 1-3. Leipzig, 1903-1927.
Drager 1993 - Drager P. Argo pasimelousa: Der Argonautenmythos in der griechischen und romischen Literatur. Teil 1: Theos aitios. Stuttgart, 1993.
Dmtzer 1866 - Homers Ilias / ed. H. Dйntzer. Paderborn, 1866.
Dwbeck 1977 - Dwbeck H. Zur Charakteristik der griechischen Farbenbezeichnungen. Bonn, 1977.
Ebeling 1880-1885 - Ebeling H. Lexicon Homericum. Vol. 1-2. Leipzig, 1880-1885.
Erbse 1969-1977 - Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem / ed. H. Erbse. Vol. 1-7. Berolini, 1969-1977.
Ernout 1949 - Ernout A. ЛY22A // Revue de Philologie. 1949. Vol. 23. P. 154-156.
Farnell 1932 - Farnell L. R. The Works of Pindar. Vol. 2: Critical Commentary to the Works of Pindar. London, 1932.
Feine 1883 - Feine P. De Aristarcho Pindari interprete (Diss. Jena). Lipsiae, 1883.
Fennell 1893 - Pindar, the Olympian and Pythian Odes / ed. C. A. M.
Fennell. Cambridge, 1893.
Forsmann 1966 - Forsmann B. Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars. Wiesbaden, 1966.
Freytagius 1837 - Homeri Iliadis primi duo libri / ed. Th. F. Freytagius.
Petropoli - Lipsiae, 1837.
Gentili, Bernardini, Cingano, Giannini 1995 - Pindaro, Le Pitiche / ed. B.
Gentili, P. A. Bernardini, E. Cingano, P. Giannini. Verona, 1995. Gildersleeve 1890 - Pindar, the Olympian and Pythian Odes / ed. B. L.
Gildersleeve. 2nd ed. New York, 1890.
Goram 1859 - Goram O. Pindari translationes et imagines // Philologus.
1859. Bd. 14. P. 241-280.
Hartmann 1933 - Hartmann F. Хєикаїд qpaoi Pind. Pyth. 4, 109 // Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung. 1933. Bd. 60. P. 223. Henrichs 1971 - Henrichs A. Scholia minora zu Homer 1 // Zeitschrift ffir Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 1971. Bd. 7. P. 97-149.
Hermann 1839 - Hermann G. Opuscula. Vol. 7. Lipsiae, 1839.
Heubeck, West, Hainsworth 1988 - Heubeck A. West St. Hainsworth J. B. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol. 1: Introduction and Books i-viii. Oxford, 1988.
Hummel 1999 - Hummel P. L’epithete pindarique : etude historique et philologique. Bern, 1999.
Irwin 1974 - Irwin E. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto, 1974.
Kirk 1985 - The Iliad: A Commentary / ed. G. S. Kirk. Vol. 1. Cambridge, 1985.
Kudlien 1973 - Kudlien Fr. 'Schwarzliche' Organe im fruhgriechischen Denken // Medizinhistorisches Journal. 1973. Bd. 8. P. 53-58.
Lasso de la Vega 1952 - Lasso de la Vega J. S. Sobre la etimologia de X-booa // Emerita. 1952. Vol. 20. P. 32-41.
Latacz, Nunlist, Stoevesandt 2000 - Latacz J. Nunlist R. Stoevesandt M.
Homers Ilias: Gesamtkommentar. Bd. 1.2. Munchen; Leipzig, 2000. Latte 1966 - Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon / ed. K. Latte. Vol. 2. Hauniae, 1966.
Leumann 1950 - Leumann M. Homerische Worter. Basel, 1950.
Mezger 1880 - Pindars Siegeslieder erklart / ed. Fr. Mezger. Lipsiae, 1880.
Montanari 1995a - Montanari F. Tradurre dal greco in greco: parafrasi omeriche nella Grecia antica // Montanari F. Studi di filologia omerica antica 2. Pisa, 1995. P. 59-68.
Montanari 1995b - Montanari F. Gli homerica su papiro: per una distinzione di generi // Montanari F. Studi di filologia omerica antica 2. Pisa, 1995. P. 69-85.
Nicole 1891 - Les scolies genevoises de l’Iliade / ed. J. Nicole. Vol.1-2. Geneve, 1891.
Onians 1951 - Onians R. B. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time and Fate: New Interpretations of Greek, Roman, and Kindred Evidence. Cambridge, 1951.
Paley 1866-1871 - The Iliad of Homer / ed. with English notes F. A. Paley.
Vol. 1-2. London, 1866-1871.
Palm 1962 - Palm J. Zu Pindar Ol. 1 // Opuscula Atheniensia. 1962. Vol. 4. P. 4-6.
Pfeiffer 1968 - Pfeiffer R. History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford, 1968.
Pontani 2010 - Scholia graeca in Odysseam / ed. F. Pontani. Vol. 2. Roma, 2010.
Postgate 1889 - Postgate J. P. Persius III. 43 // The Classical Review. 1889. Vol. 3. P. 275.
Reiter 1962 - Reiter G. Die griechischen Bezeichnungen der Farben Weifs, Grau und Braun (Diss. Innsbruck). Innsbruck, 1962.
Rengakos 1994 - Rengakos A. Apollonios Rhodios und die antike Homererklarung. Munchen, 1994.
Risch 1949 - Risch E. Griechische Determinativkomposita //
Indogermanische Forschungen. 1949. Bd. 59. P. 1-61.
Rumpel 1883 - Rumpel I. Lexicon Pindaricum. Lipsiae, 1883.
Rusche 1930 - Rusche Fr. Blut, Leben und Seele: Ihr Verhaltnis nach Auffassung der griechischen und hellenistischen Antike, der Bibel und der alten alexandrinischen Theologen. Paderborn, 1930.
Rutherford 1905 - Rutherford W. G. A Chapter in the History of Annotation. London, 1905.
Sandys 1915 - The Odes of Pindar / ed. with an introduction and an English translation by J. Sandys. London, 1915.
Schroeder 1922 - Pindars Pythien erklart / ed. O. Schroeder. Leipzig -Berlin, 1922.
Schultz 1905 - Schultz H. De elocutionis Pindaricae colore epico (Diss. Gottingen). Gottingen, 1905.
Schwartz 1981 - Schwartz J. Fragments d’un glossaire homerique // Papyri, Greek and Egyptian, Edited by Various Hands in Honour of E. G. Turner / ed. P. J. Parsons, J. R. Rea. London, 1981. P. 66-71.
Seymour 1882 - Selected Odes of Pindar / ed. with notes and an introduction Th. D. Seymour. Boston, 1882.
Stanford 1952 - Stanford W. B. Pelias and His Pallid Wits: On leuKaig qpaoiv in Pindar Pythians 4.109 // Studies in the Honour of Gilbert Norwood / ed. M. E. White. Toronto, 1952. P. 42-45.
Theodoridis 1998 - Photii Patriachae Lexicon / ed. Chr. Theodoridis. Vol.
2. Berlin; New York, 1998.
Trollope 1827 - The Iliad of Homer / ed. with copious English notes by W. Trollope. Vol. 1-2. London, 1827.
Usteri 1830 - Fr. Aug. Wolfs Vorlesungen uber die vier ersten Gesange von Homers Ilias / ed. L. Usteri. Bd. 1. Bern, 1830.
van der Valk 1971-1987 - Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes / ed. M. van der Valk. Vol. 1-4. Leiden, 1971-1987.
van Thiel 2000 - Scholia D in Iliadem / ed. H. van Thiel. 2000. http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/1810/.
Vieillefond 1938 - Vieillefond J.-R. Note sur noppvpa, noppvpeog, noppvpm // Revue des etudes grecques. 1938. Vol. 51. P. 403-412.
Willcock 1978-1984 - The Iliad of Homer, Edited with Introduction and Commentary / ed. M. M. Willcock. Vol. 1-2. London, 1978-1984.
Wilson 1967 - Wilson N. G. A Chapter in the History of the Scholia // The Classical Quarterly. 1967. Vol. 17. P. 244-256.
Wolde 1942 - Pindar. Die Dichtungen und die Fragmente / ed. L. Wolde. Leipzig, 1942.
