Apollo Pythaieus

Bacchylides, Asine, and Apollo PythaieusAuthor(s): W. S. BarrettReviewed work(s):Source: Hermes, 82. Bd., H. 4 (1954), pp. 421-444Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4474863 .

Accessed: 20/12/2012 09:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:46:12 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4474863?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


W. S. BARRETT: Bacchylides, Asine, and Apollo Pythaieus 42I

BACCHYLIDES, ASINE, AND APOLLO PYTHAIEUS1

I. THE TEXT: FRR. 22 AND 4

Ep. oad 6' e7l {Aavov oV3- fr. 22 D 6ov, To% 681 &oivag e`vTvov, coo 6' Efa - e - D

CavTo/IaTot 6' dyat263v D <8g> balTaq e3o'X6ovg 8rdexovTat 6txatot e - e - e 99Og.'?- u - e-e-

(desunt epodi uersus 6-io)

(incertum an desit trias tota)

Str. (desunt strophae uersus i-8) fr. 4 - Wu U - t_; ]Ta Hv&o[ - - -

- U ]?l T8VT-

Ant. N.) -j ]x?iEAsrev OoZlo ['AA- . ........ e- e x,urvag] noA1e,taIvFTov v[iov - D -

(.).T-.Y. .1 EsvaovreTxat aQ[- u- 5 e-e- eII .)..... i]t 6' stV Xwea<t> D -

.)....... ]xtrev t Tavjpvtio. [ e - e (. ) ..7. ..T]~esta e2at'ag e - e

(<. . Y.T . Y]7' 'Aatvseg D

(.) .].777>-) . -' A v b6 xydv[cot Io - e - e js. . ..e;e 'AAWxCOV T8[- D -e

lAav-t]g6` "Ayevg MSAd4U[noVg e-e -

Ep. ill9 'A/uviaovt6ag D flw0]1i'v c TSvi5a<t>ei XTO(e[ - U U - e -D

mat] TSYucVO; Ica#ov. I5 D xedv]a ao etCag To6 Xe[-- U - -e-e e

'O]Xyt; Txiluaa' 'An7o'LAv e -e- aAro],, lV' dy)atat D

T' av#t]e[t] xa' yoAnat A[etar - e- e[-

(.)..]Tjove,cava, T..[ 20 -D[

J, ]Xv8'j[ .. . . . .. - D[ . ) ].atotortv[ e - e[

Str. Tx-TcEt 66'TSj OvaTLOataov el-

eqva ,AsyaAjdvoea LnAovrov

1 I am indebted to Professor PAUL MAAS and Mr. E. LOBEL for their help on various points; and to the Librarian of Victoria University, Toronto, for providing me with a photograph of the papyrus.



422 W. S. BARRETT

mat feLyly2c4jaacov aLotcav a'Avha, 25

batbaA.'cov T'j C' ' PW-)LuCOV

?oZatv adltEjaOat PoLoV taViOdt qAoyl

27' Q ' 'vjuA]AcOv TE LY 'AO-v /t ti t'iJ[)]WVX [f727

yv,uvaiW)jv mr vEotLg Vav'A6v -rE xaV?XOI0

l At; ai326ov Xe xaCl 0WIJLV PEtV. 30

Ev 6E aort6aeojrotg L oera~tv atadv

aeaXvdv tarjot Ol2LALOvTat,

Ant. ayEea m )aoyXa tea 'I adiqaxea ba,uvarat Ev3ecog

- U - U --- u

xaLxeav 6' oV'x krrtl oraALdYYw V XTVS7g, 35 oVE ov)Adraat ye2ifQZv v7rvog &o fl2A89aciowv awtOog o5g OdAnt XEa0

avitnzOoiwv 5' 85eaTr75v lpe6tOVT ayvat, zattatOi ' /vot qAe'yovrat. 40

Ep. (deest epodus)

Fr. 22: Athen. 5. 5 (p. I78B).

Fr. 4: I-32, Pap. Oxy. 426;1 23-40, Stob. 4. I4. 3 (BaxXvAtbov HIatdavwov); 3I-7, Plut. Num. 20. 6 (quoted anonymously).

Cf. B. P. GRENFELL and A. S. HUNT, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, part 3, I903, pp. 68, 72-3; F. BLASS, Archiv fuir Papyrusforschung, 3, I906, 267-8; 0. HOFER, in Roscher's Lexikon, vol. 3, s. v. ePythaeus', coll. 3366-7 with footnote (I909); B. SNELL, 'Das Bruchstuick eines Paians von Bakchylides', Hermes 67, I932, I-I3; P. MAAS, 'Zu dem Paean des Bakchylides', Hermes 67, I932, 469-7I; Bacchylidis carmina cum fragmentis... sextum edidit BRUNO SNELL (Leipzig, Teubner, I949).

1 The papyrus is now in Toronto, at the Library of Victoria University, where its original numbering (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus no. 426) is retained. I have used two photographs: one (a very clear one, but covering only lines 1-21) in the possession of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford; and one, covering the whole fragment, which was sent to me by the Librarian of Victoria University. I refer to the collations of GRENFELL and HUNT ('G.-H.'), made from the papyrus, and of SNELL, made from a print of the same photograph as my first and covering therefore only lines 1-2I (SNELL, Bacch., p. I3*).

The text of the poem is written on the verso of the papyrus, in what G.-H. call 'a rather uncultivated uncial hand which may be assigned to the third century'. There are no accents or lectional signs except for an apostrophe in io and 2I (but not 6, I7, i8; 9 is unverifiable) and a trema twice in i8 (ivayAaFal: the only instances in the papyrus where l is initial or begins a new syllable internally).



Bacchylides, Asine, and Apollo Pythaieus 423

i. ]c: only the right-hand part of the cross-stroke; perhaps y, E.

2. ]8txeA8vr[: ]atT G.-H., ]oto (or ]ovy, leey, jortT sim.') SNELL; Etn[G.-H., SNELL. My cV looks fairly certain as against et, and if 8v then 'TAFvT[ seems necessary. If . . -r, then probably ] tT; and if ] . t (a long syllable) most likely ]et (see p. 443).

4. v[: the top left-hand tip; a vowel, so v is certain.

6. ]t: a long syllable; the form of the ? and what may be traces of a ligature suggest E]t or alt.

7. ]X: ] . G.-H., ]j SNELL. The right-hand tips as of X or M; before these, and separated from them by a damaged area, a longish stroke beginning almost horizontally on the left and curving gradually down to the right. If the tips are x, I can see no explanation of this stroke; if they are XX I can explain it only as the upper left-hand arm of the X itself, on the assumption that the damage has displaced the upper layer of the papyrus slightly over the lower. .[: the top of a slanting stroke; prima facie a, s, A, or v; v (G.-H., SNELL) not excluded.

8. joE: ]jot G.-H., ]qt jot or ]et SNELL. Of the e, the right-hand edge (I should exclude a or e); of the s, the upright part of the main stroke (an odd shape for t) and the tip of the cross-stroke contiguous with that of V, the ink being lost from the rest of the letter.

10. E..' (the apostrophe is written, as in 2I but not elsewhere): s-T' G.-H., SNELL. After E, a hole with some adjacent damage; then what may be the left-hand tip and right-hand half of the cross-stroke of -x, with the surface abraded between and below. er' seems excluded by the spacing (cr would cover the same space as s-ro in 4 and 3I). The photographs seem to allow either *[Tjr' or Ecra' (the top of the second a unusually horizontal, but the form of the letter varies enough for this to be no obstacle); one might perhaps have expected to see the bottom of the t or of the second a., but it is hard to judge the extent of abrasions from the photographs.

ii. .[: the foot of a slanting stroke; prima facie A2, It, or X; an irregular upright perhaps not excluded.

I2. ]j: the preceding letter (a short vowel) was too far from the X for anything but tlg or olg (SNELL). qoycvg: originally aeyovg; the o then altered (in the text) to c.

I3. j? (sO SNELL): the upper part of the right-hand edge, too much for Q (G.-H.) or an apostrophe. For a1uva the papyrus has odUOi with the second o altered currente calamo to a; above the first o another hand has written a.

I9. [t]: the gap would admit either t or e.



424 W. S. BARRETT

20. e (so G.-H., SNELL): the top left-hand edge. o may also be possible, but I do not think it very likely (see pp. 443 f.).

ot.[: o G.-H., Et. .] . [ SNELL. For the first letter, e (the top of the upright and the upper arc of the loop) seems more likely than o; the upper arc ends clear of the edge on the right (hence SNELL'S ?, from the photograph), but in view of G.-H.'s o (from the papyrus) it seems reasonable to assume abrasion at the edge. For . [, a trace high above the line and hard to reconcile with any possible letter in the text (neither shape nor spacing suit the tip of a high t); it may be part of a superlinear letter, in which case o (part of the left-hand edge) might be one possibility. SNELL'S

final ] . [ (a dark patch on the edge of the papyrus, very high above the line) seems not to be ink at all.

22. ].a: ]f3 G.-H.; SNELL had no photograph of the line. Of the first letter, an upright on the very edge: t, v, or possibly q (there is no example of 4

elsewhere in the papyrus). Of the second, the outer strokes of a, 6, or A; a seems most likely.

28. ]A (so G.-H.): this (and not ]X) is quite certain.

II. THE IDENTIFICATION

The foundation for the study of fr. 4 was laid in I932, when SNELL first identified the end of the papyrus fragment with the beginning of Stobaios' excerpt from BaxXvlti6ov HlatdvE. In this paper I am chiefly concerned to establish four further things: (a) the responsion in fr. 4, (b) the myth, (c) that fr. 22 is also part of the paian, (d) the place where the paian was performed.

The responsion in fr. 4

A responsion str. 23-32 ant. 33-40 (and, perhaps, I-2 3I1-2

39-40) was recognized by MAAS and denied by SNELL. The difficulties were (a) the need for assuming a lacuna of two cola between 34 and 35,1 (b) the responsion 32 adaeva v 40 ral76x6i, (c) that the epode (3-22) would be twice the length of the strophe; these difficulties apart the responsion is exact.

MAAS is right; for the metre of his strophe recurs also in 3-I2. The lacuna must therefore be admitted,2 and the responsion a&aXvav , a6txo' either

I Or possibly between 35 and 36 (25 and 27 are metrically identical, and 35 might correspond to either); but there is a natural connexion of thought between 35 (trumpet- calls) and 36 (being woken in the dawn).

2 It occurs in both Stobaios and Plutarch. It is incredible that such an omission should have become established in the book texts; therefore we must assume that both Stobaios and Plutarch reproduce the passage from the same early florilegium (in which the omission would be nothing out of the way). So MAAS, Hermes 67, 1932, 469 n. I.




accepted or emended away.' The third difficulty (which is the most serious) disappears, for the epode is now I3-22, of the same length as the strophe.

The responsion in 3-I2 is in four places incompatible with the text as printed by SNELL, but in none of them is it incompatible with the letters preserved in the papyrus. In three places all one need do is replace or reinter- pret the papyrus text: in 3 read xdAevaev (for the conjecture x2AsvaE); in 9 divide ]q' 'Anvelt (not ]99aatv Ed); in io, where the papyrus is damaged, read AE[t]-r' or ]A)aw' (for ]A)6T'). In the fourth place (7) the ]XwevTav99vAAo.[ of

the papyrus is consistent with the responsion but is likely to be corrupt on other grounds; the conjecture Tav<t>v)AA- is (if one keeps ]xuaev) incon- sistent, and either a different or a more extensive emendation will be needed.

The myth

Line 9, which becomes ]T' 'Artveg, now gives the clue: Bacchylides is telling how Herakles, on Apollo's instructions, removed the Dryopes from Delphi to Asine in the Argolid, marking their frontier with a twisted olive or olives, and how Melampous later established at Asine an altar and precinct of Apollo Pythaieus.

The principal evidence for Bacchylides' narrative is to be found in three passages of Pausanias:

(a) For the removal of the Dryopes, cf. 4. 34. 9: 'Aatvaiot b rd jmd v et djoXig Avxcowe'Iatg 6'OQO6 7tEQ TO'V Haovacrcv d$otxovv, ovoya 6a iv av'roc, o 6 xa' E;g HEZo7ovv?rov &ecrJcravro, u6o rov otxuoroiV 'AeVOn. rEveit & v'a- reeov -reirT, flacaeV'ovTog5 V'avTOg, pAXrj ot OlSQo%E5 trd 'de EXear4thaav xa T-lt 'An'AA2wvt dvct3ya iX3thaav e;g AEAZ9ovSg. dvaxi9e'vre 6de Eg HeoEo'vv?crov xepiavroa Heqax{eaA toTi OEOV, ne6QTa PEV Tr?)V ne65 cEepto6vt Arvtv7v &aXov, &EIVEv & &rEOrEOVTEg VnO' 'AeyErwv oltxooartv EV Tjt MEcr,rNVlat

AaxE6atjzovt'ov &0vTCOv. (For other accounts of the removal cf. schol. Ap. Rh. I. 12I2-I9, Et. gen. s. v. 'Acrvveig [see PFEIFFER, Callimachus, I p. 34], Strab. 8. 6. I3 [P. 3733, Diod. 4. 37. I-2. Kallimachos told the story in his Aitia [frr. 24, 25 Pf.; cf. 705], but the part that would concern us here is lost. 2)

1 This raises the whole problem of Responsionsfreiheiten in dactyloepitrites, which cannot be discussed here. WILAMOWITz accepts the licence (Griech. Versk. 423 with n. I; cf. Pindaros, 3PI n. 2), MAAS rejects it (Die neuen Responsionsfreiheiten, I. 23 n. 3, and then-with a different solution-Hermes 67, 469 n. 4). The question is important for me here only in so far as it affects the metre of line I2; see below, p. 433 n. 2.

2 The story may have been told or alluded to in a choral lyric poem of which a scrap is preserved in a papyrus (P. S. I. I46 = Pi. fr. dub. 335 SNELL): two consecutive lines beginning #sto6ad'uov[ and nEqv6e6v[ may have contained some case of Aetovi orALvo0zs and of the Dryopian E9to6dauag (WILAMOWITZ, Pindaros, 134 n. 3). Enough can be seen of the metre to make it certain that the fragment does not belong to our poem.



426 W. S. BARRETT

(b) For the olive(s), cf. 2. 28. 2 (I quote the passage, and discuss it, on p. 430 below): Herakles marked the Asinaian frontier at some place or places with an olive, possibly (Pausanias is not explicit) a a-c esr?r gAaia.

(c) For the sanctuary of Apollo Pythaieus at Asine, cf. 2. 36. 5 (the destruction of Asine by the Argives in the eighth century): 'AQyEsot ... E i6'aTog xarafladovge; -r?v 'Aorv'vv xal -rlv yi7v ieoxoe4a,uevot -rilp cTrqe'eat, Hvt7a&co

A. AnoAAw)vog v'nEAovTo <ro> teeov, xat vvv ETt 6iAov ETct.

According to Pausanias, Herakles brings the Dryopes to Delphi to dedicate them to Apollo, and Apollo instructs Herakles to take them from there to the Peloponnese, where they settle in Asine; Herakles marks their frontier with one or more (?OrTQenTat) LAalat; at Asine there was later a precinct of Apollo Pythaieus. In our text we have Delphi (I); Apollo instructing someone's son renowned in war (3-4); 'from the temple' (5); 1eQpag iRa'a (8); the Asinaians (9); Halieis, another town in the Argolic peninsula (II); and the foundation of an altar and precinct of Apollo Pythaieus (I4-I5). The identification is, I think, beyond doubt.

Fragment 22

This fragment is quoted by Athenaios as from a description of Herakles' arrival at the house of Keyx. But Herakles called on Keyx immediately before his subjugation of the Dryopes: cf. [Apollod.] 2. 7. 7. I cE$oY E

T71v zevo'rwv xcoeav, &rroeJ5v xroqijg, &ravr4aavrog &eso6ac4tavrog florqAaToiw- Iog TO'V 9TEQOV T6iv TavQcov Nv'aag e8&oXqaaTro. co;g 68' ZEv es Teaxlva nQ'e6 K4i&xa, Vno6e,X#?g vS' av'oT0 AQv'onag xaT'co2,wunev (cf. also Diod. 4. 36. 5-37. I). Bacchylides is unlikely to have told the story of the Dryopes at length in another ode than ours; unless therefore he fits the visit to Keyx into another context, fragment 22 will be part of our ode.

The metre will correspond in one position only, namely as the opening lines of an epode. To secure this responsion one needs to make two changes in the received text,l or-r for the MS. or-r- in I and <es) baiTag in 4; neither change is such as to be any obstacle to the combination.

The combination has one important consequence for fr. 4: it establishes the metre at the end of I4 and i6.

Asine: the performance of the ode

In fr. 4. i6ff. 'o'E [AaRo]g, the sanctuary where the ode is performed, can only I think be the sanctuary of Apollo Pythaieus at Asine itself. I shall discuss that passage in more detail below; at this point I will consider briefly such other evidence as we have for Asine and its sanctuary in historical times.

1 The corrections &VTvov and 6fa (NEUE, for gvvvov and !Taa ) are necessary in any case, and have long been accepted.




Asine is on the east shore of the Gulf of Argos, about five miles south-east of Nauplia and twelve miles south-east of Argos. The site is one of great anti- quity: the Swedish excavations of I922-30 (FR6DIN and PERSSON, Asine, Stockholm I938) show it to have been inhabited from Early Helladic times. But at some date in the latter part of the eighth century B. C. the town was taken by the Argives and razed to the ground (Paus. 2. 36. 4-5, 3. 7. 4); the inhabitants escaped, and were settled by the Lakedaimonians on the west shore of the Gulf of Messene, where they called their new town Asine after the old (Paus. 4. 14. 3, 4. 34. 9).

Its inhabitants before its destruction belonged to a stock called Dryopes. These Dryopes were said to have lived originally in Central Greece, in a district variously defined as the neighbourhood of Parnassos, of Delphi, of Oita, of the Spercheios, and so perhaps embracing all of them;' for Herodotus, the Dryopis is synonymous with the later Doris (I. 56. 3, 8. 3I, 8. 43). From here they were said to have migrated after defeat by Herakles (the migration is sometimes, as in our ode, represented as a transplantation by Herakles, sometimes-as in the Messenian Asinaians' own version, Paus. 4. 34. IO-as a voluntary flight after defeat); this story has the air of representing an actual movement of population in a period preceding the Dorian invasion of the Peloponnese. In the Argolid, Dryopes settled not only in Asine but in Her- mione, and also at other places on the intervening stretch of coast; there is evidence for Eion, Halieis, and a Dryope near Hermione, and it is a reasonable assumption that the whole coast from Asine to Hermione was Dryopian.2

But Asine was destroyed by the Argives in the latter part of the eighth century;3 and thereafter it disappears from history. Strabo (8. 6. II 373)

1 For the evidence, see J. MILLER, R. E. v. I747f.; add sch. Ap. Rh. I. 12I2-Iga,

P. III. I-3 WENDEL, REQl Teax!va ?Izv &6 a)aiA,v zo'tv %al rIv OfTv TO Jor

eog -ro; 0"Qotg -4;g Pcoo (these words, displaced in the MSS., look very like a description of the original home of the Dryopes) and sch. Amh. on Callim. hymn. 3. i6i

Tvq2Q]j1rcv OJQO5 (suppI. PFEIFFER).

2 Hermione: Hdt. 8. 43, 8. 73. 2 (in the latter passage he names Hermione and the Messenian Asine as the Dryopian towns in the fifth-century Peloponnese). Eion (site not known for certain): Diod. 4. 37. 2 TQ6E1 7OAeltg Oxtrav Ev Ie8onovv'acot, 'Aclvriv xai eEQ,ztOV'v ETt 6' 'Hto'va. Halieis: Callim. fr. 705 Pf. d' 'Aorvinv 'Avo'v IS tu a To'ttv 'EEe,tovclov ("A)vxog probably one of the many aliases of Halieis, for which see BOLTE, R. E. VII. 2246; the context of the line is unknown, but it is a fair guess that it belongs to Kallimachos' account of the Dryopian migration). Dryope: St. Byz. AevO&nrq n7I6tg neQte T?rV 'EQ,tova. The district generally: Nic. Dam. F. Gr. Hist. go F 30 (speaking of Deiphon- tes son-in-law of Temenos) ;reCTov yE'v v'ronupyag nae'afeltg xevfa Tootlvlovg xat 'Aanvaiov %a' 'Eeuove OV V drdvta; o'aot x41tTe zeto7re; ztxOm' dqT?vCl Tc-v 'Aeydov M2sAoraig xai ai3ToVg, I x&t XL'VOw O'tob XEiVOt5 v'ro Awote'wv 6'avaaTal6v.

3 Pausanias puts the sack of Asine in the generation before the first Messenian War (4. 8. 3; similarly in 2. 36. 4-5, 3. 7. 4 it follows soon after a Spartan invasion of the Argolid in the reign of King Nikandros, father of the King Theopompos of the first Mes- senian War); the Asinaians then come as suppliants to Sparta and fight on the Spartan



428 W. S. BARRETT

calls it a xcod4, Pausanias (2. 36. 4) speaks only of les'tea. The Swedish excavations confirm the literary evidence: after c. 700 B. C. the town was deserted, and it remained deserted until c. 300 B. C., when it was reoccupied by 'fisher- men and peasants' and subsequently had a brief spell of importance as a fortress in the time of the Achaian League (FRODIN and PERSSON, Asine, 437).1 At the time of our ode, therefore, Asine had been uninhabited for over 2oo years.

But when the Argives sacked the town they spared the temple of Apollo Pythaieus. We know of this from Pausanias (2. 36. 5); who also tells us that they buried by its walls a leading Argive who had been killed in the fighting, and that in his own day the temple was 'still 6fjov' (which suggests a ruin). Apart from this there is no explicit reference to the temple in ancient litera- ture; there are nevertheless considerations which suggest that after the sack of the town the temple was not merely left standing but continued in use.

In the first place, the very fact that the temple was spared and a leading Argive buried there suggests that the Argives meant its cult to continue, presumably (the Asinaians being gone and the territory now Argive) under their own control. But there is other evidence than this. WVhen the Argives went to war with the Epidaurians in 419 B. C. they did so on a pretext that the Epidaurians had neglected their religious duties to a temple of Apollo Pythaieus (Th. 5. 53): nCoQa'Et pdV reet ToV %.aTog -roi 'AnoAlAowvog TroV

HviatCj;, 8 dEov dkrayaye lv oiv3 d&eynxov vtEQ Poraqlowv 'EntbavQtot (xvetctl-

rarot 6b -rovi iEeoi iaav 'AeyEsot). This temple has often been thought to be that of Apollo Pythaieus alias Deiradiotes at Argos itself; but if it were, there could be no point in saying xveub'rarot ro3 16QOVj ~xav 'Aeyslot. The temple will certainly have been away from Argos, though presumably in a district under Argive control; and presumably also in a position reasonably accessible from Epidauros as well as from Argos. Further, the fact that Thucydides leaves the site anonymous suggests that it was at a place of no importance except for the temple. With all this Asine fits perfectly; and the identification has been suggested long since (cf. POPPO-STAHL and CLASSEN-

STEUP ad loc., and FARNELL, Cults, 1V. 2I5 n. b).

side in the war; when it is over they are settled by the Spartans in the Messenian Asine (4. I4. 3). The date of the settlement in Messenia can hardly be questioned, but the date of the sack has been doubted: an interval of a generation between exile and resettlement seems long (cf. BUSOLT, Gr. Gesch. 12 603 n. I).

1 To this period belong two inscriptions, one at Epidauros recording a dedication (C. 229-5; I. G. JV2. i. 62I) of statues of Argive tyrants by TO' XotvOv Tcov 'Atvaica)v, one of Hermione (third or second century?; I. G. IVL. 679) recording a renewal of ovyy&vE6a

xat rApa with a' no6Ac TCOv 'Aarvatwv and admitting them to participation in the cere- monies of Demeter. (The latter inscription has usually been considered to refer to the Messenian Asinaians; now that the archeologists have proved a renascence of the Argolic Asine, it seems more natural that it should refer to that.)




And now the evidence of the site. About 6oo yards north-west of the small peninsula on which Asine lay is a hill (Varvouna) about 300 feet high, the highest point in the immediate neighbourhood of Asine. On its summit the Swedes have excavated a building which they identify as 'a temple. . ., probably the one mentioned by Pausanias' (FRODIN and PERSSON, Asine, I5I). In giving the results of their excavations there, FR6DIN and PERSSON themselves draw no conclusions about the period when the temple was in use; but the results seem incompatible with its being derelict between 700 and 300 B. C. The temple itself they appear to date (on the evidence of the finds there) 'to the Archaic period, probably to the 7th century'; they speak of 'Archaic and Hellenistic roof-tiles', describe a few other finds as 'Archaic', and found close to the building 'a vast quantity of sherds (Geometric, Proto-Corinthian, Corinthian)' (op. cit., I49).

All in all, the evidence suggests that after the destruction of Asine the sanctuary of Apollo Pythaieus continued in use as a centre of Apolline worship in the neighbourhood, embracing at any rate the towns of Argos and Epidauros. If therefore our ode appears on internal evidence to have been performed there in the first half of the fifth century B. C., we have no reason to doubt that in fact it was; and the ode will in fact become a further piece of evidence for the continuance of the cult.

III. COMMENTARY

Fragment 22

4. <E'g> 3a-crag ... sasexovata: 'arrive at, turn up at'; without the E5 it would be 'visit' (L. S. III. i).

Between fr. 22 and fr. 4. 3 Herakles is entertained by Keyx, defeats the Dryopes, and dedicates them at Delphi. All this will occupy either i6 cola (end of epode plus strophe) or 46 (end of epode, a complete triad, strophe).

Fragment 4

-I. U -u u ]t-a Huvco[ u- - would also be possible. If ]rd -c , then Hfvfko[ is likely to be trisyllabic (Hv#w[vog, Hvfw[va-

or the like): the lex Maasiana is never infringed by Bacchylides in the position. . . C'e (see p. 442 n. 3).

3-4. Apollo's instructions to Herakles. The supplements v[iOV (EDMONDS) and ['A2jlqn va4] are I think inevitable. The infringement of the lex Maasiana in 3 (11 v '-. . .) is venial; see p. 442 n. 3.

5. The removal of the Dryopes from Delphi. At the end, either Hao[vaahaa

(-6bog) 'the region of Parnassos' or nae[(a) c. gen., e. g. nap' o' 9aAovi (the position of rc as in io. 44 E'' E'Qyotr'v s xat a4 flooiv ayeiAat;). The former



430 W. S. BARRETT

alternative is obviously attractive, but I am not certain that Bacchylides would have formed such a noun from the name of a mountain (Th. 5. 64. 3 has Sq'OeSa0setov -rz Matva2dag, but Mainalia, the territory of the MatvaALtot, had a political existence); if Parnassos was to be mentioned I should rather have expected something like Sm vaov ms Haevacaoi f' Y ag.

-7. The settlement of the Dryopes in Asine. The Xciea is that of Asine (or a larger district containing it: the Argolid or the like). ]tb is presumably 6' preceded by a dative adjective defining or describing the xwdea; the alternative, that it should be rd]tlt', seems to me impossible (the deictic 6de has no place in the middle of the mythical narrative).

7-8. Herakles marks the Asinaian frontier by twisting an olive or olives. The evidence for this is in Pausanias, 2. 28. 2 (following his account of the Epidaurian Asklepieion): 6s Tro'deog advtovirt To Ko'evqov gcTzt xaY o'b66v OT=rr14g xaAovySvrqg satag qvTo'v, aitTov ToV 7V8Qtayayo'vTog Tt X?etl 'cHea-

XAEovs e;'g To6Tro Td aXNj,ta sl 6be xac 'Aqrvacotg TO tg ?V Tit 'AeyoAtt Ut9rj%ev

OeOV TOzTOV, Ov3 av bytys elbe7v, el j 6Q ahvaaTaiTov ySvoUvn <Tvg>

roeag Tod cap gr U OlOV TS TroJv 6ewv ~esves?v. It appears from this that He- rakles was said (a) to have twisted a certain olive near Mount Koryphon, in the mountains between Epidauros and Asine, (b) to have marked the Asinaian frontier at some place or places with an olive; the twisted olive of (a) may or may not have been an olive of (b) (Pausanias gives no opinion, on the ground that here as elsewhere the limits of Asinaian territory are no longer known1).

First of all, there can be no doubt that sZat'ag in Bacchylides is the olive or olives with which Herakles was said to have marked the Asinaian frontier. Secondly, Pausanias' TQPnTrq eAata does not necessarily imply that the olives in the frontier legend were traditionally are8niTal; but since we have ]e8tpaq in our text, the supplement T]e4pag seems very nearly (though not quite) inevitable. Finally, Pausanias gives no indication whether Herakles marked the frontier with an olive at one place or at more (the yqbs' STSeot& clause would fit well with the latter assumption, but does not require it); s'iatag therefore may be either gen. sing. or acc. plur.

3-8. I have dealt with some of the detail of these lines, but I have left the real difficulties untouched. They centre on line 7: this as it stands is reconcil- able with the metre (- u ---] Xta vrv9vAA- |), but I can see no way of making it give acceptable sense.

1 This (which requires FACIUS' <r-g>) is surely the meaning. Editors normally take it as a purely general statement about the uncertainty of the frontiers of any xci6ea avac-raTog (FRAZER 'for when a country has been depopulated it is no longer possible to ascertain the exact boundaries'; so HITZIG-BLIOMNER and others whom they cite); I doubt whether Pausanias would have said that in these words (juq& fEQCan- seems to me natural only of other points on the same frontier) or indeed at all (for it is false: only when a country has been dvdaTaTog for a long time are its frontiers forgotten).



Bacchylides, Asine, and Apollo Pythaieus 43I

(a) I can articulate the latter part only as Tav OAn' ? [- |. This gives a relative clause raiv qAA' o. [- |- u- or-]epag Raiag, and of this I can make nothing: the sense 'which he bounded by twisting an olive-tree' might suit, but I cannot see how it could be achieved (in particular, qv'Ra !Aalag is 'olive foliage' not 'leafy olive'), nor if it could be achieved would the sentence 6-8 bear much resemblance to Bacchylides' normal style. The accepted conjecture zav<L>qvXA- (probably -ov or -ov[g) would remove the difficulties, replacing the relative clause and q%vLa by a participial clause and an ornamental epithet for e'at'a;;1 to reconcile it with the metre one would need to change ] %toev to - 'J and to admit a licence (u s) which is rare in Bacchylides' dactyloepitrites2 (only 3. 40 AR-aTTa, 3. 83 ocra, and perhaps I3. 64 xvavFov). I have thought of ]Xtw' eLvZAAov[(q), corrupted as a result of the superscription of -rav to denote a variant Tavvqv2A- (much the same thing seems to have happened in Stobaios' text of line 28: see below); but this is mere speculation.

(b) At the beginning of 7, ].taev will be an aorist indicative and its subject will be the same as that of azQevag, i. e. Herakles; the natural thing will be to construe it with 6, ]t 6' Evt xcoJa [-a-- -]%tev, and to look for a sense such as 'he settled them in Asine' (cf. Et. gen. [s. v. 'Aatvsig] 'HeaxAtg

TrOvg Jevonag . .. Tv ri.tA He VV{)at Iue cotytasv; similarly sch. Ap. Rh. I.

I2I2-I9). But in the first place I can see no possibilities for ]Xtcrev other than

r]xtev and zdXtorev, and neither is obviously suitable (nor can I see an alternative to ]X: C)0(l)%tov seems to be quite incompatible with the traces); in the second place there is very little room for five syllables at the beginning of the line. One might just find room for ]t 6' evt Xoea<t> ['Adlag &vMXtoa', 8viqn5A2ov[g TA.: but &VmTUXI' is a verb of the historians, and a series of twisted olives round a frontier is not a reX?og. Since there is already reason to find corruption in the line, it is hazardous to speculate about the solution of its difficulties.

(c) The remaining problem centres on line 5. At first sight I should expect this to give the content of Apollo's instructions of 3-4, e. g. zsivovg] ZeAevacv

OoZflog ['A2xju vag] roAsMat'vE-rov v[iov arsAA8v] E'x vaov 2LA. But if 6-7

belong to the narrative of Herakles' actions, two difficulties arise. First, if Apollo is subject of 3-5 and Herakles of 6-7 we expect a pronoun to mark the change of subject; but I can see no way to work a pronoun in. Secondly, as Professor MAAS has pointed out to me, it would be remarkable if the oracle

1 Tavv vIao0 aia Od. I3. I02 (Cf. 23. I90). - Here laVV- G.-H., TraV>- MAAS;

cf. Taviqv9Aob B. II.55, Tavi5Pveog 3.60, 5.59 (dissimilation of v?). 2 Nor is it common in Pindar's: cf. SNELL, Pindari Carmina, p. 313. It is perhaps

worth remarking that Bacchvlides' instances occur in two poems which also admit the responsion u with unusual freedom: see p. 442 n. 3.

3 For the infinitive in -Ev cf. I7. 4I, 88, I9. 25. These are Bacchylides' only examples (I exclude I6. i8 tv'ev flaev-); it is presumably only coincidence, though an odd one, that they follow WUo,uat, Y.{evacr, X6dAevEa.



432 W. S. BARRETT

(especially in this foundation legend) merely sent the Dryopes away without saying where they were to go (and cf. Paus. 4. 34. 9 dvaytevre 6; le He2ozov- vrcrov Xe 'avrog 'Heax2Es -rovi &soi). One solution of the difficulties would be to continue the oracle into 6 and 7; but (whatever the corruption in 7) I cannot see how to do this if Herakles is to be subject of crQE'Vag in 8, nor would there be room after the oracle for a statement (which I should expect) that Herakles did as he was told. The alternative would be to make the narrative begin with 5, and to supply a pronoun there, e. g. rovg 6' o' y] EM vaovi xat

-a-[ | - eI(e); in that case I should expect the strophe to have contained Apollo's oracle and 3-4 to be its resume, but no likely supplement occurs to me.

9-IO. The Dryopes are now called 'Aatvelg. Cf. Et. gen. (s. v. 'Atmveig)

eiqr1xat yae vrt ' sovs /Jvorag VrevovTag cadO Tcov age8t cvoc

XwewtOV SV Tl H62o80o0VV'a(Tw 4uTeC0cbrV, Zva b6a "4v ;coAv:At2#ztav r& ?vO-

Xovv-cOv e7QyOtvTo TOv xaxoverYEv (cf. sch. Ap. Rh. I. I2I2-I9 a 'va T7l oAALt

TC9VaOV d0ecolnoi ntytl TOfV A7taTetQOV qkOVg =a3'X0VTat)a lta' TO&TO

'Acnve ig av'ToVg c5vo,aucat CJog 1xsTt xaTa To edzTseov artvoaEVovg. Bacchylides must I think intend this same etymology from acitv?7g; there is no room in our text for the noAvn4rpt'a, but resettlement and delimitation would presumably be enough to make them 'harmless'.

'Aactv ig can as it stands only be nom. plur.; the acc. plur. of 'Aatvev'g with the scansion u u - would be 'Aacviag (or possibly 'Aoltv4g).1 The verb (whether -td1ro or -Aeaacw) is singular; with 'Aorvsl4 nom. pl. the construction must be that of e. g. Hdt. 4. 23. 5 ovivoSba 6e cT1 &eTm 'Aeytuzalot. In that case I see no alternative to oivoua 68e' a(p' 'AAaotvEg2 in 9; then perhaps

1 I have no doubt that the forms 'AaovE!g (nom.),-Iag (acc.) are legitimate in Bacchy- lides. Pindar and Bacchylides normally decline -evg with -E- (seldom -X-), and contract

readily (I use the term to include synizesis): -X- I4, -6- uncontracted 35, contracted 30;

whereof in proper names -r- 5, -e- 24 and 24 (over half the instances of -r- belong to the one word flaatAevt, which has -ti- 8, -E- 3 and 5; this may be a reflexion of Homeric prac-

tice, which virtually excludes -e- in appellatives but admits it in certain proper names, or may be due merely to the metrical convenience of forms in flacnAq-). There is a direct

parallel for the nom. 'AarvwE6 at Pi. P. i. 65 Awctetg (-elg EF, -X5 CGH); otherwise

-EE (P. 5. 97 flaaoAs)g, B. 21. 2 Mav-ntv?E) or -,7g (flacrtAieg thrice, aetaTiiEg once;

all Pindar). There is no parallel for the acc. 'Aatnvsag (only adeuaTEa I. 8. 55, pwaarl,a;

P. 3. 94); but this is likely to be mere chance, in view of the frequency with which the

same vowels are contracted in the acc. sing. (-7a 3, -J 7, -ia or - 7). For the orthography of the contracted forms, I should expect in a text of Bacchylides

-ELi (not -f7g) as nom., -iag (not -4g) as acc. (in the sing. we have -&z at B. 13. IOI, I34,

whereas in Pindar -4 N. 4. 27, 8. 26, I. 6. 33, and probably (-4ov MSS.) N. 9. I3; at 0. 13.

21 the MSS. -4a is perhaps rather -ea than -4). In our passage, where there is a play on

the adj. aowlvs, -eig or -iag seems necessary: cf. B. I3. 230 TEQt/EtEI6 , 14. 14 ALyvcAayy6e, 8. 27 ,uyaAox1Aas.

2 Or rather o<d>voyza 69 a],W': ovvo1ua66E] is rather long for the probable space. The

misspelling would be nothing unusual in a lyric text.




Aoutov xa]J)[4]T' (the construction as in E. Hec. I27I-3 Tvflcot o' vojsa tcit X8XA7a8at ... vv6d TaAatav?7g aq1a; cf. also P1. PO1it. 279e, Crat. 385d,

4I9 e). This solution has the disadvantage of requiring two contiguous epicisms,

neither directly paralleled in choral lyric: the metrical lengthening ov'vo,ia and the elision of the dative ofl. They are common enough in Homer (ov'vojza four times, aqn elided 2I times), and there are analogous epicisms in choral lyric (Pindar has o ' 8at, OAv/wz-; Bacchylides has o'veyX0 5. 113, and elides

%esaat i8. 49), so that the supplement remains possible; it must however be regarded with suspicion. The alternative (suggested to me by Mr. LOBEL) is to treat 'Actvei! as acc. and to read xd]2eaa'. This will enable us to treat a(1' as o9pc (where the elision is of course unexceptionable: Pi. P. 5. 39), and will give a reason for the apostrophe (to distinguish xciAaa' Cv from xa&eAraev); it will involve the assumption that the late accusative 'Aatve7g (normal in the xotv') has replaced an original 'Aorvs'ag or -fi-

IO-I5. Melampous comes from Argos to Asine, and founds an altar and Ir4tEvog of Apollo Pythaieus. The greater part of the sentence is plain sailing:

xe6v[Co and MesA d[ovgI (G.-H.) and flco],idv and xa] (BLASS) are inevitable, and there is not much doubt about }A]O' (EDMONDS); the first word of I2

((.).... ]g or perhaps (.)... .o]g) is most likely a nominative agreeing with

Me2Adycovg, and SNELL'S 4udavzt]g is entirely suitable.2 The difficulty comes in II, () ......eg ]4g ' 'A).xCiv -re.[ u - -. This

seems to consist of a dependent clause coextensive with the line; in which case it looks as if - u ]Eg should be a neuter adjective and re.[ - u- - comprise (in whatever order) a neuter noun and a masculine participle. 'AAtxcv is the genitive of 'Atxoi, the inhabitants of the town of 'AA) ig:3 this town is near Hermione, on the coast of the Gulf of Argos near its mouth and about twenty miles south-east of Asine (its inhabitants were quite likely regarded as Dryopes who migrated along with the Asinaians,4 but it need not follow that Bacchylides so treats them here).

1 Or Me'aK[no: that is Pindar's form (P. 4. I26, Pai. 4. 28, the latter guaranteed by the metre).

2 I assume the scansion - <. The word corresponds to the first two syllables of 32

and 40, where Stobaios has the anomalous responsion dedXvav - -nart6io. Bacchylides has the element u u - only once, in the first line of the strophe of I (, u - - D u e); I therefore assume that if the anomaly is to be removed the scansion is - u -, and that if the anomaly is to be accepted is it - that is the norm and & u - that is the licence.

3 The inhabitants as well as the town are 'Altse in literary prose (Xenophon and later), but fourth- and third-century inscriptions at the Epidaurian Asklepieion have

AAtuo'g, 'AAtxoi: I. G. JV2. I. 42. II; 12I. 120; 122. I9, 69 (all 'so-and-so AAtxo,g'); 122.

74, 8o ([Tdg] nAltog Tcov 'A)txcov, [d' no'tL]g a' T6V 'A)tvcov). 4 See above, p. 427 n. 2.

Hermes 82 28



434 W. S. BARRETT

WVhat the clause is about I have no idea. Melampous comes et "Aeyev;, and Halieis is twenty miles the other side of Asine from Argos; the clause cannot therefore merely describe his route (HOFER had suggested something on the lines of re,u[c0'v xs2evov'). If the Halikoi are in some way relevant to the foundation of the sanctuary at Asine, there is nothing to tell us what that way may be; it is possible, I suppose, that they are of themselves irrelevant, and that the line merely explains how Melampous happened to come to Asine while bringing something from them or on his way to bring it.

I4. HInvakEv'g, not Hfvtasv'g, is the original form of the word; it is found in two early Lakonian inscriptions, one assigned to c. 500 (TH. A. ARVANITOPOULOU,

Polemon 3 (I948), I52-4, J. and L. ROBERT, Rev. et. gr. 63 (I950), I58: HvOault) and one to the fifth century (I. G. V. I. 928: Hvaatet). Professor SNELL has drawn my attention to these inscriptions, and suggested that the form be restored here. 2

Eo[4(v) - u v -: presumably an adjective qualifying lcw,uo'v. i6-i8. As far as language goes, one could construe ]aq boi jag with

the preceding sentence, reading ro 6d to start a new one; but this leads, as far as I can see, nowhere. The 't'a would be the source or origin from which the altar and -re'evog derived, and the word would have to refer back to something in the text before it;3 there is nothing in the surviving text, nor I think could II contain anything that would justify the word.

It must therefore go with the following sentence (where -ro' must be read as one word); and the sentence will be xEtv]ag cbt#tag ro' s XQ[ - - u

- -| I 6]xxwg r(taa' 'AnwAAwv I[ 'Aoro]. The supplements are little short of certain. First, - ug: this can only be the noun agreeing with rod'e (the noun might of itself come in the end of i6, but in that case I cannot see anything to do with - u ]q); since it is a place ('va) and one honoured of Apollo and the scene of dy2atat and songs, 6"Cro]g (SNELL) seems inevitable. Then

-]ag: we need an adjective that will serve as a connective; x8tv]ag (BLASS) is entirely suitable and (though tightish) will fit the space, SNELL'S -rogag is less suitable and much too short. Finally 4o']xa?) (BLASS) is obviously the sense required: cf. Pi. P. II. 5 Ahcraveo'v, 8v EreaI2A' rtlUacrE Aoi(lag. The only difficulty is Xo[ - - - -: when the metre was still uncertain a xevao- epithet of Apollo seemed probable, but I can do nothing with xe[va - u - -,

either as one word or as two.4 Perhaps, as Professor FRAENKEL has suggested

1 xepc'ov would have to be a copyist's Atticism: in Bacchylides, as in Pindar, the verb is Taduvco.

2 In Attic H1fatetv; presumably declines like Hiet?atEvg, so that DOBREE and HUDE

will be right in reading Hvatco! in Th. 5. 53 (MSS. mostly He'; IHvatwg a first-hand correction in C). 3 It cannot be a literal root: neither altar nor T611evos is vegetable.

4 The only hope for xe[va- seems to lie in the possibility (suggested to me by Pro- fessor MAAS) that Athenaios has misquoted: one might think e. g. of ltan 6t'natot -

TO6e Xovao9aoreag. But when iLeoeXovrat is of itself blameless I am loath to suspect it




to me, xe[X7at- as an epithet of the )aiog (x.eZqort6o'v,

or a two-word phrase

with Xqauo, xe'civ): a sanctuary of Apollo Pythaieus founded by a

uav-rg can hardly be other than oracular, and we know that the temple of Apollo Pythaieus at Argos was the seat of an active oracle in the third century B. C. (SCHWYZER, Dial. Gr. exempl. epigr. 89; ibid. 89g = VOLLGRAFF, B. C. H. 33, 450ff.) and in the time of Pausanias (2. 24. I: iavretae.. . at xa eg rwyg).

"From that root sprang this precinct, and Apollo gave it honour passing great.' We return from the myth to the present: To-re a'Aaog is the precinct where the ode is being performed. It can only, I think, be the precinct at Asine itself, which has grown from Melampous' original foundation as a plant grows from its root. The alternative, that it should be another d2aog regarded as a foundation from Asine (which would be its 't'a as a man's forbears are his') seems to me impossible: not because we know of no such a12aog2 (where we know so little it is unsafe to argue from our ignorance) nor because of the allusiveness of the language (if the ode were constructed on the common ring- composition pattern, Bacchylides could have described the foundation already, and an allusion would suffice), but because this is no way for a Greek poet to talk about the relationship between two sanctuaries. A modern can call one sanctuary an 'offshoot' or 'branch' or 'Filiale' of another, as though the relationship between the two were direct; a Greek poet will think always of the human agency involved and express the relationship in terms of someone coming from A to found B (as Pythaieus in Telesilla comes from Delphi to Argos,3

1 I am not at all certain whether it would in fact be possible to use the "C4a metaphor

in a case like this-whether, that is, the 'iia could be a separate entity from the offshoot. The metaphor is used nearly always of human descent; but there the family is the entity,

the growing plant, whose branches are the living members and whose roots the forbears. The closest parallel to our passage is Pi. P. 4. 14-I6 qmayt yaeQ T&d' I$ a62'tma'XTOV VTOTe

y6g (= Thera) 'Enrdqoto xo'eav (= Libya) darT&v jiRav v9Vt8vmorsOat YA2qatjt4Q9OTOV

1tok e'v "A,tuwcvog; ye,e9otg. Now the Greek towns of the Cyrenaica (Apollonia, Barke,

Euhesperides, Teucheira) seem all of them to have been in one way or another founded

from Cyrene; and editors usually take 'iCa of Cyrene, airxea of the other towns (cf. schol. 26

Cdocrl(ov QW4av - -riv Kve 'vnv, 8' av'T?) yae xat 'A7oLAwv1a xat T&6xetQa bTiaOiprav). This I think is wrong. The dominion of Arkesilas IV appears to have embraced, in fact or

pretension, all the towns of the Cyrenaica, and Pindar makes a point of speaking of these

towns (Cyrene with the others) as a kind of unity: P. 4. igf. Thera is jeyaaAdv 7roA1wv

eta-rOroAtg, P. 4. 56 the oikist Battos I is bidden by the Pythia va'sact no'LA; agyayscv NeV2oto n2e6; n!OV T4Se#VOg Keovl6a, P. 5. I5f. Arkesilas is paortAeOs ,AeyaAdv no21wv.

In each case the ro')lteg are Cyrene plus the others, and so here are the a'Orea; the e4a, the root with which Libya is planted, is not Cyrene as metropolis of the others but the

original settlement out of which the modern towns (Cyrene herself included) have now

grown. (Wiav so understood is not easily qualified as e2ilartMfleQOTOV, and it may be better to interpret Pindar's MEAEEIMIBPOTON as yeXqatyQoTov.)

2 Except of course at the Messenian Asine; but that is out of the question. 3 See below, p. 439.

28*



436 W. S. BARRETT

Melampous in Bacchylides from Argos to Asine), and this mode of thought admits no shorthand of the 'offshoot' type. '

I8-I9. tv' a&yatat [(.)....]evcr[v[.] xai 1uoALat Aty[. We have emerged from the myth with ro'68e aAao4, and the clause will describe what habitually happens there; cf., in the transition from the myth to the present, Pi. 0. I.

94ff.... ev oiotg EAozTog, tva TaXvT'g roc36iv tlE-raL a'xTa ' lxv'o

OeaaV'ovot, N. 5. 37ff. yacyledv HoerEtcdova xelcratg, og Aiy&afev nort xAEt8rav ta[ua vlkerat 'Iqtyov Ja)wlav, e!v0a vtv ev'fiovEg tiAa aun xaiAdoto float 0980v &exovTat xa a9EtV& yviwv Eetiovrt VeacET. The verb, therefore, (which can only be ]eva[.]) will be not the aorist -evaE but the present -EV(fa. It is I think intransitive: if transitive, the probable sense would be 'honour Apollo' (with e. g. BLASS'S i3yV]Efr[t],2 SNELL's xocu]ye[tl]), but with Apollo there in I7 he could come again only as a pronoun (I cannot believe SNELL'S fhOv at the end of I9), and there is no possible place for vtv (BLASS suggested a V4Uv]eUr[t], but the transition to second person is impossible at this point). The nouns aylatat and M)oA3at are more likely nom. pl. than dat. sing. (the plural is obviously very suitable). If they are, there are not many verbs to which they could both be subject: the obvious sense to look for will be 'flourish' or 'abound', and I think that Bacchylides may have written IV' dyAatat [T' dv0]Eicr[t] xal yo2nat' Ay[etat. (If datives, then e. g. lv' aylat'a [(t)... xat ,uoAdtt Aty[vq4v%yyCwt xoeol; again a verb meaning something like 'abound', but this time dv$-tv will hardly do, and I can think of no alternative.)

20-2I. (.) ..... ]OVE5 d a'va Tr .. .... ]rt. The limits of the sentence are fairly clear. At the end, ]Tt is followed by aiv 68'; unless it is a vocative (which is hardly possible) it must be the last word of its sentence. For the beginning, the alternatives are the beginning of 20 and cd adva: the latter seems to me excluded both by the difficulty of fitting ]ovEg into the -Eial clause and by the abruptness of the transition at J aiva.3 (The words do, I think,

1 The relationship between cities can be expressed directly in genealogical terms (in Pi. Pai. 2. 28ff. the city of Athens is mother of Teos, mother of the Abderite chorus:

,iaTxog ... MaTe'e edg6); but cities are personifiable, and the relationship is expressed

as one between persons. 2 This verb seems to me in any case downright impossible: I cannot believe in dyAatat

as its subject or in dyAadat instrumental with it. 3 The second difficulty would not exist if one accepted a hypothesis of SNELL'S (Hermes

67, ioff.) that the words d a'va introduce a paian within the paian. He points to a 'Prinzip archaischer Chorlieder' by which the myth ends with an account of how in the mythological scene a song of some kind was sung, and then we get an actual song, though when

we get it it is one which belongs not to the mythological but to the present situation-the two situations have as it were fused into one. His instances are (besides a half-parallel in Sappho, 55 D.) Bacch. I7. I24 ff. 'the xovieat raised the o')oAvyw, the WfOeot the paian', and then (ending the poem) the paian 'JaWde, oeoQat Kqthov Teeva taVeig 67ra:e

o'irOlAnOV rA2CO&V TV%Xav'; Timoth. Pers. 2Ioff. 'they raised the paian', and then (2I5-53, ending the poem) a private paian of Timotheos' own; he later adds (cf. Bacch. p. 102)




form an independent sentence; it is I suppose possible that they should be a substantival or adjectival phrase forming or qualifying the subject of -eiat, but this-especially in view of the vocative-seems much less likely.)

The following suppositions seem not improbable: (a) that 20 begins with a connective plus a dactylic word in -oveg; (b) that ]-t is a third plural indicative in -ovrt, probably with a sibilant before the termination (Bacchylides elsewhere has -ovrt unelided only after a sibilant, viz. 5. 22 7TaoaaovTI, I3. 23I

xaev'$OVT; SNELL, Bacch. p. I5*); (c) that the sentence contains some case of the pronoun av' or of its adjective. A possible restoration on these lines might be Tdv a' ]oveg, co ava, TQ[oCqvt'wv cE xoiQOt IXAIdOV]tl. For aluoveg cf. I1. 5. 49 aZ,utova #9i?g, explained by Apollonios as rcan'uova, 81=te&QoV; for xA8-- (-x2sr- B. 6. i6, Pi. 0. i. IIO, P. 9. 9I) cf. Ar. Birds 905, 950 (parody- ing choral lyric), etc. (MSS. generally xlt-, but cf. SCHULZE, Qu. ep. 283ff.); for the synizesis of -tcov cf. B. I7. 39 Kvcoaxwv. The supplement Te[o?vtiwv is not certainly compatible with the papyrus, and is in any case a mere guess; but an ethnic is suitable (cf. 17. I30 Xoeo T Ktcov, also a paian) and Trozen would be geographically apt, and if the traces on the papyrus could be inter- preted as T-e[ the superscript letter could be explained as the remains of a variant spelling ot for o (MSS. regularly have Teoe4-, but it appears from inscriptions that TeoC- is the earlier and original spelling: ERNST MEYER,

R. E. VII A. 6I8-20).

2I. The metre must be av' 6' 62[ u u [, and a prayer for prosperity (or, less probably, a statement 'thou givest prosperity') is the right sense: oA[f (G.-H.) may be taken as certain.

22. The line presumably concludes the prayer begun with ar BE; since 23-40 consist of a description of the blessings of peace, one might conjecture that peace is mentioned or alluded to here in 22.

There are in Bacchylides 23 dactyloepitrite strophes or epodes whose metre is preserved at the end; of these, 2I end in an epitrite sequence of at least e y e (-) (the other two are 8 [monostrophic], ending in D - e -, and 7

Bacch. fr. dub. 6o. 3off. 'everybody raised cries of gladness' and then (ending the poem) 'la ii1'. So of this passage he says (p. io) 'Bakchylides gibt also in seinem eigenen Paian, der einen aitiologischen Mythos erzahlt hat, einen Paian, der in der mythischen Szene gesungen wird': this paian starts at 20 iJ a'va, and has to last till 40, which he considers to be the end of the ode.

This hypothesis must, I think, be rejected. If the songs are sung at TO'E da'aog and described in the present tense, they have nothing to do with the 'mythische Szene' (the 'historic present' is as unknown to Bacchylides as it is to Homer and to Pindar): the myth has ended already, and the songs are what normally happens now, in the fifth century, in the daaog where the ode is being performed. One could avoid this only by dividing to 68' and by completing ]eva[.] as an aorist singular in -EvaE, but I see no hope of a solution along those lines; the habitual -Eifat, supported as it is by the parallels I have adduced, seems to me to be secure.



438 W. S. BARRETT

[monostrophic], ending apparently in e - D -). The present line also, if the reading ].atotoatv[is correct, will consist of epitrites: either (-) - u - ii6itdlv -[ or (-) - u aittoaiv u - [. If ]A.otaOtv[ were read it would still perhaps be possible to restore the line as epitrites, but it would certainly be difficult.

28. ,nertav sVTreixcov Stobaios; BLASS took this to be a conflation of the variants wqe(t)a Tavvwreicxv and yu'et' eVTetXcov. Of these, ,ziQa Tavv-rexcov is much too long for the space in the papyrus; yuij't' ev?reixcwv would fit (if rather loosely). But the papyrus has ]Acov not ]xycov, and It'et' ev,ua]Ac4ov would fit the space exactly. Furthermore a short anceps in the dimeter

lie 'u e - would be unusual (see p. 442 n. 3); ev,uVxAAcov replaces it by a long.

4I-50. It can hardly be doubted that the missing epode was the last. It will presumably have ended with a final invocation of Apollo (MAAS, Hermes 67, 470f.).

IV. THE CULT OF APOLLO PYTHAIEUS AT ASINE

I have dealt already with the direct literary evidence for this cult, but I will briefly repeat it here. There are three items only to be considered. (a) Pau- sanias 2. 36. 5: when in the eighth century the Argives sacked the town they left the temple standing, and buried a leading Argive by its walls. (b) Thucy- dides 5. 53: when in 4I9 the Argives declared war on Epidauros they did so

eOf&aret y'v n8eQ Tof NhaTog goi 'A7r6)Alovoq TofHviat64, Mov d3xayayeZv oVX d=enewov vase flOTaloyicov 'E;wtav' tot (XV0eubTaTol 6 o TO e eoi iajav

'Aeys ot); this temple, I argued, cannot have been at Argos, and was very probably at Asine (I shall assume below that it was in fact there). (c) Our ode: a paian performed at Asine in the lifetime of Bacchylides (say in the first half of the fifth century B. C.).

All that we can say with any certainty is that the cult was as old as the eighth century, that after the sack of Asine it was under Argive control, and that the Epidaurians as well as the Argives participated in it. The state for which our ode was written participated in it, but what that state was we do not know (it may of course have been Argos or Epidauros); my conjecture (on 20-2I) that it was Trozen is a mere guess, and a guess that may not even be consistent with the papyrus.

Nevertheless we can go tentatively a little farther. The evidence is vague and unsatisfactory in the extreme; but such as it is it suggests that the cult at Asine may have been very ancient, perhaps the oldest cult of Apollo Pythai- eus in the Peloponnese, and that it may have been an object of veneration for a number of states in the neighbourhood.

(a) The Argives after destroying Asine in the eighth century not merely spared the sanctuary but continued its cult for three hundred years and more:




this suggests that in the eighth century the sanctuary was especially venerable and of some importance outside Asine itself.

(b) Thucydides sees no need to define the sanctuary more closely than as Toiv 'Ano'AAl)vos TOiY Hvt5'at65; this suggests that he assumed that his readers would know at once which sanctuary he meant, which again suggests that the one he meant may have been better known than any other which he might have meant (such as the one at Argos).

(c) Thucydides says mvetacrarot roi5 t1Q6eoi iaav'Aeye-1ot: the superlative might suggest that there were more than two states concerned in the cult. (Cf. MULLER, Die Dorier, 12. 85 with n. 3: 'Es war ein gemeinsames Heiligtum der Umgegend, doch den Argeiern besonders eigen. Dies geht hervor aus Thukyd. 5. 53 x veQ taro f 7oi iEeoi iaav 'Aeyd1ot.'1)

(d) The cult at Asine existed when its inhabitants were Dryopes, and was taken with them by these Dryopes when they migrated to Messenia. Paus. 4. 34. II xJov leCOV Ta adytc6xara e?t 6)Aot xavra y,vq'yv nnotyl#vot r&V noTe xV

HaQvacal aolatV 6eQVYue'VWV' TOfxO ,a'v yae 'AroAA2ovok; E'crrv aV?oZ- vao', ToTro b,Qv'onog teeovxat aya4,a aexaT-ov ayovcrt lsatsaCTrog aVTCt-rteEriv, nalba Tr'V AeiVo;ra 'Aor6)wvog elvat A4yovreg. Now the Dryopes who settled at Asine lived originally in Central Greece, in the neighbourhood of Delphi, in a district which coincided in part at any rate with the later Doris; they were driven out, in all probability, by the Dorians, who then traditionally settled in Doris for a period before moving south into the Peloponnese. If one can believe that the Pythian cult was established at Delphi before the Dorian invasion, then one might conjecture that the Dryopes (as Pausanias here evidently believes) brought it south with them from Delphi into the Pelo- ponnese.

(e) The Argives claimed that the sanctuary of Apollo Pythaieus on the Larisa at Argos was the oldest: according to the Argive poetess Telesilla it was established by Pythaieus son of Apollo coming from Delphi, and the Argives were the first Greeks to whom he came (Paus. 2. 35. 2 with 2. 24. I);

the Hermioneans, says Pausanias, must have learnt the cult-title from the Argives (2. 35. 2); and now in our ode the sanctuary at Asine is founded by Melampous coming from Argos. This Argive claim is valueless as evidence. The shadowy figure of Pythaieus, known from no other source, suggests a late invention. Argos had physical control of the cult at Asine; nothing is more natural than that she should have sought to invent a de jure basis for that control. For that purpose the obvious means was a legend that made the Argive sanctuary original and the Asinaian one a secondary foundation. The legend could of course have been invented if the Argive sanctuary was in fact the older; but it is no less possible if the Argive sanctuary was the younger.

1 Despite this, MtJLLER misidentified the temple as the Argive one. Of that, more in a moment.



440 W. S. BARRETT

(f) With the legends of Pythaieus and Melampous there goes another, namely the legend of the Asinaians themselves. In part this legend appears to be no more than a reflection of a historical event: the migration of the Dryopes from Central Greece to the Argolid, driven out by the southward- moving Dorians. But in part it is manifestly not historical; and that part can best be explained as an attempt, concomitant with the temple legends, to discredit Asinaian claims to precedence in the cult.

This unhistorical part of the legend consists in an accusation against the Dryopes of impiety towards the Delphic Apollo. Their king (who is variously named) was sacrilegious towards the Delphic temple: Diod. 4. 37. I VIavroq TOi JAVXCwV paartatscg o'davTo9 eg -rTo Etv /JeAq'otg ieeov naqavevo,f7xEvat, [Apollod.] 2. 7. 7. 3 &=EdeVE & (sc. HeaxAf) mal Aaoyo'eav UETa Tov TE-

vcov, flaaoAea Jevo'nwv, E'V 'AnwAAcovog TE/eeVEt 3atvlv'Evov, 15fletyTr?)V o'vTa xat AawdMov av,u,[ayov (the Tc4Evog admittedly is not said to be at Delphi). The Dryopes themselves were brigands (Pherec. F. Gr. Hist. 3 F i9, Et. gen. s. v. 'Acvvea, schol. Ap. Rh. I. I2I2-I9 a), and after their defeat by Herakles were dedicated by him to Apollo at Delphi (Paus. 4. 34. 9; they were then on Apollo's instructions transplanted to Asine to keep them from further mis- chief; see above, p. 432); crime and punishment taken together suggest that the brigandage was practised against travellers going to Delphi, and this suggestion becomes irresistible when one considers that crime and punishment are then precisely paralleled in the case of the Krisaians in the Sacred War of c. 590 B. C. For the crime, cf. schol. Pi. hyp. Pyth. a (p. 2. i8ff. Drachmann) 2oAAa' -rv Ketaaiwov EQyaTo,EvwV Efl 'tToVg eEA2Avag xal =ioavovvrcv TOV5 El r6XQ-

Qlx tov fab6iCovrag, ib. b (p. 3. 7f.) lccTaletxi Ei99k6ot Xedt evot 1E0'VEVOV -roVg

naeapafAAovrag El5 ra -rof Veoi, Aeschin. Ctes. I07 y'vN 7aeavo/Iorara, ot

ee ro EeeOv TrO EV JApoTg xat Ta' ava9ara "nrfpovv (Strab. 9. 3. 4- 4I8, more mildly, znrtxQg h e{A'wovv Tovg ent ro E6eov aetxvov,uEvovg); for the punishment, cf. Aeschin. Ctes. io8 T'V X oeav aVTr6v xat Tnv ar62tv exw0e-

hWavtrag xat avtrovg a'vbea=o6taadevovg ava&thvat rcot 'A6ZAAcovt Trc HvOt"wt xat ir4t 'AeT'ztUt xal A o rt- xa 'A&nvdt Heovotat s't naca?t axEeyat.

This charge against the Asinaians is manifestly a late fabrication. It was, of course, absent from the Asinaians' own account of their origins (Paus. 4. 34. IO, citing the Messenian Asinaians): while admitting the defeat by Herakles they denied the dedication at Delphi and the forced transplantation, and represented themselves as having fled to Eurystheus and been given Asine by him (this same version appears in Diod. 4. 37. 2); evidently they will have denied the brigandage as well. The charge of impiety must therefore have been fabricated by the Argives (by whom else?), and its purpose becomes obvious if one considers it as a concomitant of the Argive claim that their temple is the earliest: the Argives are concerned to prove, by legends both positive and negative, that they and not the Asinaians had the earliest cult of Apollo



Bacchylides, Asine, and Apollo Pythaieus 44I

Pythaieus. They do this while the Asinaian cult, preserved by them, is under their own control. Their purpose, surely, is to establish that they have a right to that control; and that purpose is probable only if the control is of some importance and their right to it uncertain. The legends suggest, I think, that the Asinaian cult embraced a number of states, and that it had at any rate a serious claim to independence of, and perhaps to seniority over, the Argive cult.

This is the evidence, so far as I can discover it, for the age and importance of the cult of Apollo Pythaieus at Asine. Some parts of it are weaker than others, and I do not pretend that any part of it is conclusive; taken together it does, I think, create a presumption that the cult at Asine was an old one, older, not improbably, than the cult at Argos, and that it had an importance which in all likelihood extended beyond the immediately neighbouring states of Argos and Epidauros.

It remains to consider an opinion that has been a commonplace of Greek historians since the time of OTFRIED MULLER: namely, the opinion that the temple of Apollo Pythaieus on the Larisa at Argos was the centre of an ancient religious league embracing, under Argive suzerainty, the cities of the Lot of Temenos. (Cf. MULLER, Die Dorier, J2. I54, 12. 85; then e. g. BUSOLT, Die Lakedaimonier, 82-9o, Griechische Geschichte, 12. 222; MEYER, Geschichte des Altertums, III2. 254. The opinion is rejected by BELOCH, Griechische Ge- schichte, J2. I. 205 n. I.)

For the existence of the league, and for Argive suzerainty, the primary evidence is an incident at the beginning of the fifth century, reported by Hero- dotus (6. 92. 2). In the campaign of Sepeia, Sikyon and Aigina supported Sparta against Argos; Argos, after her defeat, imposed a fine on them both, and Sikyon actually paid. Now Argos in her defeat had no political authority by which she could exact a fine; this suggests that her authority was grounded in religion, and that she claimed some kind of religious suzerainty over Sikyon and Aigina. If she claimed it over these, presumably she claimed it also over the whole Lot of Temenos. So far, at any rate, the traditional view is sound enough.

But for the belief that the league centred on the temple of Apollo Pythaieus at Argos there is, as far as I can see, no valid evidence at all. For MULLER based his opinion on the passage in Thucydides that we have considered already: the Argive war against Epidauros because of Epidaurian neglect of sacrifices due to Apollo Pythaieus. It is admittedly tempting to combine this incident with the Herodotean one, and to assume that Argive authority in the two incidents rested on the same foundation. But if this combination is valid, the religious centre of the league will be the temple of Apollo Pythaieus mentioned by Thucydides. MULLER, when he made the combination, believed Thucydides' temple to be at Argos; he therefore concluded that the Argive temple was the



442 W. S. BARRETT

centre of the league (and was able to find an additional piece of evidence in the Argive claim that their temple of Apollo Pythaieus was the oldest). But Thucydides' temple, I have maintained, was not at Argos; it was in fact in all probability at Asine. If therefore the combination is valid the religious centre of the league must also have been at Asine;' if the combination is invalid (and it is in fact quite arbitrary) the centre of the league may well have been at Argos, but we have no evidence for connecting Apollo Pythaieus with the league at all. 2 All we have is the Argive claim that their cult of Apollo Pythaieus was the oldest; but that claim, though it makes adequate supporting evidence, of itself leads nowhere.3

Keble College, Oxford W. S. BARRETT

1 This view, or something like it, was advanced by FARNELL (Cults, IV. 2I5 with n. b). But he goes too far: he thinks that Asine was 'the shrine which the Dorians of the Pelo- ponnese elected as the central point of the common worship of the god who had inspired and directed their migration'. He says 'Dorians of the Peloponnese' because of what Diodoros (I2. 78. r) says in describing the origins of the war in 419: 'ALyezol . .. y'aAiaav-

Tre Tok Aace6atlov(otg 6-rt rd OjuaTa o3x dnddoaav T&t 'AtdAA,UVc T@ Hv&Itl'wO ndAqiOV aiYTolg xaTryyesAav. If this were right it would mean that the Lakedaimonians had obli- gations at Asine. But Aame6atpovioLb is a manifest mistake for 'Ern6ave(oLg.

2 Another piece of evidence adduced by BusOLT (Die Lakedaimonier, 84) is bogus: the treaty of 420 made by the Athenians with the Argives, Mantineians, and Eleians, each side on behalf of themselves and their allies, is to be set up by the Argives e'v adyoeat ev roii 'Aa6Acovog r& 6L5 e Cot (Th. 5. 47. i i). This has nothing to do with Apollo Pythaieus: his temple was on the way up to the Larisa (Paus. 2. 24. i); the temple in the ayoea was of Apollo Lykeios (S. El. 6 with schol.; Plut. Pyrrh. 32. 8 with Paus. 2. I9. 7).

3 I have in several places in this paper anticipated the conclusions of a short article on Bacchylides' dactyloepitrites which will appear in a forthcoming fascicle of Hermes. I shall maintain there (a) that except in two 'free' poems (3 and 13) Bacchylides normally admits short anceps only in the position . . . 'oj' e (-) , and avoids it in

I (-) e 'u'. . . (even, as a rule, in dimeters of the form (-) e X e (-) I ); (b) that he does not observe the lex Maasiana with equal rigorousness in all positions (not- ably, in ...' X' e - word-end is never found after ' X ', whether long or short, while in - e '... word-end after '-' is quite common).

ADDENDUM

I must refer here briefly to an article which appeared when my own was already complete: F. M. HEICHELHEIM, 'The Bacchylides Paian in Toronto', Symbolae Osloenses 30, I953, 77ff. This article comprises first a list of new readings of the papyrus (which was examined by H. in Toronto), secondly a few speculations about the poem, with tentative restorations. About the second part I need say nothing; but since the




first part is based on an autopsy, I think it proper to say explicitly that where H.'s statements can be verified from the photographs some of them are certainly inaccurate, and that I therefore consider it unsafe to rely on them where they cannot be so verified.

There are in all six places where H.'s new readings differ significantly from my own;1 I discuss these six below, giving in each case H.'s reading and any comment he makes, then my own comment. In the two cases (2, 20) where I cannot exclude H.'s reading I have modified my own account (pp. 423f.) to include a reference to this discussion.

2. ]ot; 'o is the only possible letter, albeit fragmentary'.-The o itself I cannot verify: the photographs show one speck of ink, and perhaps a second, on the very edge of the papyrus; these do not suggest o, but I cannot tell what abrasion there may be. The following l has a tail descending well below the line; all I would say is that if the letters are ]Ol the tail descends unusually far, whereas the descent is common in the written in ligature with a (but a seems impossible here) and probable also in the similar t written in ligature with e.

7. ]!Xwaev; '-. iS written similarly as in 1. I4, but difficult to read owing to breaks in the papyrus'.-It is not xl; it is not even remotely like xT. The papyrus is undamaged for a little way to the left of the ?, and the right-hand part of the previous letter is perfectly clear. I describe this as 'the right-hand tips as of X or %'; there is the tip of a stroke (very nearly horizontal) level with the top of the t, and below it a good part of a downward- sloping stroke which actually joins the & at a point level with the bottom of the line (the l continues rather lower). It is unquestionable that this second stroke belongs to the letter immediately preceding the t, and that it is quite irreconcilable with any part of T; the >CTL

of XTwE in 14 bears no resemblance whatever to the letters here, and what H. means by his comparison I cannot conceive.

13. ]L; 'not the longish rounding of a 0 as in the same line, too low and not of the right rounding for an apostrophe either, but only the short and not always closed rounding of a e is visible here'.-t in this hand varies a good deal; the surviving trace, though quite unlike the right-hand curve of the 0 in the same line (which bulges towards the bottom), is exactly like that of the ? in 23 (which is smaller and bulges towards the top). The loop of e is everywhere (seven instances) much smaller than the loop one would have to suppose in a e here.

i6. Not v]a or t]a, possibly x]a or y]a; 'a tiny protruding part of the papyrus on the outer left shows that the last of the lost letters on the left had not a straight stroke going down to the right, but left an empty space there'; i. e. if the letter preceding a ended in a vertical stroke, the bottom of that stroke would be visible.-I see no reason to exclude v]a. The spacing of the letters in this text is irregular: v]a would be spaced more loosely (by varying amounts) than in 25, 22 (if that is ]va), 23, i8, but not I think more loosely than in 20 (the spacing in 5 is not accurately verifiable, but looks nearly as loose). H.'s T]a or y]a, on the other hand, do involve a serious difficulty of spacing, and I should judge them to be impossible: the cross-stroke of a T or y ought actually to join the upper part of a following a, but here it would be separated from it by a wide gap.

20. ]0 and ]T both possible.-I cannot from the photographs exclude co, though it would surprise me. But metre does, I think, exclude it (or at least makes it very improbable): we should have to suppose ] wov6g o ava Te[ (or conceivably-- xTA.), i. e. |(-)e u D[ or |(-)e , e[vj ... (the latter longer than a dimeter); but a short anceps in this position would be abnormal (see p. 442 n. 3).

v?g and vog both possible.-A long vertical tear in the papyrus, from i6 to 23, passes to the left of the g, and at this point some papyrus is broken off on its left; all that remains

1 The seven other readings which he gives are these: 3 ]xEA, 4 7[ or T 'slightly more likely than v', 5 mamao[, II 4,[ a[, or ){' 24 ]a, 25 ]A, 29 ]v.



444 RUDOLF SCHOTTLAENDER

of the s iS the upper left-hand edge. This looks more like e than o, but I cannot exclude o. If, as seems likely, the two edges of the papyrus actually join above and below the letter (as they are now joined, though on my earlier photograph there is a gap), I should have expected part of an o to come on the right of the tear; I find this difficult not so much because there is nothing visible there (this might be due to abrasion, which I cannot judge) as because the spacing of og would then be unusually close.

W. S. B.

KYNISIERT EPIKUR?

Das dritte Stuick in Epikurs )>Katechismus(( harrt immer noch der be- friedigenden Deutung. 0. GIGON in seiner kommentierten tYbersetzungl schlagt fiir den Text: PQOeg rof j?yE{0ovg rCov '6ov6ov q' navrog rovi dAyoi3vrog V&E- 4a' ecrg. 6'(ov 3'a5v rT t5O'ju vov &6vfi, xai' 6v xeO'vov J, ov3x 9'ort ro adAyoUv i Avro,Uevov i'7 ro VVa,Uvva orov2, die folgende Wiedergabe vor: )#Grenze der GroBe der Lustempfindungen ist die Beseitigung alles Schmerzenden. Wo immer das Lusterzeugende vorhanden ist, da findet sich, solange es gegen- wartig ist, nichts Schmerzendes oder Betriibendes oder beides zusammen.# Aus seiner Anmerkung hierzu wird ersichtlich, daB es hauptsachlich diese Stelle ist, auf die er sich bezieht, wenn er in der Einleitung sagt: ))Die Lust allerdings gilt Epikur nicht als Leidenschaft, da sie fur ihn ... zusammenfallt mit dem Zu- stande schmerzfreier unbewegter Ruhe<( (XII) und: )>Er setzt sie der Schmerz- losigkeit gleich< (XXII) - eine, wie er zugibt, )#uberraschend negative Formeh(, die wir zwar nicht ganz erklaren konnten, die es aber Epikur jedenfalls erlaube, )>den tYbergang zu finden zu dem Ideal asketischer Selbstgenigsamkeit# (XXII) von *geradezu kynischem Charakter<( (II6).

Man kann diese Auslegung nicht entkraften durch den Hinweis auf zahl- reiche Stellen, an denen bei Epikur von positiven Lustgefiihlen die Rede ist. Denn allesDerartige konnte unter das bloBe >Variieren(( (Kyria doxa I8) fallen, also etwas Entbehrliches, ethisch Indifferentes sein. Die Frage ist, ob die Positivitat der Lust nach Epikur eine wesentliche Voraussetzung jeder ethischen Telosformel ist. Und die Beantwortung dieser Frage hangt eben von der Interpretation der dritten Katechismussentenz ab.

Epikurs Vorliebe fur die Partizipien im Neutrum laBt sich nicht allein aus einer schriftstellerischen Manier erklaren, sondem entspringt einem dringenden terminologischen Bedulrfnis. Zwischen dem angenehmen oder unangenehmen

1 Epikur. Von der Vberwindung der Furcht. Zurich 1949. 2 Text nach C. DIANO, Epicuri Ethica, Florenz 1946.



Documents

Apollo Pythaieus