¹ Cf. Schröder, W.A., ‘Immanuel Bekker – der unermüdliche Herausgeber vornehmlich griechischer Texte’, in: Baertschi, A.M. and King, C.G. (edd.), Die modernen Väter der Antike. Die Entwicklung der Altertumswissenschaften an Akademie und Universität im Berlin des 19. Jahrhunderts. Transformationen der Antike, Bd. 3 (Berlin and New York, 2009), 329–68Google Scholar, at 339–40.

² Bekker, I., Theognidis Elegi (Leipzig, 1815)Google Scholar. Athetized by Welcker, F.T., Theognidis Reliquiae (Frankfurt, 1826)Google Scholar, lxxi; Nietzsche, F., ‘Zur Geschichte der Theognideischen Spruchsammlung’, RhM 22 (1867), 161–200Google Scholar, at 181; Couat, A., ‘Le second livre d'élégies attribué à Théognis’, Annales de la Faculté des Lettres de Bordeaux 5 (1883), 257–90Google Scholar, at 270–1, among others.

³ van Groningen, B.A., Théognis. Le premier livre (Amsterdam, 1966)Google Scholar, 3: ‘Je ne parviens pas à m'intéresser à ces fades épigrammes pédérotiques.’

⁴ Noteworthy are Couat (n. 2); A. Corsenn, Quaestiones Theognideae, in Programm des Progymnasiums und der höheren Bürgerschule zu Geestemünde. Ostern 1887 (Leipzig, 1887); Frese, H., Quae ratio intercedat inter librum Theognideorum primum et posteriorem (Kiel, 1895)Google Scholar and, above all, Vetta, M., Teognide, Elegie, libro II (Rome, 1980).Google Scholar

⁵ Thgn. 1253–4 have, however, independently been handed down as Solon's (Hermias; Plato: ὁ ποιητής; Pseudo-Lucian: ἀπόφασις τῶν σοφῶν). On the Mutinensis cf. Ronconi, F., ‘Il Paris. suppl.gr. 388 e Mosé del Brolo da Bergamo’, Italia Medievale e Umanistica 47 (2006), 1–27.Google Scholar

⁶ The text is presented here as it appears in the manuscript, with the exception of accentuation (disputed in the case of πάρα/παρὰ; the Mutinensis indicates accents and breathings only occasionally) and the apostrophe separating σ' and ἐδόκουν (introduced by Bekker).

⁷ Except in Garzya, A., Teognide. Elegie (Florence, 1958)Google Scholar and Young, D.C.C., Theognis, Pseudo-Pythagoras, Pseudo-Phocylides, Chares, Anonymi Aulodia, Fragmentum teliambicum (Leipzig, 1971Google Scholar²), ad loc.

⁸ J.H. Hartung, Die Griechischen Elegiker I (Leipzig, 1859), 285. The reason he gives for this deletion – ‘denn diese [δῶρον] ist keineswegs eine schwer zu tragende Last, sondern der Eros [desire] allein ist diese Last (s. v. 1324), wofern nicht die Kypris zu Hilfe kommt und Lösung, d. h. Befriedigung durch Gewährung ihres δῶρον, verschafft’ (δῶρον being ‘eben die Reize welche man in der Beiwohnung genießt’) – is less persuasive. As argued below, Aphrodite's gift can mean desire.

⁹ Young (n. 7), ad loc. seems to attribute this hypothesis to Bekker, but it only makes sense for Hartung's proposal.

¹⁰ Heimsoeth, F., De interpolationibus commentatio, in Index lectionum (Bonn, 1874)Google Scholar, 15. Heimsoeth argues that Aphrodite's gift (which he takes to stand for ‘sex’) cannot possibly be said to be hard to bear.

¹¹ Carrière, J., Théognis. Poèmes élégiaques (Paris, 1948)Google Scholar, 135.

¹² This objection was raised by Vetta (n. 4), 146–7.

¹³ W. Peek, to whom Young (n. 7), ad loc. attributes the emendation without specifying his source.

¹⁴ Kalinka, E., ‘Review’ of Kroll, J., Theognis-Interpretationen, Philologische Wochenschrift 57 (1937), 705–16Google Scholar, at 712 (‘Am wenigsten darf man es einem Gedicht vorwerfen, dass … etwas wiederholt wird, zumal da die alten Griechen und Römer gegen Wiederholungen nicht so überempfindlich waren wie wir’); Young (n. 7), 82; A. Garzya (n. 7), 291; Ercolani, A., ‘Theogn. 1381–1385: una nuova catena simposiale?’, Seminari romani 1 (1998), 231–42Google Scholar, at 232 (‘una intenzionale ripresa del verso precedente’).

¹⁵ Ercolani (n. 14), 235: ‘Capita agli uomini di avere penosissimo peso, se Ciprogenea non scioglie le difficoltà’.

¹⁶ Ercolani (n. 14), 235 n. 17 cites Anac. fr. 29: ἀπό μοι θανεῖν γένοιτ′ as a parallel. But this optative aorist is not only a different form, it also has a somewhat different basic meaning: not ‘it happens to me sometimes’, as Ercolani interprets Thgn. 1384, but ‘it is granted to me, I get to’, implying a desirable success, rather similar to Thgn. 474 (οὐ πάσας νύκτας γίνεται ἁβρὰ παθεῖν) and 639 (Πολλάκι πὰρ' δόξαν τε καὶ ἐλπίδα γίνεται εὖ ῥεῖν ἔργ' ἀνδρῶν; cf. also with nouns instead of infinitives: Thgn. 172, 859, Archil. 131, Mimn. 12.2). In all other cases in the Theognidea, γί-(γ)νεται stands for ‘becomes, turns into, turns out to be’ or simply offers a handy metrical version of ‘is’ (e.g. in Thgn. 699, 986, 1030).

¹⁷ Even Ercolani (n. 14), 239, who defends the transmitted text, calls the repetition ‘piuttosto dura’, excusing it as a shortcoming of extempore composition.

¹⁸ When referring to Aphrodite, ἰοστέφανος is also combined with Κυπρογενής in Thgn. 1304, 1332; elsewhere with Κύπρις (Solon 7.4), Παφία (Anth. Pal. 12.91.6), Κυθέρεια (Hymn. Hom. 6.18), κούρα (Bacchyl. Epin. 3.2). It is always the toponomastic or κούρα which substitutes the goddess' name, not the epithet. In other contexts, ἰοστέφανος is used for the Muses (Thgn. 250, Bacchyl. 5.3, Theoc. Syr. 7), Thetis (Bacchyl. 13.89, Simon. 48.1), and Athens (Pind. Dith. 76.1).

¹⁹ Ercolani (n. 14), 237–8 argues that the asyndeton is characteristic of replies in catene simposiali, as in Thgn. 578, 941–2, or Carm. conv. 21–2 Fabbro, reflecting the habits of colloquial discourse.

²⁰ Among the asyndeta collected by Young (n. 7), 169 are seven cases of sentence break within a verse. Four (Thgn. 190, 612, 1172, 1104) represent a type where the second half of the pentameter contains a gnomic conclusion. In two (Thgn. 1041, 1303), the break comes in a hexameter between an admonition and its justification, which continues into the following verse. Only one case (Thgn. 1104) is similar to our passage in that the break occurs within a pentameter, with the second clause bridging two couplets – although most editors have chosen to supplement the missing particle here. It is clear, however, that asyndeton cannot entirely be ruled out for our passage either (cf. also the repetition of δῶρον with γνώμη in Thgn. 1172, and Smyth, H.W., Greek Grammar (Cambridge, MA, 1956), § 2167d)Google Scholar.

²¹ There is, of course, no limit to hypothetically possible supplements to the line of thought, such as (on the basis of the lacuna as suggested by Bekker) ‘… down to the earth. | The gods give us mortals manifold gifts. But the …’ etc.

²² Forms of Κυπρογενής are also found in Thgn. 1304, 1308, 1323, 1332, 1386; only in one of these cases (Thgn. 1304) in the same position of the pentameter.

²³ It would therefore make sense to reform the conventional line-numbering, which counts Thgn. 1382–3 as two verses.

²⁴ Cf. also Thgn. 250: Μουσάων δῶρα ἰοστεφάνων at the same position of the pentameter.

²⁵ Κυπρογενής is found once in each of Solon and Stesichorus, a dozen texts in all. The two couplets also share the terms ἄνθρωποι and ἔχειν. Moreover, the Theognidea offer no parallel for γίνεται emphatically placed at the beginning of a poem (only once, in Thgn. 609, at the beginning of a verse). The section is therefore treated as a single poem by Diehl, E., Anthologia Lyrica Graeca I.2 (Leipzig, 1949–52³), 86–7Google Scholar; Young (n. 7), 82; West, M., Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati I (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar, 240.

²⁶ This so-called Stichworttheorie was first proposed by Welcker (n. 2), cv, then famously defended by Nietzsche (n. 2). Cf. Selle, H., Theognis und die Theognidea (Berlin and New York, 2008), 165–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ A meaning attested since Il. 3.54 describing Paris.

²⁸ Cf. Vetta (n. 4), 108 (‘Non credo che l'immagine usuale δῶρον Κυπρογενοῦς rinvii qui alla bellezza giovanile, com’è sicuro al v. 1304 … ma semplicemente ad ἔρως, come di nuovo al v. 1383'), who paraphrases Thgn. 1332 f. ‘quando sarai diventato a tua volta erastes’.

²⁹ It cannot reasonably be argued that the plural δῶρα as reconstructed by Peek would include both aspects of love. The parallel Thgn. 1293 shows that δῶρα is a poetic plural. A conscious reflection of the multiplicity of the ‘gifts of Aphrodite’ referred to in elegiac cliché cannot be expected in a poem.

³⁰ Similarly Vetta (n. 4), 147: δῶρον Κυπρογενοῦς means ‘bellezza’ in Thgn. 1381 and ἔργα in Thgn. 1383. Differently Welcker (n. 2), 146: ‘δῶρον Κυπρογενοῦς sensu accipiendum est impurae huic Musae congruo’.

³¹ The two couplets are also separated by Garzya (n. 14) and Vetta (n. 4), 147 (‘A parte il Satzbeginn a metà pentametro, che è tendenzialmente evitato … non appare alcun plausibile legame di senso tra le due parti dell'elegia’).

³² This corruption would have been more likely if the antigraph was already in minuscule (with an ει ligature resembling ω, and ς resembling ν with a left leg reaching down).

³³ Φέρειν in Thgn. 1322 and ἄχθος in Thgn. 1385 also belong to the same semantic field. Further parallels for the content: Thgn. 1337–8, 1357–8, 1370. The term ἔρως in a similar context occurs also in Thgn. 1322, 1350, 1354, 1369.

³⁴ This construction would have been mirrored by the text as given by the manuscript, if read from δῶρον Κυπρογενοῦς.

³⁵ I had already offered this suggestion in Selle (n. 26), 425 (with a misprinted ἀνθρώποισιν for ἀνθρώποισι). For a similar use of φιλεῖν as predicative, cf. Thgn. 1094: χαλεπὸν δ' οὐκ ἐθέλοντα φιλεῖν. In this position, abstract nouns and verbs regularly substitute each other. Both types in Thgn. 699: Πλήθει δ' ἀνθρώπων ἀρετὴ μία γίνεται ἥδε, | πλουτεῖν. Abstract noun in Thgn. 218: κρέσσων τοι σοφίη γίνεται ἀτροπίης. Noun with verb as complement in Thgn. 1003: ῞Ηδ' ἀρετή, τόδ' ἄεθλον ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ἄριστον | κάλλιστόν τε φέρειν γίνεται ἀνδρὶ σοφῷ.

³⁶ Cf. Vetta (n. 4), 148. The second meaning has a parallel in Thgn. 1339 (ἐκλέλυμαι δὲ πόθου πρὸς ἐυστεφάνου Κυθερείης), the first in Sappho 1 L–P (Ἀφρόδιτα, … χαλέπαν δὲ λῦσον ἐκ μερίμναν, ὄσσα δέ μοι τέλεσσαι θῦμος ἰμέρρει, τέλεσον), cf. also Thgn. 180. Ercolani (n. 14), 235 suggests an improbably concrete interpretation, based on the manuscript reading: ‘Il suo tentativo è stato infruttuoso e il suo insuccesso è stato determinato da motivi esterni, indipendenti e superiori alle sue possibilità.’

³⁷ ‘Book 2’, however, provides no parallel for ὦ παῖ in this position of the pentameter (the first metron of the hexameter being by far the preferred position). The vocative Κύρνε in ‘Book 1’, on the other hand, frequently follows the main caesura of the pentameter: cf. Thgn. 76, 78, 132, 148, 174, 176, 180, 236 etc.

³⁸ Erotic relationship: Thgn. 1238ab, 1241–2, 1243–4, 1245–6, 1278a–d, 1363–4. That the speaker is always the erastēs (and never the erōmenos) is an inevitable conclusion from the address ὦ παῖ or similar, which is invariably used wherever the addressee is described (excluding only the prayers to Eros in Thgn. 1231–4, and Aphrodite in Thgn. 1323–6, 1386–9).

³⁹ ῏Ηλθες δή, Κλεάριστε, βαθὺν διὰ πόντον ἀνύσσας | ἐνθάδ' ἐπ' οὐδὲν ἔχοντ', ὦ τάλαν, οὐδὲν ἔχων. This could be a jocular welcome address to a new guest.

⁴⁰ Cf. Bowie, E., ‘Early Greek elegy, symposium and public festival’, JHS 106 (1986), 13–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A different view, however, has been taken by West, M., Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus (Berlin and New York, 1974), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Πάρα is used as a postposition as in Il. 19.3 (θεοῦ πάρα δῶρα φέρουσα), cf. Garzya (n. 14), ad loc.; Vetta (n. 4), 147; Ercolani (n. 14), 233. Hudson-Williams, T., The Elegies of Theognis and Other Elegies Included in the Theognidean Sylloge (London, 1910)Google Scholar, ad loc. interprets as παρέχω in tmesi, but no parallel is evident.

⁴² Thus Vetta (n. 4), 147. It is possible that the concept of the boy's ‘charm’ can be stretched far enough to imply ‘success in love’ or, even more specifically, an ‘amorous conquest’ made by virtue of this charm (thus Garzya (n. 14), 158 n. 134: ‘Il concetto è forse che il giovane ha avuto successo in amore, o che si presenta come portatore di un messagio d'amore’), but not one made by the erastēs (pace M. van der Valk, ‘Theognis’, Humanitas [Coimbra] 4–5 [1955/6], 68–140; Ercolani [n. 14], 235, who identifies the δῶρον with the conquered boy).

⁴³ Cf. Aesch. Cho. 527, Hdt. 1.107 (both of a dream), Pl. Phd. 96c. In contrast, in Thgn. 1315 the future infinitive signifies expectation or hope.

⁴⁴ Cf. Thgn. 1361–2, 959–62, 237–54.

⁴⁵ Thgn. 227–32 ~ Sol. 13.71–6, Thgn. 585–90 ~ Sol. 13.65–70, Thgn. 935–8 ~ Tyrt. 12.37–42, Thgn. 1003–6 ~ Tyrt. 12.13–16, Thgn. 1020–2 ~ Mimn. 5.4–6, Thgn. 1278cd = Thgn. 949–50. On this phenomenon cf. Bowie, E., ‘The Theognidea: a step towards a collection of fragments?’ in Most, G. (ed.), Collecting Fragments – Fragmente sammeln (Göttingen, 1997), 53–66; Selle (n. 26), 151–8Google Scholar and 212–26 with further references.

⁴⁶ Ercolani (n. 14), 241: ‘trascrizione estemporanea degli interventi in successione degli ἑταῖροι al simposio’. The sympotic practice was known as δέχεσθαι, cf. Ath. 10.86 = 457e: … τῷ πρώτῳ ἔπος <ἢ> ἰαμβεῖον εἰπόντι τὸ ἐχόμενον ἕκαστον λέγειν καὶ τῷ κεφάλαιον εἰπόντι ἀντειπεῖν τὸ ἑτέρου ποιητοῦ τινος, <ὅτι> εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν εἶπε γνώμην.

⁴⁷ Cf. Selle (n. 26), 148–96.

⁴⁸ Cf. Selle (n. 26), 136–7, 202–3, 221–2.

⁴⁹ Ercolani (n. 14), 234: ‘Non si tratta certo di riprese lessicali isolate, ma di una massa consistente di richiami, iterazioni e insistenze etimologiche che non possono essere semplicisticamente attribuite in toto ad accostamento meccanico in sede di redazione del corpus o a incidente della tradizione.’ Regarding the links in vocabulary quoted by Ercolani, χαλεπός recurs in the same couplet, δίδωμι and ἄνθρωποι are very frequent in the Theognidea, δῶρον in Thgn. 1383 must be considered corrupt. Concerning possible signs of extemporization, the reuse of Κυπρογενής in the same position of the pentameter is formulaic (cf. Thgn. 1304, 1332), while I would regard the repetition of δῶρον (‘piuttosto dura’) as a trace of corruption.

⁵⁰ The reading of τι without accent follows Bekker (n. 2); whether the accent contained in the Mutinensis was added by the first or a second hand, is doubtful. Its position in the first breve of the fifth metron is too weak for an emphatic interrogative pronoun.

⁵¹ For other references to the epilogue function of this poem see Corsenn (n. 4), 25; F. Jacoby, ‘Theognis’, Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse (1931), 90–180, at 164; Hasler, F., Untersuchungen zu Theognis. Zur Gruppenbildung im 1. Theognisbuch (Winterthur, 1959)Google Scholar, 118; Selle (n. 26), 179–80. A comparable later case is Strato's Μοῦσα παιδική – the only book of the Anthology framed by a prologue (12.1) and an epilogue (12.258).

⁵² It seems possible, though not likely (address to deity postponed to third line? repetition of Κυπρογενής?), that Thgn. 1384–9 are to be regarded as a single poem rather than two.

⁵³ Suda θ136: ὅτι μὲν παραινέσεις ἔγραψε Θέογνις· ἀλλ′ ἐν μέσῳ τούτων παρεσπαρμέναι μιαρίαι καὶ παιδικοὶ ἔρωτες καὶ ἄλλα, ὅσα ὁ ἐνάρετος ἀποστρέφεται βίος.

⁵⁴ The author of this theory seems to have been Croiset, A., Histoire de la littérature grecque II (Paris, 1890)Google Scholar, 139, prominently followed by Edmonds, J.M., Elegy and Iambus I (London and Cambridge, MA, 1961 ⁴)Google Scholar, 17; Carrière, J., Théognis de Mégare: Étude sur le recueil élégiaque attribué à ce poète (Paris, 1948)Google Scholar; West (n. 40), 44; Vetta (n. 4), xii–xiii. Rejected by Reitzenstein, R., Epigramm und Skolion (Gießen, 1893)Google Scholar, 54 n. 1; Hudson-Williams (n. 41), 100 and others.

⁵⁵ Pederastic poems in ‘book 1’: 237–54, 371–2, 595–602, 719–28, 959–62, 993–6, 1036–7 (!), 1091–4, 1097–100. Greg. Naz. Carm. mor. 708.12 and other Byzantine authors took offence at the poet's preference for suicide over poverty in Thgn. 175–6. Book 1 also propagates pagan gods and oracles, supports the institutions of aristocracy and slavery, recommends self-interest, deception, glee, vengeance, murder and, above all, drinking and feasting.

⁵⁶ Further on ‘book 2’ cf. Selle (n. 26), 77–9, 116–19, 179–80, 191–3, 389. On the succession of Thgn. 1231–4 and Apollonius 4.445–9 cf. Vetta, M., ‘Ps.-Teognide 1231–34 e Apollonio Rodio’, Rivista di istruzione classica 100 (1972), 283–94Google Scholar; Selle (n. 26), 82–3. A recent discussion of the authorship of these poems is offered by Lear, A., ‘The pederastic elegies and the authorship of the Theognidea’, CQ 61 (2011), 378–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ ‘Book 2’ presents a significantly higher incidence of digamma-induced hiatus, of hiatus in general, of position-making νῦ ἐφελκυστικόν, of muta cum liquida preceded by a breve, and a significantly lower incidence of dispensable definite articles. Cf. Selle (n. 26), 122, 131, 138–9.