No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
V Fragments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 March 2016
Extract
We have lost much more early hexameter poetry than we have intact. We possess a certain amount of information about the lost poems, and even quotations from them, but only in a minority of cases: for the most part, we do not possess any fragments of their text. In several cases where a poem is attested by only a single source, we cannot even be certain that it really existed.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2016
References
1 For an overview of best practice in critical editions of fragmentary poems, see M. L. West 1973b: 95–7.
2 See p. 14 n. 41.
3 A few papyri have been found that contain new testimonia and quotations of Cyclic epics: Aethiopis fr. 2 (see also fr. 1 with M. L. West's note, 2003a: 115 n. 21; for detailed discussion see M. L. West 2001: 283–5); New Jacoby 18 F 1–2, a mythographic text (F 1=Little Il. arg. 2 Bernabé); two references in Philodemus’ works (Alcmaeonis fr. 7, Cypria fr. 2); and, recently discovered, p.Oxy. 5094, a reference to the Cypria in connection with the grammarian Demetrius of Scepsis and with one Dymas (probably Hecuba's father).
4 See also pp. 25–6 on the loss of the Cycle. The papyrus that contains Little Il. fr. dub. 32 Bernabé is probably too late to be Cyclic.
5 See M. L. West 1973b: 77–98 for a detailed guide to the standard conventions.
6 See especially ps.-Apollod. Bibl. 3.9.2 (though there the winning suitor's name is Melanion).
7 For the conjectural connection see Most 2007: 109, bottom; cf. M. L. West 1985: 67.
8 See Hirschberger 2004: 458–9; D'Alessio 2005: 213–16.
9 See further Davies 2001: 80–1; Burgess 2001: 142–3; Marks 2010: 10. Davies 2001: 82–3 disputes the attribution of fr. 3 (=fr. 9 Davies) to the Underworld episode. Burgess thinks that the omission of the episode in Proclus’ summary may be a result of a Hellenistic edition that systematically cropped overlapping epics; we shall revisit this disputed theory in chapter VI.
10 M. L. West 2003b: 26–31. Faulkner 2011b: 10 outlines reasons for doubting the early dating of the papyrus text.
11 See Cameron 2004 for a general guide to Roman-era mythography.
12 West has his opponents in this: see Davies 1986: 100.
13 Fab. 90–127. See Smith and Trzaskoma 2007: xlii–xliv on pseudo-Hyginus’ authorship and date (both are unknown).
14 Conon: New Jacoby 26 (Phot. Myr. cod. 186, 130.ii.24–142.ii.14). Ptolemy the Quail: Phot. Myr. cod. 190, 146.i.40–153.ii.29.
15 Dictys is best known through the ‘Latin Dictys’, translated from the lost Greek original by L. Septimius in the third or fourth century ce; the standard edition is Eisenhut 1973. However, several other independent witnesses are also available. The original was written sometime between 66 ce and c.150 ce (Gainsford 2012b: 59–60).
16 Conon, New Jacoby 26 F 1 §34 (Phot. Myr. cod. 186, 136.ii.36–137.i.26). M. L. West 2003a: 132–3 n. 40 gives a summary (including explanatory comments not in Photius’ text).
17 Phot. Myr. cod. 190, 151.ii.57–152.i.1.
18 Il. 24.358–676, 6.399–403, 6.466–83, 24.723–39.
19 Aethiopis test. 11 Bernabé (omitted by Davies 1988 and M. L. West 2003a, presumably because an explicit attribution is lacking). Kopff 1983 forcefully argues that the triptych reflects the Amazonian part of the epic faithfully; see Burgess 2001: 140–1 for further discussion of the cups’ validity as evidence.
20 Weitzmann 1959: 42–7.
21 See pp. 120–2.
22 Philostr. Her. 51.1–4.
23 Sen. Tro. 938–44. For Medea see Ibycus fr. 291, Simonides fr. 558 PMG.
24 Romance: Fab. 110; death of Achilles: Fab. 107. In the latter there is no mention of Memnon; Apollo assumes the guise of Paris and kills Achilles, echoing his assumption of Agenor's identity to deceive Achilles in Il. 21.595–22.24.
25 Latin Dictys 3.20–7; cf. Malalas 5.24–5 Thurn, Cedrenus 224.4–225.3 (each of these texts is derived, at least semi-independently, from the lost Greek Dictys).
26 Hecuba's transformation in the Chersonese, an aetiology for the placename Kynossema (‘dog's grave’), appears as early as Eur. Hec. 1265–74; cf. Thuc. 8.104.5. But only in pseudo-Hyginus and Dictys is this aetiology combined with the story of her being awarded as captive to Odysseus: see ps.-Hyg. Fab. 111; Dictys, witnessed in p.Oxy. 4944 lines 9–21, Cedrenus 232.11–16, Suda κ.2722, and the ‘Odyssey hypothesis’ (Dindorf 1855: 4, lines 4–9). The parallel is not apparent in the Latin Dictys (5.15) because of a mistranslation: see Gainsford 2012b: 78. In ps.-Apollod. epit. 5.24 it is Helenus, not Odysseus, who takes Hecuba to the Chersonese.
27 Weitzmann 1959: 45: following Penthesileia's arrival is a scene of Andromache holding Hector's ashes and being consoled by Paris. The identification of the seated female figure as Andromache is not perfectly certain, and it could in principle be Hecuba (thus Moreno and Stefani 2000: 85); but Andromache is far more likely.
28 Latin Dictys 3.15–4.2. It is also possible that the Iliad is competing against an older version of the ransom with Andromache present: the Iliad is oddly emphatic about Priam's aloneness, as De Jong observes (2012: 168).
29 Bethe 1887: 80–99; the idea appears repeatedly in Bethe's later work.
30 Hartmann 1917: 37–8. The texts are schol. V on Od. 11.134, Sext. Emp. Math. 1.267, and Servius auct. on Aen. 2.44. The Italian setting of the folktale emerges in a further appearance in Ptolemy the Quail, at Phot. Myr. cod. 190, 150.i.12–19 (which also links the story to an ancient textual-critical debate over Od. 11.134). Hartmann 1917: 1–43 serves as an excellent introduction to these texts in the context of mythography generally.
31 Davies 1986: 104–9, 2001: 7; see also Wagner 1892; Severyns 1938–63 vol. 3. Burgess 2001: 25–30 summarizes the debate.
32 Cameron 2004, especially 33–51.