This is kind of a mess. Let me first report how I tackled it when I first translated all (or most) of Sappho. Below is the translation of an extract of the Paracritical note I made back then, the original is in an extra at the bottom. I include it basically to do some of my critical note for the fragment early :). Note that this is fr. 44 in Greek Wikisource numbering, and that GW is called Vikiþíki, þ pronounced as the th in thumb, because that is the Modern Greek pronunciation of the Greek name of Wikisource, Βικιθήκη.

Fr. 44 is reported by Vikiþíki as:

χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων
πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,
καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,
ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας
δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.

while Bibliotheca Augustana reports it thus:

Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων
Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,
τά τοι Μ<ν>ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας
Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.

The Vikiþíki version makes the meter detector go off at full blast, telling me: lacuna of an anceps in l. 4 and out-of-place line at l. 3, looks like a glyconic like the others but it's – –uu u–u–, looks like a ionic a maiore foot plus an a minore with anaclasis [or rather a iambic meter] or a spondee-tribrachus-trochaic meter catalectic. The Bibliotheca Augustana version instead, besides being clearly composed of a triplet of lines (two glyconics and an Aeolic dactylic meter of the kind seen above [fr. 40-41 is Lobel-Page 130-131] with two dactyls between xx and –ux [i.e. xx–uu–uu–ux]) and a glyconic left over from a half-lost triplet, corresponds to the meter of another fragment that passed under my eye, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō [i.e. Lobel-Page 94], reasons due to which I opt for this last version. Let's now translate into prose. Vikiþíki: «Drapes of the (inexistent) purple dye (unfindable perfect participle), and these you will not respect, [he/she] sent them from Phocea, precious gifts of the (inexistent)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inexistent) of the (inexistent) purple dye (unfindable perfect participle), which (neuter) Mnasis sent you from Phocea, doni precious gifts of the (inexistent)». This is thus a very problematic fragment. First of we recover χειρόμακτρα from Vikiþíki. Καγγόνων is after a + in Bibliotheca Augustana, that is the equivalent of something enclosed in cruces, thus an unknown even for Bibliotheca Augustana. Κάγγονος doesn't exist. Supposing a truncation of κατὰ from a κατάγονος, with κατα->κατ->καγ, typically Aeolic, I don't find κατά-γονος, but κατά-γομος, overloaded, totally out-of-context here. Even separating κὰγ from γόνων: "down from the lineages", what the heck would that mean. [Apparently I didn't know Aeolic had γόνα, γόνων as the plural of γόνυ, knee, see below.] The only thing left is to think of an irremediable corruption or of the name of a people of which no news reached us, Κάγγονες, Καγγόνων, the Cangones, and that is what I hypothized. Mnasis must be a queen of that people, probably from Phocea (l. 3). Or maybe a king. Who knows? Καταΰτμενα is also unfindable. It is evident, by the ending -μενα, that it's a medio-passive perfect participle, but the verb is unfindable. Καταΰτω (or deponent -τομαι) doesn't exist. Καταΰσσω (or deponent) doesn't exist. Καταϋτάνω (or deponent) doesn't exist. No verb with a similar root is found in Rocci [the standard Greek dictionary in Italy, at least AFAIK]. A polythematic verb, perhaps? The Greek Word Study Tool of the Perseus Digital library finds nothing, not even if the barytonesis is undone by bringing the accent over to the ending. In another fragment [Lobel-Page 44, perhaps?] the same word pair is found, but the French translation I have of it [no idea where I found it] doesn't match the Greek at all, at least as far as I can make it match. Let's try to eliminate the κατ-. Same result. The only thing left is to eliminate the tau from the root. Thus I find αὔω, to essiccate, Attic αὕω, and καταύω, same meaning. The perfect isn't reported [by Rocci, I assume] for either. Let's try to create it. It could be αὔκα, αὔσμαι. It derives indeed from «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», all words that make me think of a possible lost intervocalic sigma preserved in the past. One must however hypothise a diaeresis from αὔω to ἀΰω, besides the lack of reduplication. Indeed the initial alpha must be short by meter, while reduplication would bring it to an eta or, in Aeolic, to a long alpha while it's short here. The idea is a bit bold, but I can't find anything better. We must however correct ἀΰτμενα to ἀΰσμενα. When I get to the last fragment [probably LP 44, it was the last on Vikiþíki after all], the one with the same two words, I'll see how to behave there. For now this satisfies me. From these observation I obtain the text:

Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,
Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,
Ἄ τοι Μ<ν>ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,
Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.

that is «Drapes of the Cangones, essiccated purple, things which Mnasi sent you from Phocea, precious gifts of the Cangones». This will be very hard to translate with rhymes, because what do I rhyme with Cangones? NB for who hasn't understood, it's Cángoni, not Cangóni. [That is, the stress is on the a, not the o.] I will try, but I fear I won't manage.

Now obviously there is another correction that must be done: χειρόμακτρα->χερρόμακτρα, by dialect. There are clearly two questions:

  1. Is there any chance that my idea of the Cangones people is actually correct? Other options include: κὰγ γόνων, though that is dispelled by Athenaeus, who quotes it saying κόσμον λέγει τῆς κεφαλῆς τὰ χειρόμακτρα or something like that, so these "drapes" (for want of a better term) are supposed to be around the head, suggested by Idk who; κὰκ κομᾶν (Ahrens) or a similar κὰκ κόμων (Seidler); Μαιόνων or Ἰαώνων, as hesitatingly proposed by Lobel; and Edmonds' κὰγ γένυων; between these I'd go for Seidler's idea;
  2. What verb is that "unfindable perfect participle"? I went at great lengths to interpret it, probably misled by thinking πορφύρα was a noun when it could be an adjective, a contracted form of *πορφύραα, Aeolic for πορφύρεα, purple-colored, and ended up changing a letter and having to posit a weird diaeresis. Campbell translates καταΰτμενα as "perfumed", possibly following Theander's "odorata", but what verb could that be? Also, the tradition gives καταυταμεν́ἀτατιμάσεις, at least if Voigt's in-cruces text is to be taken as the tradition text, and apparently καταυταμένα means suspended, or so says Edmonds, so why not καταυτάμενα τὰ Τῖμας? What verb would καταυτάμενα be? Also, what meter did Edmonds have in mind for that line? It looks like –u–u–xuuu–u, maybe trochaic meter, super-duper-catalectic (sorry, don't remember the right prefix, either hyper- or brachy- :) ) trochaic meter, dactyl, catalectic iambic meter? Or maybe the anceps is short and we get –u–x|–u…|uuu|–u…, or trochaic meter, super-catalectic (whatever the other one wasn't :) ) trochaic meter, tribrachus, super-catalectic trochaic meter?
  3. There is also a third question though: disregarding Bergk's (partly due to Seidler and Ahrens too) major amendation to have all glyconics, where did Vikiþíki draw its text? And who proposed safopoemas's text:

χερρόμακτρα δΐ t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ t πορφύρα- t ΚΑΤΑΥΤΑΜΕΝΑΤΑΤΙ t Μ(ν)δσις πέμψ' άπύ φωκάας δώρα τίμια t ΚΑΓΓΟΝΩΝ t

which is presumably:

χερρόμακτρα δὲ †καγγονων†
πορφύρα- †καταυταμενατατι†
Μ(ν)ᾶσις πέμψ' ἀπὺ Φωκάας
δώρα τίμια †καγγονων†

in other words featuring a augmentless aorist? Was it Reinach directly or someone else?

Extras

Italian Paracritical Note extract

Il fr. 44 è riportato da Vikiþíki come

χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων
πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,
καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,
ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας
δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.

mentre Bibliotheca Augustana lo riporta così:

Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων
Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,
τά τοι Μ<ν>ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας
Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.

La versione Vikiþíki fa suonare a tutto spiano il meter detector, che dice: lacuna di ancipite al v. 4 e verso fuori posto al v. 3, sembra un gliconeo come gli altri ma è – –uu u–u–, sembra uno ionico a maiore più uno a minore con anaclasi oppure uno spondeo-tribraco-metro trocaico catalettico. La versione Bibliotheca Augustana invece, oltre ad essere chiaramente composta da una tripletta di versi (due gliconei ed un metro dattilico eoilico del tipo sopra visto con due dattili fra xx e –ux) ed un gliconeo avanzato da una tripletta semidispersa, corrisponde al metro di un altro frammento che mi è passato sott’occhio, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō, ragioni per cui opto per quest’ultima versione. Ora traduciamo in prosa. Vikiþíki: «Drappi dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), e questi non rispetterai, li mandò dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inesistente) dei (inesistente) porpora (part. perf. introvabile), i quali (nt.) Mnasi ha mandato a te dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei (inesistente)». Questo è dunque un frammento molto problematico. Per prima cosa recuperiamo chĕirŏ́maktra da Vikiþíki. Kaġgŏ́nōn è dopo un + in Bibliotheca Augustana, ossia l’equivalente di una cosa racchiusa fra cruces, dunque un’incognita anche per Bibliotheca Augustana. Kaġgŏ́nŏś non esiste. Supponendo un troncamento di katà da un katagŏ́nŏś, con kata>kat>kag, tipico eolico, non trovo kata-gŏ́nŏś, ma katagŏ́mŏś, sovraccarico, completamente acontestuale qui. Anche separare kag da gŏ́nōn non porta a niente: giù dalle stirpi che accidenti sarebbe. L’unica è pensare o ad un’irrimediabile corruzione o ad un nome di popolo di cui non ci è giunta alcuna notizia, Káġgŏnĕś, Kaġgŏ́nōn, i Cangoni, e questo ho ipotizzato io. Mnasi deve essere una regina di quel popolo, probabilmente della Focea (v. 3). O forse un re. Chissà? Kataÿ́tmĕna è anche lei introvabile. È evidente, per la desinenza –mĕna, che si tratta di un part. perf. medio-pass., ma il verbo è introvabile. Kataÿ́tō (o dep. –tŏmai) non esiste. Kataÿ́ssō (o dep.) non esiste. Kataÿtánō (o dep.) non esiste. Nessun verbo con un tema simile si ritrova nel Rocci. Un verbo politematico, forse? Il Greek Word Study Tool della Perseus Digital library non trova niente, neanche se si annulla la baritonesi portando l’accento sulla desinenza. In un altro frammento si trova la medesima coppia di parole, ma la traduzione francese che ne ho non corrisponde al greco per nulla, almeno per quanto riesco a farla corrispondere io. Proviamo ad eliminare il kat-. Stesso risultato. L’unica è eliminare il taỹ del tema. Così trovo aýō, essiccare, att. haýō, e kataýō, stesso senso. Il perfetto non è riportato per nessuno dei due. Proviamo a crearlo. Aýka, aýsmai potrebbe essere. Deriva infatti da «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», tutte parole che fanno pensare ad un possibile sigma intervocalico caduto ma preservatosi nel pf. pass. Bisogna però ipotizzare una dieresi da aýō ad aÿ́ō, oltre alla mancanza di raddoppiamento. Infatti l’álpha iniziale deve essere breve per la metrica, mentre il raddoppiamento lo porterebbe o ad un ẽta o, in eolico, ad un álpha lungo mentre qui è breve. L’idea è un po’ ardita, ma non trovo di meglio. Dobbiamo però correggere aÿ́tmena in aÿ́smena. Quando arriverò all’ultimo frammento, quello colle stesse due parole, vedrò come comportarmi là. Per ora questo mi soddisfa. Da queste osservazioni ottengo il testo:

Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,
Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,
Ἄ τοι Μ<ν>ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,
Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.

ovvero «Drappi dei Cangoni, porpora essiccata, cose che Mnasi ti ha mandato dalla Focea, doni preziosi dei Cangoni». Questo sarà molto duro a tradurre in rima, perché come rimo con Cangoni? NB per chi non avesse capito, si dice Cángoni, non Cangóni. Io proverò, ma temo che non riuscirò.

Voigt critical note

enter image description here

enter image description here

Update

Scratch the Edmonds bit, he corrects the upsilon to a rho and καταρταμένα is from καταίρω. Though the meter is again unclear... So that part stands.

Expanding on the meter, now we have –u–u–uuuu–u, undoing one anaclasis that could become –u–uu–uuu–u, and with one more anaclasis undone that would yield –u–uu–uu–uu, which would fit xx–uu–uu–ux, a glyconic expanded with a dactyl (gl1d if you want), is that possible? Or should I read that as –u–x|–uuuu|–x, or a trochaic meter, another trochaic meter with the second element turned to a tribrachus, and a super-catalectic trochaic meter, making this a weird super-catalectic trimeter (weird because of the tribrachus)? Or something else entirely, maybe?

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.