BMCR 2009.03.38, Andre/ Hurst, Lycophron, Alexandra

Andre/ Hurst (ed.), Lycophron, Alexandra. Collection des universite/s
de France Se/rie grecque.  Paris:  Les Belles Lettres, 2008.  Pp.
xciii, 334.  ISBN 9782251005515.  EUR 55.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Gauthier Liberman, Universite/ Paris Ouest
([email protected])
Word count:  2515 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2009/2009-03-38.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/03/20090338.html
-------------------------------

After many years of neglect, French-speaking scholarship has now
repeatedly[[1]] grappled  with what may be the most illegible  piece of
classical  literature, one which nobody can read without a proper
commentary and which even then makes very difficult  reading. I imagine
some scholars may eventually, after repeated perusal, be able to read
and understand Pindar or Thucydides' Greek without any external help,
but I doubt if that can ever happen with Lycophron's 1474 cryptic
iambic trimeters.

However, there is evidence that this poem was read and explained in
ancient schools, namely Statius' well-known line carmina Battiadae
latebrasque Lycophronis atri (Siluae 5,3,157). Statius tells us that
his father used to explain Lycophron's enigmas to the sons of the Roman
elite. Hurst (p. XLV) wrongly quotes this line as 5,2,157 and fails to
note that atri is a humanistic correction for the only authoritative
manuscript's reading ari, instead of which arti has also been suggested
(Baehrens). The use of both words is quite unusual. Hurst might have
referred to B. Gibson's 2006 commentary on Siluae V, which has a good
note on the passage (see also my forthcoming edition of the Siluae).
Hurst, who has much to say that is interesting about Lycophron's
obscurity, fails to notice that Statius' line is apparently the
earliest testimony to the application of a word meaning "obscure" to
Lycophron or his poem.

The literary part of the introduction, even if it is open to criticism,
seems to me much better than the one dealing with the textual
transmission, which raises serious issues. Hurst convincingly (in my
judgment) argues for only one Lycophron, not two, and he fully
discusses the views that have been suggested on the well-known final
prophecy, reasonably concluding it is not interpolated. He has too
little (I believe) to say on dialects and on metrics. I for one regret
that he prefers (p. XXXVII) the reading <greek>a)/krhs</greek> (which I
think is a mere Perseverationsfehler due to the preceding
<greek>a)rxh=s</greek>), rejects the variant <greek>a)/kras</greek> and
comments on the "jeu sur les sonorite/s" introduced by what he
considers an artificial ionicism. Nothing is proved by the fact that
the phrase <greek>a)/krhs a)p' a)rxh=s</greek> may have become standard
among Byzantine writers (Eustath. Macremb., Christus Patiens). Hurst
prints the transmitted reading <greek>pru/mnhs a)p' a)/kras</greek> l.
515 and <greek>e)c a)/kras skoph=s</greek> l. 714: why not print the
hyperionicism here as well? Is it because there is no variant? Then,
when there is a variant, why not choose the one which is corroborated
by the transmitted reading in 515 and 714? Oddly enough Hurst mentions
Bachmann's correction <greek>a)/krhs</greek> in l. 515 but not in l.
714. Bachmann 1830's policy, criticized by Hermann (Opuscula, V, p.
235-236), is (I believe) utterly wrong but more consistent.

After the chapter on the textual transmission and the editor's
principles there is a short and interesting literary essay the title of
which is "Pourquoi l'Alexandra?" Hurst notes how much the recent
revival of interest in Lycophron's poem is linked to a change of
literary taste. He and others seem to think that Lycophron can be
compared with other purposely obscure poets such as Mallarme/ and
Saint-John Perse. I venture to disagree, for I think Mallarme/ and
Saint-John Perse may be called obscure, but they are poets. Contrary to
what many seem to think nowadays, obscurity by itself doesn't make good
poetry or good literary criticism. We must be aware that Lycophron
wanted his readers to ponder over his enigmas and understand them
intellectually, while Mallarme/ and Saint-John Perse's readers are
supposed to enjoy their poetry without necessarily understanding its
literal meaning. This difference seems to me to be essential. Hurst
might have dwelt more extensively on the comic and scoptic elements in
the poem (for example ll. 90 sq. on Paris are excellent and delightful
scoptic poetry).

Hurst offers on p. XLIII-LV a sketch of the history, viz. the
circulation, of the text. He then goes on to discuss the textual
tradition. Apart from eight papyri, Hurst relies on nearly the same
manuscripts as Scheer, who, in an 1879 paper, discerned two families, A
(XIth c.), B (Xth c.) plus A's copy V (presumably XIth.), and C (A.D.
1282 for the part containing the poem), D (XIIIth c.), E (XIVth c.).
Hurst adds "Scorialensis gr. R I 18" = M, a ms. written  A.D. 1255 and
brought to Hurst's notice by the late Irigoin. Hurst (p. LXXII) says it
clearly belongs to the second family but shares some readings with what
Hurst calls "la cate/gorie des deteriores de Scheer". He uses it in
view of its age and (a strange reason!) its "probable origin". Hurst
only sporadically quotes V and M. The description of the mss., which
unusually follows the exposition of their division into two families,
ends with these reassuring words (p. LXXV): "all the other mss. have
been systematically collated by Antje Kolde. As I said before, no clue
emerged which could have made it possible to challenge Scheer's
classification". On p. XLII n. 1 the reader is informed that Hurst
derives his knowledge of these mss. from a list of 136 rubrics  "of
varying import" established by the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies of Toronto.[[2]] In the same note Hurst writes that a history
of the manuscript tradition would be interesting but is beyond the
scope of this edition for which  "we have been content with collating
the mss. and all the published papyri in order to offer an up-to-date
version of the poem". Nowhere in the introduction or the siglorum index
does Hurst enumerate the despised deteriores, but a few deteriores are
individually mentioned here and there in the apparatus, e.g. the
mysterious "Seld. 17 (s. XIV)" (p. 82, l. 1438), which is quoted for a
good reading.[[3]] Elsewhere Hurst uses the symbol "d", though he
implies that these mss. have been collated. If the deteriores are what
their name means and Hurst's above-mentioned statements imply, how is
it that P. Oxy. 4428 (IIIth. c.) offers a reading,
<greek>keltou</greek> (l. 189), which "supports the reading of the
deteriores" (p. LX)? The truth may be that those deteriores are
recentiores which may have retained wholly or partly true or
traditional readings absent from the few mss. used by Hurst. The same
papyrus confirms a very significant good reading formerly known through
the Etymologicum Magnum, <greek>fa/rwi</greek> (l. 154), to which the
shallow <greek>ta/fwi</greek> has been substituted in the mss. used by
Hurst. The apparatus at l. 154 implies that the reading of the papyrus
originates from the Etymological Magnum!

The page pertaining to the editor's principles (LXXVI) is packed with
contradictions and more or less problematic statements. He says it
would be vain to draw a stemma, "which no former editor has done", but
proceeds with sketching it. After saying that he has relied on
Lycophron's "manner" to establish the text and consequently has not
mechanically followed any of the two families, he informs his reader
that he has attempted to stick to the first family. Though the
deteriores do not fare well with him, he preferred some of their
readings as "more in conformity with Lycophron's poetics".  "I ask (he
says) the reader to consider that the resulting margin of error
probably (!) does not exceed the margin which would result from the
mechanical application of a bias towards one branch of the manuscript
tradition".

A rich apparatus of testimonia has its place above the apparatus
criticus. Both are far from being always clearly and carefully written.
Critical units are not separated when they pertain to the same line
and, since they are packed together, they too often strain the reader's
eyes and his attention. Why do mss. BD not stand in the critical unit
for l. 51? The apparatus of testimonia at l. 97 is very hard to
unravel. The apparatus criticus at l. 1126 attributes to the
unfortunate Hermann the monstrous conjecture <greek>nou/numnon</greek>.
One may wonder a while what "<greek>pepasme/nai</greek> Scheer cf.
<greek>*P</greek>" (l. 1138) means, till one realizes that
<greek>*P</greek>, which should refer to a papyrus, is all too often a
misprint for "P" = antiquior paraphrasis. "478 post 479 poni monuit
Canterus" and "1184 post 1185 collocari monet Canter" are bewildering.
The reading which is printed at l. 1295 is not the one which comes
first in the apparatus. Wilamowitz' conjecture at ll. 1436-1437,
divided into two critical units with the omission of one fundamental
word, is difficult to guess.

Fortunately, the establishment of the text, though not very
satisfactory, is better than one might have expected after reading page
LXXVI. The printed reading at l. 369 is <greek>w(s fqitw=n
qe/mis</greek>, but the truth lies in ms. B, <greek>h( qe/mis
fqitw=n</greek>, which points to <greek>h(\ qe/mis fqitw=n</greek>,
Kinkel's correction, mentioned by Hurst and confirmed by the Homeric
phrase which is first to be found in Il. 9.134. The imperfect (ms. E
and recentior paraphrasis) is necessary at l. 1463. Hurst, who prints
the ugly prodelision <greek>(h 'xerousi/a</greek> at l. 90, keeps the
very problematic article l. 93 without noticing the difficulty of
<greek>triplai=s</greek>, which he translates "des trois belles".
Hermann very attractively substituted to the article the necessary
<greek>qeai=s</greek>, which was lost before the next word beginning
with theta. The article <greek>to/n</greek> is a mere stop-gap. On p.
LXXVI-LXXVII Hurst claims to free his reader from the editor's
arbitrariness through enriching the apparatus with many conjectures:
actually they are too few. Still one must be happy to have them since
they are not so rarely very probable or even certain (the future,
conjectured by Holzinger at l. 1467, deserves to stand in the text).
Lines 365-367 as printed by Hurst are neither Greek nor meaningful and
the note on p. 155 fails to grasp the difficulty:

...<greek>muri/wn te/knwn</greek>
<greek>*(Ella\s stena/cei pa=sa tou\s kenou\s ta/fous</greek>
<greek>ou)k o)stoqh/kais xoira/dwn e)fhme/nous</greek>.

Even if one supposes a lacuna after l. 366, line 367 remains
problematic: "ils ne sont point gisant dans leurs cercueils de re/cifs"
(Hurst) is, even by Lycophron's standards, absurd: one would expect
<greek>ou)k o)stoqh/kais xoira/sin d' e)fhme/nous</greek>. Hurst
attributes the essential <greek>d'</greek> to Bachmann 1830, but I find
it in the text of Meursius 1597, in that of my 1601 copy of Canter's
edition, in the text of Kinkel's 1880 and Scheer's 1881 editions
without anything in the apparatus indicating that it has been added
(nor does Bachmann say he has added it): is it only the vulgate or is
it also the transmitted reading or at least that of Scheer's primary
mss.? Canter translates non urnis sed scopulis insidentia. The reading
<greek>xoira/dwn</greek> (a blatant solecism, if taken with the
participle) is very probably a mistaken anticipation of the same form
l. 373. Lycophron's Alexandra may belong to those classical texts which
can still yield easy corrections: see line 1295:

<greek>e)/xqras de\ purso\n h)=iran h)pei/rois diplai=s</greek>.

Hurst prints Wilamowitz' <greek>h)=ran</greek>, "ils ont leve/ le
flambeau guerrier (?) entre deux continents", but it is clear to me
that what we need is <greek>h(=yan</greek>. The phrase <greek>purso\n
h(=yan</greek>, figurately used, is already found in Pindar, Isthm. 3
(4),61 (43) and illustrated by such Latin parallels as Florus, epit.
3,14,1, primam certaminum facem Gracchus accendit. How can the genitive
stand in the second half of l. 1361? I think the last two words must be
a local dative. Neither (I believe) can the accusative stand with a
verb meaning "sleep in" at l. 1354:

...<greek>e)/nqa *Tufw=nos da/mar</greek>
<greek>keuqmw=nos ai)no/lektron e)ndau/ei muxo/n</greek>.

I suggest <greek>ai)no/lektros e)ndau/ei muxw=i</greek>, "where
Typhon's dreadfully wedded (cf. 820) or dreadfully bedded wife sleeps
in the recess of her hiding place". The correction of the hapax
<greek>e)ndau/ei</greek> into <greek>e)nnai/ei</greek> would solve the
grammatical problem but seems implausible. Hurst's conjecture in l.
1438 implies a strained interpretation of the word
<greek>boutro/fois</greek> and (more importantly) leaves 1436-1437 in a
very problematic condition. The corruption appears to be concentrated
in 1436-1437: line 1438 is very probably immune and Hurst's conjecture
is no progress on former suggestions. Other proposals by Hurst may be
seen at l. 520 (an obvious change of a majuscule into a minuscule,
already in Canter's text), 869 (a barely apt neologism), 1212 (not
better than the transmitted text).

The translation, which is understandably not more elegant than the
difficult Greek, is useful but might have been much more helpful if it
had been more accurate and closer to the original. More or less
essential Greek words are left untranslated (e. g.
<greek>a)/rti</greek> l. 16; <greek>muxou/s</greek> l. 44;
<greek>tarxuqei=san</greek> l. 369; <greek>ai)gi/liy</greek> l. 1325;
<greek>pa/lai</greek> l. 1326; <greek>makra/</greek> l. 1451) or are
mistranslated (e. g. <greek>a)/flasta</greek> "poupe" l. 26; "beaupre/"
with "poupe" for <greek>ko/rumba</greek> l. 295;
<greek>a)rxai=s</greek> "forces" l. 1437, through confusion with
<greek>a)lkai=s</greek>?). The reader who faces the difficult
<greek>e)/luse xrhsmw=n sto/ma</greek> (l. 4) is not helped by the
extremely loose rendering "la^che/ le flot de ses oracles": why not
"freed her mouth from its oracles"? For that seems to be the meaning of
the Greek. Lines 1356-1358 are misconstrued (the first word goes with
the last: they form a nice "Sperrung").

Readers of the translation will find extremely useful the commentary
which runs more than 200 pages and is mainly due to Antje Kolde (cf. p.
85 n. 1): it provides them with almost all the mythological and
literary information they need. Scholars, however, may miss a
commentary adequately dealing with grammatical, lexicological and
textual issues. There is a short bibliography at the end of the
introduction. It is not very accurate: the illustrious K. O. Mueller
becomes C. G. Mueller: his illustrious adversary G. Hermann becomes H.
Hermann and his review of Bachmann's edition is quoted "H. Hermann
(1834), Opuscula, Leipzig". Oddly enough the reader is informed p. XCII
that the abbreviations of Greek authors' names are taken from "le plus
re/cent dictionnaire grec, a\ savoir celui de Franco Montanari,
Vocabolario della lingua Greca, Milano, (Loescher), 1re e/dition 1995,
2e e/dition 2004": what about the DGE? Montanari's dictionary is not
used in France and it cannot be considered a reference work. References
to secondary literature are not always clear or consistent: contrast e.
g. "PCG" with "Austin-Kassel" ("Kassel-Austin" is usual): "Wilam.
Comment. 7 cit." at l. 1436 with "Wilamowitz (1883) 7" at l. 1437. It
seems useless to prefix "L." to every Byzantine lexicon. The book ends
with an index of proper names in French.

However useful the literary introduction, the translation and the
commentary may be, the recensio is clearly insufficient and the
emendatio, the apparatus and even the translation fall short of
expectations. A modern edition of the text with full, clear and
accurate apparatus based on further investigation of the manuscript
tradition and displaying critical acumen is still badly needed: we also
need, after Holzinger's 1895 commentary, a modern one aiming at and
reaching high philological standards. But this book fills a gap in the
Bude/ series and, even if one may still look for a more scholarly
achievement, one may welcome another[[4]] edition of this abstruse poem
from the pen of Hurst, who has been busy with Lycophron for decades and
is one of the few living scholars who can claim to be very conversant
with him.


------------------
Notes:


1.   Hurst mentions a French literary translation by P. Quignard (1971)
and annotated translations by G. Lambin (2005), P. Hummel (2006), C.
Chauvin and Chr. Cusset (2008).

2.   The list is available on http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr
(http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr)  and has 142 items.

3.   Did Hurst mean Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Arch. Seld. B. 18? There is no
Lycophron in Seld. B. 17! Bachmann 1830 (from the collations of J.
Potter) already attributed the above-mentioned reading to a "Seld."
"Cod. Pal. 40" (l. 1199), "Neapolitanus I E 22" (l. 1403), "Auctar. T I
14" (l. 1438) may be worth checking.

4.   The bibliography mentions an Italian edition (1991, with M.
Fusillo and G. Paduano) with translation and notes and one in modern
Greek (2004).