Concesiones Viales en el Perú

Peter taught me Papyrology. That was over four decades ago. After graduating in Cambridge in the summer of 1962 I had started research on Aristophanes and was concentrating on Thesmophoriazusae.1 _{Hugh Lloyd-Jones was my} supervisor. We were in the middle of the apocalyptic Cuban Missile Crisis, when Khrushchev thought he could checkmate Kennedy by installing Soviet nuclear warheads in America’s backyard. After those sizzling and scary days I arrived in Oxford in January 1963 to face the coldest and longest winter in living memory. I eventually ended up in the freezing little attic at the top of Killcanon, just above Peter’s rooms. Killcanon may have killed the canons but it didn’t kill me. Aristophanes kept me alive, and so did Menander, and so did Peter with his unique friendship and wonderful teaching. When the Sicyonios miraculously arrived from Paris shortly afterwards,2 _{I was already in my} element, in a dream world of my own, and ever since I’ve felt at home and at ease with early Ptolemaic papyri recovered from mummy cartonnage, pro- vided they are written in verse.3 _{My love affair with Menander is not over yet.} How could it be, when at this very moment we await with eager anticipation what novelties lurk under several layers in a Vatican palimpsest?4 _{And it is no} secret that further snippets from the beginning of Epitrepontes will soon enrich our knowledge of the play, thanks to the expertise of Eric Handley. In April 2000, in a lecture at the Vitelli institute in Florence,5 _{I talked about} the welcome little P.Oxy. 4020 (published by Peter Parsons in 1994), which contains a prose hypothesis of the play and a colourful description of the main characters, including the

γ!ροντα φιλα´ργυρον

Smikrines, who is always counting his pennies. And putting together, in a complicated jigsaw, overlapping scraps from Cairo, Florence, Michigan, and Oxford, I did my best

1 _{Austin and Olson 2004, pp. vii–ix.} 2 _{Blanchard and Bataille 1964.} 3

Austin 1967; Austin and Bastianini 2002. 4

D’Aiuto 2003, 271. 5

to reconstruct in detail the end of Act III and the beginning of Act IV. Here I propose to roam more freely across the board and present the results of new progress on various passages. My warmest thanks go to Eftychia Bathrellou, a Ph.D. student from Greece, who very kindly allowed me to mention some of her bright ideas and readings, and to William Furley of Heidelberg, for generously showing me a draft of his forthcoming edition of the play. The three of us have sometimes independently come up with the same suggestion. I can only hope we are not suffering from collective delusion. Papyrology, as you all know, is a slippery business and forced U-turns are part of the game, as will become clear at the end of my talk.

The fourth-century Membrana Petropolitana was originally discovered by Tischendorf, way back in 1844, in the monastery of St Catherine on Sinai.6 Cobet published the recto in 18767 _{and Jernstedt the verso in 1891,}8 _{but it was} only after the publication of the Cairo codex in 19079 _{that people realized it} contained an early scene of Epitrepontes.10 _{In 1994 Peter Parsons brought into} the picture the tattered and tantalizing scraps of P.Oxy. 4021.11 _{Here, to begin} with, is Arnott’s version of the recto page:12

([μ.) . . . αCνθρωπο9 ο2νον.α.τ τοIτ’1κπλτ[τομαι <γωγ’.Fπ;ρ δ; τοI μεθ#9κε9θ’ο. λ!γω. απι9ται γα´ρ 19θ’Rμοιον τοIτ* γε, εU κα βια´ζεται κοτ#λην τι9 το.βολ[οI 130 4νο#μενο9 πνειν Tαυτ*ν. (Χαιρ.) τοIτ’1γ[( προ9!μενον·οvτο9 1μπε9(ν δια9κ[εδα˜ι τν <ρωτα.τ δ! μοι τοIτο;πα´λιν οUμω[ζ!τω. ([μ.) προ$κα δ; λαβ(ν τα´λαντα τ!τταρ’αργ#ρ[ου 135 ο. τE9 γυναικ9 νεν*μιχ’αFτν οUκ!τ[ην. απ*κοιτ*9 19τι.πορνοβο9κ)ι δ@δεκα τE9 "μ!ρα9 δραχμα`9 δδω9ι. (Χαιρ.) δ@δεκα· π!πυ9]τ’ακριβ)9 οFτο9 τα` πρα´γματα. ([μ.) μην]9 δια[τ]ροφ0ν ανδρ κα πρ9 "μερ)ν -ξ.] 140 (Χαιρ.)εS]λελ[*γ]ι9ται·δ#’Zβολο'9 τE9 "μ!ρα9, Kκαν*]ν τι τ)ι πειν)ντι πρ9 πτι9[α´νη]ν ποτ!. (ΑYβρ.) Χαρ9ι]*9 9[ε]προ9μ!νει,Χαιρ![9τρατε. τ9 Rδ’19]τ δ[], γλυκ#ταθ’; (Χαιρ.)  τE9 [ν#μφη9 πα]τρ.

6 _{Koerte 1938, pp. xvi f.} 7 _{Cobet 1876.} 8

Jernstedt 1891, 204–18, with a handwritten facsimile. A photograph appears as frontispiece in Capps 1910.

9 _{Lefebvre 1907.} 10 _{Van Leeuwen 1908, 16–17; Capps 1910, 34–5.} 11 _{P.Oxy. 4021 (saec. III}p_{) ed. P. J. Parsons (vol. LX, 1994) with pl. IV.} 12 _{Arnott 1979, 396–8.}

(ΑYβρ.) αλλα` τ παθ](ν 9 αθλι*9 τι9 [φιλ*9οφο9

βλ!πει 9κ#θρωφ’]τρι9κακοδ[αμων;]

(Χαιρ., or possibly [μ.) [ψα´λ]τριαν 145

]9αν γυνα$κα [_...]ι

We are plunged at once in medias res. ‘I am not talking about his drunken- ness’, says Smikrines, recriminating against his son-in-law Charisios. ‘What borders on the incredible is that he insists on drinking wine he buys at one obol the half-pint’,

κοτ#λην τι9 το.βολοI

, obviously an exorbitant price, something like fifteen pounds a glass for a top claret. Smikrines then brings up the subject of the all-important dowry, four silver talents, twice the going rate, if you compare the dowries in Aspis (135) and Misoumenos (976). Even the millionaire Kallippides in Dyskolos (844) draws the line at three talents for his daughter. Charisios, however, sleeps away from home and pays a pimp twelve drachmas every day—enough to feed a man for a month and six more days besides. Smikrines’ arithmetic is quite correct: with 6 obols to a drachma, it all adds up to 72 obols, or 2 obols a day for 36 days. Habrotonon now comes out of the house. ‘Who is this, then, sweety?’ she asks Chairestratos, who replies ‘The father of the bride.’ Editors have always printed with approval Wilamowitz’s imaginative supplements in 144–5:13_‘But what’s the matter with him? Why is the poor man looking glum like some sad philosopher?’ To fill the space at the beginning Koerte had substituted

αλλα`

τ

for

τ δ

, as there is room for two extra letters.14 _{He would also have been} wise, I think, to replace

παθ@ν

with

μαθ@ν

to make it clear we are dealing with a mental, not a physical, condition.15 _{Habrotonon’s question remains} unanswered and, as Smikrines is obviously the speaker in what follows, I would much prefer Chairestratos to elaborate with e.g.

δριμ' βλ!π]ων 9 αθλι*9 τι9 φ.[ιλ*9οφο9

ακριβολογε$θ’.

‘Scowling like some sad philosopher, he’s pedantically adding up his sums.’ The round left side of the phi is still clearly visible on the photograph.16 Smikrines, for his part, pays no attention but continues as before:

([μ.) ]τρι9κακοδ[αμων ψα´λ]τριαν

πρ9 τ0ν 1νοικοI]9αν γυνα$κ’ [1πει9α´γε]ι

‘The scoundrel brings in a harp-girl in addition to his wife who lives inside.’17

13

Ap. Koerte 1910, 209–11. 14

Koerte 1938, 11. 15

See Kühner–Gerth ii. 519.

16

For δριμ' βλ!πειν cf. Ar. Ran. 562 and Plat. Rep. 7. 519 a, for ακριβολογε$9θαι ibid. 3. 403 d and Wankel on Dem. 18. 240 (pp. 1060–1). Gow on Theoc. 14. 6 collects references on ascetics.

17 _For 1πει9α´γει _{cf. 695. For} γυνα$κα _{in scriptio plena cf.} <γωγε _{at 128 and} γλυκ#τατε _{at 143}

The verso takes us to the end of Act I. I now switch to Martina’s more recent text, which incorporates the latest scraps from P.Oxy. 4021:18

...[ ]_.[ 150 π.ρο9ε[ ...[ α.ποδου.δ[ ΑYβρ. τ.η..ρ..ικ..[ ]_..[ 9.. ογερω. ε..τω.[_.]_..[ 155 α..ο.[_.]_.κα.ον[_.]_..[ ]_..[ χ[ τη9. ν..[_.]_{.ο.9· ε.}[_..]_..[ΑY]βρο[τον ΑYβρ. †.λ.λ’ο.κ 1καλ..[ ]_.ων[_..]_.[ (?ΑYβρ.) ο.Jτω9. αγαθ*ν τ 9οι γ!νοιτο,μ0 λ!γε αε πο[τε]— 160 Χαι. ο.κ 19 κ*ρακα9;οUμ@ξει μακρα´. [μ. ε:9<ε>ιμι δ’οSν ε:9ω,9αφ)9 τε πυθ*μενο9 αC]π.α.ντα. τ[αI]τα τE9 θυγατρ*9,βουλε#9ομαι Rντινα τ]ρ.*πον πρ9 τοIτον yδη προ9βαλ). (?Χαι.) φρα´9ω.[μ]εν α.τ)ι τοIτον ~κοντ’1νθα´δε; (?ΑYβρ.) φρα´9ωμ]εν. 165 (Χαι.) οiον κναδο9,οUκαν ποε$ ανα´9τα]τον. (ΑYβρ.) πολλα`9 1βουλ*μην αCμα. (Χαι.) πολλα´9;] (ΑYβρ.) μαν μ;ν τ0ν 1φεξE9. (Χαι.) τ0ν 1μν; (ΑYβρ.) τ0ν 9].ν γ’.:ωμεν δεIρο πρ9 Χαρ9ιον. (Χαι.) :ωμ]εν·9 κα μειρακυλλων =χλο9 εU9 τ].ν τ*πον τι9 <ρχεθ’Fποβεβρεγμ!ν.[ων, 170 οi9]μ.[0]νοχλε$ν εdκαιρον ε2ν[α] μο[ι δοκε$.

A few key words can be extracted from the ruins of vv. 150–8. First of all,

αποδο#9

in 153, spoken by Smikrines. He clearly wants Charisios to return the dowry,

αποδο'9 δ

[

; τ0ν προ$κ

’, with

τ0ν προ$κα

picked up by Habrotonon in the next line. This theme runs through the play like a leitmotif:

αποδιδ*τω τ0ν προ$κα

, ‘let him give back the dowry’, he shouts at Chairestratos at 688 and when he finally returns in Act V Onesimos greets him as ‘the grumpy chap, who has come for his dowry and his daughter’,

 χαλεπ*9

,

1π τ0ν προ$κα κα τ0ν θυγατ!ρα

/

~κων

(1079–80). In 155 an apostrophe after the gamma makes one hesitate between

R γε 1ρ)ν

, ‘the lover’, and

 γ!ρων

, ‘the old man’. As Habrotonon is the speaker, a reference to old Smikrines is perhaps more appropriate. There is, in fact,

another intrusive apostrophe after gamma in this papyrus (fr. 3, l. 8

γ

’

ενοιτ.

[

ο

). Smikrines carries on with the imperative

1ρα´τω

, ‘let him love’, or even the present

1ρα˜ι τ)

[

ν

, ‘he loves the . . .’, and the mention, in the next line, of ‘a hundred wineskins’,

α9κο'

[

9

]

Tκατ*ν

, both readings plausibly deciphered by Bathrellou. We should like to know more about this nightly orgy (

τE9 νυ

[

κ

]

τ*9

in 157) but the gaps in the text leave us in the lurch. Was Smikrines saying ‘Let him love a tart and let him drink . . .’,

1ρα´τω

[

πορνιδου κα πιν!τω

? The reading

αε πο

[

τε

] in 160 is extremely problematic. In three successive articles Geoffrey Arnott has recently claimed that it is ‘inescapable’ and even provides us with ‘one little treasure’.19 Habrotonon, according to him, tells Chairestratos

μ0 λ!γε

/ “

αε ποτ

’”, ‘Don’t keep on saying “for ever”.’ ‘This implies’, Arnott maintains, ‘that Chairestratos had not only used that expression in his last remark, but also used it once or more than once earlier in the scene—thus providing a further instance of Menander’s desire to individualize characters by giving them a fondness for particular expressions.’ Unfortunately,

ποτε

is a pseudo-reading and was rightly rejected by Parsons. The papyrus clearly has

αειπον

followed by an upwards sloping dash. We could reasonably postulate that in uncial script a delta has dropped out after alpha and read

αr

<

δ

’>

ε2πον

. There is no reason why

μ0 λ!γε

at the end of 159 should not be used absolutely, as at Misum. 792, Ar. Vesp. 37, Pax 648, in the sense ‘don’t say so’, i.e. ‘keep quiet’. Habrotonon is here begging Chairestratos to keep his mouth shut. But when she proceeds with

αr

<

δ

’>

ε2πον

—‘But what I said . . .’, Chairestratos cuts her short with the curse

ο.κ 19 κ*ρακα9

;

οUμ@ξει μακρα´

, ‘Oh, go to hell. You’ll pay for this, you will’, addressed to Smikrines, as an aside. The rest of the scene is unproblematic, so we may now move on to the beginning of Act II, where we have another splendid soliloquy by Smikrines. This is P.Oxy. 4641, and I give the text as republished three years ago by René Nünlist, after he presented it to the Papyrus Congress in Florence.20

([μ.?) . . ...].ουτ.ν θυγατ!ρ[α ... τ]δ0 λεγ*μενον η[ ...]_{.ε πε9ηι καρτερη9}[- ....]_{.ν τ μ0 παρα` τοI τοι.}[ο#του ...]ν πεπ*ηκε μυρου[9 5 ...]ον γε τ κακ*ν,εU δε9[ει ....]_{. λ!γοντ}’ “α9ωτ*9 εUμ’,ου.[ ....]σ.τα,μεθ#ω,κραιπαλ), [ ..]_.[_..]_{.δουν α.τ)ι φρα´9ω ν}[ π]ε$ραν προ9α´γει.ν,9 νIν α.[ 10 .]θει9 λ!γει το#τN γα´ρ·ε[ 19 _{Arnott 2000, 154; 2004a, 280; 2004b, 46.}

1]ργα´ζετ’·1ρρ)9θαι γα´ρ 1σ.τ..[

α]ρ.γ9 δ’Fγι.α.νων τοI πυρ[!ττοντο9 πολ# = Men. Ep. fr. 6

1]σ.τ.’αθλι@τερο9·διπλα´9ια´ γ.’ [19θει μ]α´την·Uδε$ν βουλ9ομ’α.[τν 15 (Δ.) π]ρο9μενατ’, δελη9 μετα.[ ([υ.) <ρ]ρ.ω.9ο κα τ κατα` 9; πρ*9μ.[εινον μ*νον. π]α.ρ’-να γα´ρ 1.σ.θ’-κα9τον " 9ω.[τηρα. (Δ.) ο]..θ.;.ν λ!γει9 δκαιον.[ΥΡΙ[Κ(Ο[) ο. μα.[ ....]ε. πρ..9 τν δε9π*την. [ 20 ...]ον. κα.τοικε$ δ’1νθα.[δ ...]_.[_.]μ.ε.ν ο.Uκ.ε...ο.υ.[

The precious daughter appears in l. 1 but the accusative has to be elided,

θυγατ!ρ

[’, to fit the metrical pattern. The lack of article before the noun shows that it was perhaps used generally, ‘a daughter’. Before it

το#των

looks plausible and could well refer again to the dowry, and the subject of the sentence is likely to be Charisios, ‘this fellow here thus deprives a daughter of these things’, e.g.

δ δ;]το#των θυγατ!ρ[‘|δ’απο9τερε$,

‘being always, as the saying goes, the slave of his desires’, αε τ]δ0 λεγ*μενον ~[ττων ν π*θων.

At 668–9 Smikrines describes Charisios in very similar terms:

τοIτο δ0 τ

λεγ*μενον

/

~ττων TαυτοI

, ‘to quote the usual phrase, lacking in self- control’. Smikrines then addresses himself, much like Demeas in Samia (356): ‘Don’t listen to him at all, hold out, Smikrines’,

μηδ;ν]9; πε9ηι,καρτ!ρη9[ον,[μικρνη,

as Nünlist well supplemented l. 3. ‘It’s best not to stand any nonsense from such a character’,

λ)ι9τ]ον τ μ0 παρα` τοI τοι[ο#του πρα´γματα

λαβε$]ν

4 αγαθ]ν Nünlist 5 Nünlist

Xenophon has the phrase

πρα´γματα λαμβα´νει

.21 _{Nünlist then prints}

πεπ*ηκε μυρου

[

9

, but it is difficult to see what Charisios could have done to

In document info:eu-repo/semantics/masterthesis Rosemberg, José Carlos (página 16-20)