Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
brill.nl/mnem
An Arcadian Toast (Harmod. FGrH 319 F1)
Alcorac Alonso Déniz
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Filología, Departamento de Filología
Griega, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain
[email protected]
Received: May 2009; accepted: July 2009
Abstract
This paper deals with the transmitted text εὐδειπνιαις and εὐδειπνειας in a fragment of Harmodius of Lepreum (FGrH 319 F1 = Athenaeus 149b and 479c).
Modern editors believe both εὐδειπνιαις and εὐδειπνειας to be a corruption of
the genitive εὐδειπνίας, which is accordingly interpreted as a toast meaning ‘a
good appetite’. The author claims that this view must be rejected on several
grounds. Other conjectures (εὖ δειπνείας, εὖ δείπνειας) are further analyzed
and also discarded. Finally, it is shown that the only satisfactory reading is εὖ
δειπνήαἱς = Att. εὖ δειπνήσαις, ‘may you have a nice dinner’.
Keywords
Harmodius, toast, genitive, optative, Elean, Arcadian
1. Introduction
In a fragment of the work Περὶ τῶν κατὰ Φιγάλειαν νομίμων quoted
by Athenaeus (148f-149a-c = FGrH 319 F1), Harmodius of Lepreum provides an extended account of the public banquets at Phigaleia.1) The author
depicts the μαζῶνες offered to the members of the choruses at the end of
an important civil festival linked to the cult of Dionysus (Jost 1985, 432
1)
This paper is part of the research project HUM2006-13424-C04-01. I thank Julián
Méndez Dosuna and the anonymous Mnemosyne referee for their invaluable comments
and suggestions on an earlier version.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011
DOI: 10.1163/156852511X505042
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
233
and 436-7; Robertson 1992, 245; Wilson 2000, 393 n. 180). Harmodius
goes on describing the organisation of the meal, the role of each of the
participants, the food served and the tableware for use at the celebration.
He also portrays the ritual accompanying the libations (Ath. 149b):
καθαγισάντων δὲ ταῦτα ἐν κεραμέᾳ κοτταβίδι πιεῖν ἑκάστῳ μικρόν, καὶ ὁ
προσφέρων ἂν εἶπεν εὐδειπνιαις.
And when they have offered these things to the gods, then they give everyone a portion [sc. of wine] to drink in a mug made of earthenware, and he
who brings the wine would say ‘εὐδειπνιαις’.
The same text is cited again by Athenaeus (479c) in reference to the
κοτταβίς; this time the manuscript does not read εὐδειπνιαις, but
εὐδειπνειας.
To my knowledge, all scholars admit that both εὐδειπνιαις (149c) and
εὐδειπνειας (479c) are corruptions of the text, and editors have variously
attempted to amend the passage (cf. infra §§5 and 6). But in modern editions of Athenaeus the straightforward correction εὐδειπνίας for
εὐδειπνειας at 479c has prevailed. Dobree (1833, 333) was the first to
explicitly propose this emendation, which he explained as follows: “recte,
ut puto, ed. Cas. εὐδειπνίας, ut ὑγιείας, etc. A good appetite. Vide IV,
149 B.”2)
In spite of his laconic wording, Dobree’s own translation makes clear
that εὐδειπνίας must be understood as the expression of a desire. Most
editors and translators have eventually endorsed this interpretation:
Meineke (1858-1867, IV 71) “recte Dobraeus εὐδειπνίας”, “respondet
nostro «gesegnete Mahlzeit»” (ibid. 223), Gulick (1927-1943) ‘a good
appetite’. Only Kaibel (1887) approved of this proposal with some circumspection. In Olson’s recent edition (2006; 2009) εὐδειπνίας is translated as ‘enjoy your dinner!’ (cf. below n. 8).
2)
Interestingly enough, in Casaubon’s edition we find in 479c εὐδειπνίας. This is most
unexpected, as we will see below (§5).
234
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
2. The Genitive ‘of Toast’
As we have seen (§1), in order to illustrate his own opinion, Dobree draws
a parallel between εὐδειπνίας and the genitive ὑγιείας. He directly alludes
to examples as those under (1) to (5):
(1) καὶ δέξαι τηνδὶ μετανιπτρίδα τῆς Ὑγιείας (Call. Com. fr. 9 K.-A.)
Receive this cup in honour of Good Health
(2) τοῦτον ἐγὼ κρίνω μετανιπτρίδα τῆς Ὑγιείας / πίνειν (Antiph. fr. 147
K.-A.)
I think this man does drink the cup in honour of Good Health
(3) τρεῖς γὰρ μόνους κρατῆρας ἐγκεραννύω / τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσι· τὸν μὲν
ὑγιείας ἕνα, / ὃν πρῶτον ἐκπίνουσι (Eub. fr. 93.1-3 K.-A.)
I mix only three bowls for those who preserve their reason. The first they
drink in honour of Good Health
(4) κἀγώ, φιλτάτη. / μετανιπτρίδ’ αὐτῷ τῆς ὑγιείας ἔγχεον. / (Β.) λαβὲ τῆς
ὑγιείας δὴ σύ. (A.) φέρε, τύχἀγαθῇ (Nicostr. Com. fr. 18.1-3 K.-A.)
And so I will, my dear. But fill him now a cup to Good Health. (Β.) Here,
you, take the cup in honour of Health. (A.) To Good Fortune.
(5) ἐνέσεισε μεστὴν ἴσον ἴσῳ μετανιπτρίδα / μεγάλην, ἐπειπὼν τῆς
Ὑγιείας τοὔνομα (Philetaer. fr. 1 K.-A.)
He raised aloft a full cup, brimful of wine, in equal portions mixed,
repeating all the time Good Health’s name
The genitive in (1) to (5) refers to the ‘good health’, divinized to a certain
point, in honour of which the wine is taken. Because of its peculiarities,
some scholars have coined the name ‘of toast’ for this genitive (Gow 1958,
II 60; Arnott 1996, 182-1). Like ὑγιείας, these so-called toasts can be
proposed in honour of various abstractions, although more frequently the
addressee is a god, a hero or a person.
For all its convenience, the rendering of this genitive ‘of toast’ into English (cf. above τῆς Ὑγιείας, ‘to / in honour of Good Health’) and other
modern languages is somehow misleading. Although raising one’s cup and
repeating the name (of a person, a god, etc.) can be regarded as a universal
practice, both the conceptualization and the syntax differ. While today we
offer our drink to / in honour of someone (e.g. a person, a god) or to / in
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
235
honour of something (e.g. an abstraction like ὑγίεια), Greeks drank someone’s or something’s cup, and accordingly the genitive is used.
The possessive origin of the case (cf. Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950,
124) is clearly shown by epigraphical evidence. From the fourth century
BC onwards we find on various kinds of Greek drinking cups inscriptions
known as γραμματικὰ ἐκπώματα (cf. Ath. 466d). Among these inscriptions, the most repeated are those with the names of the divinities or personified abstractions in honour of which the toast would be made. The
addressees appear for the most part in the genitive: Διὸς Σωτῆρος, Ὑγιείας,
Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος, etc. (for the exact references, cf. Broneer 1954, 63-4;
Edwards 1975, 64-5; Arnott 1997, 761-2; Green and Handley 2001, 360
n. 10). It is not a coincidence that these names are the same as those occurring in toasts transmitted in literary texts (cf. infra §3). In both cases, the
genitive refers to the person, god or abstraction to whom the cup belongs
and whose name the drinkers would repeat as a toast.3)
3. The Genitive ‘of Toast’ in Free Use
Coming back to Ὑγιείας in (1) to (5), this genitive depends on a noun
(μετανιπτρίδα, τὸν κρατῆρα). But the genitive ‘of toast’ may rarely be
found in isolation as an utterance, as is seen in (6) to (8):
(6) ἔγχει καὶ πάλιν εἰπὲ ‘Διοκλέος’ (Call. Epigr. 29.1)
Fill the cup and say again “Diocles”
(7) ἔγχει καὶ πάλιν εἰπέ, πάλιν, πάλιν ‘Ἡλιοδώρας’ (Mel. HE 42 G-P)
Fill the cup and say again, again, again “Heliodora’s”
(8) τῆς δὲ κατὰ τὸν οἶνον εὑρέσεως καὶ δωρεᾶς κεχαρισμένης τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις [. . .] φασὶν ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον, ὅταν ἄκρατος οἶνος ἐπιδιδῶται,
προσεπιλέγειν ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος· ὅταν δὲ μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον διδῶται
κεκραμένος ὕδατι, Διὸς σωτῆρος ἐπιφωνεῖν (D.S. 4.3.4)
Since the discovery of wine and the gift of it to the human beings [. . .], it
is the custom, they say, when unmixed wine is served during a meal to
greet it with words, “To the Good Deity!”. But when the cup is passed
3)
For some Latin imitations, cf. Picard 1910.
236
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
around after the meal diluted with water, the custom is to cry out, “To
Zeus Saviour”
Seemingly, in the Hellenistic banquet—and perhaps before—it was customary when pouring the cup and before drinking to say aloud the name
of the honoured in the genitive as a toast and then repeat it after drinking
(Tarn 1928, 211).
If I am not very much mistaken, Dobree and his followers interpret
εὐδειπνίας in Harmodius’ fragment as a genitive similar to Διοκλέος in
(6), Ἡλιοδώρας in (7), and ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος and Διὸς σωτῆρος in (8).
Dubois (1986, I §177) claims that εὐδειπνίας is probably a genitive of
exclamation (‘bon dîner’).4) But neither εὐδειπνίας nor the other genitives
‘of toast’ in free use can be interpreted in such a way. On the one hand, the
genitive in exclamations is often preceded by interjections or a vocative
and, in the case of nouns, normally accompanied by the article, as we see
in (9) to (14):
(9) Ἄπολλον ἀποτρόπαιε, τοῦ μαντεύματος (Ar. V. 161)
Apollo the Saviour, what a prophecy!
(10) καὶ τίς εἶδε πώποτε / βοῦς κριβανίτας; τῶν ἀλαζονευμάτων (Ar.
Ach. 87)
Who ever saw oxen baked in an oven? What lies!
(11) ὦ μῶρε, τῆς ἀνοίας (Ar. Eq. 350)
You poor fool! What stupidity!
(12) Ἄπολλον, δαιμονίας ὑπερβολῆς (Pl. R. 509c)
O Apollo, what a comble!
(13) αἰαῖ τῶ σκληρῶ μάλα δαίμονος (Theoc. 4.40)
O what a harsh luck!
(14) ὤμοι τῶ πώγωνος (Theoc. 10.40)
O my beard!
4)
Dubois wrongly attributes to Danielsson (1915) the authorship of this interpretation.
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
237
On the other hand, this idiom appears sometimes in association with an
articular infinitive (cf. Mastronarde 2002, 338), as in (15) to (17):
(15) ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐμῆς κάκης / τὸ καὶ προσέσθαι μαλθακοὺς λόγους φρενί
(E. Med. 1051-2)
But, o my weakness, even to admit such tender words into my heart!
(16) τῆς μωρίας, / τὸν Δία νομίζειν ὄντα τηλικουτονί (Ar. Nu. 818-9)
What folly! To believe in Jupiter, as old as you are!
(17) καὶ εἶπε πρὸς αὑτόν· ‘τῆς τύχης, τὸ ἐμὲ νῦν κληθέντα δεῦρο τυχεῖν’
(X. Cyr. 2.2.3-4)
And he said to himself: “Such luck! that I should happen to have been
called here just now!”
We should also mention that the genitive of exclamation is documented
only when complaint, sorrow, annoyance, astonishment or admiration are
concerned. Therefore, it is unlikely that the genitive ‘of toast’ in free use
could be interpreted as a genitive of exclamation.
In fact, ellipsis can easily explain the examples of genitive ‘of toast’ in
free use. This genitive is fundamentally found depending on a noun, like
οἶνος, ἐπίχυσις, πίστωμα, κύαθος, as is shown in (18) to (24):
(18) Μὰ Δί’ ἀλλ’ ἄκρατον οἶνον ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος (Ar. Eq. 85)
No, in the name of Zeus, but a bumper of good unmixed wine in honour of the Good Genius
(19) τρεῖς γὰρ μόνους κρατῆρας ἐγκεραννύω / τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσι· τὸν μὲν
ὑγιείας ἕνα, / ὃν πρῶτον ἐκπίνουσι, τὸν δὲ δεύτερον / ἔρωτος ἡδονῆς
τε, τὸν τρίτον δ’ ὕπνου (Eub. fr. 93.1-4 K.-A.)
I mix only three bowls for those who preserve their reason. The first they
drink in honour of Health; the second, to Love and Lust, the third to
Sleep
(20) ἐνεχεάμην ἄκρατον· “ἔγχει, παιδίον, / κυάθους θεῶν τε καὶ θεαινῶν
μυρίους· / ἔπειτ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις πᾶσι τῆς σεμνῆς θεᾶς / καὶ τοῦ
γλυκυτάτου βασιλέως διμοιρίαν” (Antiph. fr. 81.2-5 K.-A.)
I poured unmixed wine: “Pour, boy, numberless cups to all the gods and
goddesses. Then after all of them twice as much to the great goddess and
the noble king”
238
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
(21) αἰὲν Ἔρωτος / ἀκράτω ἐπεχεῖτο (Theoc. 2.151-2)
He was ever pouring unmixed wine in honour of Love
(22) Ἔγχει Λυσιδίκης κυάθους δέκα, τῆς δὲ ποθεινῆς / Εὐφράντης ἕνα
μοι, λάτρι, δίδου κύαθον (Marc. Arg. AP 5.110.1-2)
Pour ten ladles in honour of Lysidike, and give me one ladle, maid, in
honour of the desirable Euphrante
(23) ὡς οὖν ἐλθόντες εἰς τὸ πίνειν ἐπιχύσεις ἐποιοῦντο νίκης τε Βρούτου
καὶ Ῥωμαίων ἐλευθερίας (Plu. Brut. 24.6)
Accordingly, when they were come to drink, they made libations in
honour of Brutus’ victory and the Liberty of the Romans
(24) ἡδέως ἤκουε τῶν παρὰ πότον ἐπιχύσεις λαμβανόντων Δημητρίου
βασιλέως, Σελεύκου δ’ ἐλεφαντάρχου, Πτολεμαίου δὲ ναυάρχου,
Λυσιμάχου δὲ γαζοφύλακος, Ἀγαθοκλέους δὲ τοῦ Σικελιώτου
νησιάρχου (Plu. Demetr. 25.7)
He was well pleased to hear some revellers making libations in honour
of Demetrius as King, Seleucus as Master of the Elephants, Ptolemy as
Admiral, Lysimachus as Treasurer, and Agathocles of Sicily as Lord of
the Isles
Sometimes the noun on which the genitive depends can be elided, particularly when it has been previously mentioned, as in (25) to (27):
(25) (ΟΙ. Α´) Ἴθι νυν, ἄκρατον ἐγκάναξόν μοι πολὺν / σπονδήν. (ΟΙ. Β´)
Λαβὲ δὴ καὶ σπεῖσον ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος / (ΟΙ. Α´) Ἕλχ’, ἕλκε τὴν τοῦ
δαίμονος τοῦ Πραμνίου (Ar. Eq. 105-7)
Very well, come along, pour me out wine and plenty of it. —Take it and
offer a libation to the Good Genius. —Quaff, quaff, in honour of the
genius of Pramnium
(26) ἐγὼ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ βασιλέως τέτταρα / χυτρίδι’ ἀκράτου τῆς τ’
ἀδελφῆς προσλαβὼν / τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως ταὔτ’, ἀπνευστί τ’ ἐκπιὼν /
ὡς ἄν τις ἥδιστ’ ἴσον ἴσῳ κεκραμένον, / καὶ τῆς Ὁμονοίας δύω, τί νῦν
μὴ κωμάσω / ἄνευ λυχνούχου πρὸς τὸ τηλικοῦτο φῶς; (Alex. fr. 246
K.-A.)
I took four cups of strong, untempered wine to the honour of the King,
Ptolemy, and also four to the sister of the king, and drank them at a
draught, with as much pleasure as any one ever swallowed half-and-half;
and two for the sake of this agreement, why should I not feast without
a lantern in this splendid light?
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
239
(27) ἔδοξ’ ἐπιχεῖσθαι ἄκρατον / ὧτινος ἤθελ’ ἕκαστος· ἔδει μόνον ὧτινος
εἰπεῖν (Theoc. 14.18-9)
It was agreed that we should pour unmixed wine and toast every man
his fancy; only we should say his name
Ellipsis will also occur when the noun governing the genitive is inferred
from the linguistic situation, as in (28) to (33):
(28) ἀλλ’ ἔγχεον / αὐτῷ Διός γε τήνδε σωτῆρος (Alex. fr. 234.1-2 K.-A.)
[sc. φιάλην]
Fill now the cup for him with the libation in honour of Zeus the Saviour
(29) περιεώρα Δημήτριος τοὺς [. . .] ἐπιχεομένους Δημητρίου μὲν μόνου
βασιλέως, Πτολεμαίου δὲ [μόνου] ναυάρχου, Λυσιμάχου δὲ
γαζοφύλακος, Σελεύκου δ’ ἐλεφαντάρχου (Phylarch. FGrH 81 F31),
cf. ἐπιχεῖσθαι ἄκρατον ὧτινος in (27)
Demetrius saw some men making libations in honour of Demetrius, as
only king, and Ptolemy as only admiral, and Lysimachus as Treasurer,
and Seleucus as Master of the Elephants
(30) ἐπικαλούμενοι εἷλκον Διὸς σωτῆρος (Eub. fr. 56.7-8 K.-A.), cf. ἕλκε
τὴν [sc. σπονδήν] τοῦ δαίμονος in (25)
And they poured in honour of Zeus our Saviour, while calling upon him
(31) ἀλλ’ ἐγχέασα θᾶττον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος / ἀπενεγκάτω μοι τὴν
τράπεζαν ἐκποδών. / ἱκανῶς κεχόρτασμαι γάρ. Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος
δέχομαι. (Nicostr. Com. fr. 19.1-3 K.-A.), cf. μετανιπτρίδα τῆς
ὑγιείας ἔγχεον in (4)
Let her, after filling a cup quickly now to the Good Deity, take away this
table from before me, for I have eaten quite enough. I receive the cup in
honour of the Good Deity.
(32) Ἔγχει τᾶς Πειθοῦς καὶ Κύπριδος Ἡλιοδώρας / καὶ πάλι τᾶς αὐτᾶς
ἁδυλόγου Χάριτος (Mel. HE 43 G-P)
Pour in honour of Heliodora Peitho and Heliodora Cypris, and in honour of the Grace of sweet speech
(33) Προπίνω σοι, ἔφη, ὦ Κλεανθί, Ἡρακλέους ἀρχηγέτου (Luc. Symp. 16)
I drink before you, Cleanthis, he said, in honour of Heracles Leader5)
5)
The dative depending on προπίνω refers to the person preceded in drinking and challenged to drink by the speaker, while the genitive alludes to the person or god toasted
(Macurdy 1932, 169), cf. also προπίομαι / συγγενέσι πίστωμα φιλίας, ‘I drink the cup of
240
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
As the preceding examples show, contextual ellipsis can be behind the genitive in utterances seen in (6) to (8) (Διοκλέος, Ἡλιοδώρας, ἀγαθοῦ
δαίμονος and Διὸς σωτῆρος), since they are undoubtedly connected with
expressions like those seen in (18) to (33). In fact, in (34) the genitive of
toast depending on a noun is combined with a genitive used in isolation as
an utterance:
(34) Ναννοῦς καὶ Λύδης ἐπίχει δύο καὶ φέρ’ ἑκάστου / Μιμνέρμου καὶ τοῦ
σώφρονος Ἀντιμάχου· / συγκέρασον τὸν πέμπτον ἐμοῦ, τὸν δ’ ἕκτον
“Ἑκάστου,” / Ἡλιόδωρ’, εἴπας, “ὅστις ἐρῶν ἔτυχεν.” / ἕβδομον
Ἡσιόδου, τὸν δ’ ὄγδοον εἶπον Ὁμήρου, / τὸν δ’ ἔνατον Μουσῶν,
Μνημοσύνης δέκατον (Posidipp. HE 9 G-P = 140 Austin-Bastianini)
Fill two cups in honour of Nanno and Lyde and one in honour of each
Mimnermus and the wise Antimachus. And mix the fifth in my honour, and the sixth saying, Heliodorus, “To everyone who ever chanced
to love”; the seventh to Hesiodus, and the eighth to Homer, the ninth
to the Muses, the tenth to Mnemosyne
Greek does not differ in this point from other languages. Ellipsis is almost
compulsory in the toasts in modern languages: Eng. [let’s drink] to the King,
Sp. [bebamos] por el Rey, Fr. [buvons] à la santé du Roi, etc. 6)
4. εὐδειπνίας Cannot be Interpreted as Genitive ‘of Toast’
Notwithstanding the fact that Dobree’s proposal seems adequate in the
context of a banquet, the explanation of εὐδειπνίας in Harmodius’ passage
the friendship before all my kinsmen’ (Clearch. Com. fr. 1.2-3 K.-A.), προπόσεις τῆς τοῦ
βασιλέως ἐκπνοῆς ἀλλήλοις ἀνταποδιδόντες, ‘And drinking to one another for joy that
the king was expired’ (Fl. Jos. 19.358).
6)
Grammarians record too the use of this type of genitive, e.g. ἡ δὲ μετανιπτρὶς κύλιξ
ἐστίν, ἣν μετὰ τὸ ἀπονίψασθαι ἐλάμβανον· τὸ δ’ ὄνομα οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἔκπωμα
σχήματος ἀλλὰ τῆς τάξεως. ἦν δὲ Ὑγιείας ἱερά, ὥσπερ καὶ Διὸς σωτῆρος ὁ τρίτος
κρατὴρ ἱερὸς ἦν. ἀγαθοῦ δὲ δαίμονος ὁ μετὰ τὰς τραπέζας ἄκρατος, καὶ Ἑρμῆς ἡ
τελευταία πόσις (Poll. 6.100). Ganshinietz (RE, Suppl. III, col. 44) believes that quotes
like this only attempted to justify a free use of the genitive, which was not understandable
anymore. But the rationale of this claim is wanting.
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
241
as a genitive ‘of toast’ in free use has a number of flaws when examined
more closely.
First of all, the scarce cases in free use refer to persons and gods: Διοκλέος
in (6), Ἡλιοδώρας in (7), ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος and Διὸς σωτῆρος in (8) and
Ἑκάστου [. . .] ὅστις ἐρῶν ἔτυχεν in (34). More importantly, if εὐδειπνίας
were indeed a toast, the translation given by the proponents of this view
would be inaccurate, since ‘a good appetite!’ is the expression of a desire,
not a toast.
As far as the meaning of the compound is concerned, the adjective from
which this hapax would have been derived is used only twice in literary
texts: ἵνα δ’ εὔδειπνοι / δαῖτες τί μάτην τείνουσι βοήν;, ‘where there are
sumptuous feasts, why do they raise the loud song to no purpose?’ (E.
Med. 200-1); εἰ δὲ μή, παρ᾽ εὐδείπνοις ἔσῃ / ἄτιμος ἐμπύροισι κνισωτοῖς
χθονός, ‘but otherwise, at the rich and savoury banquet of burnt offerings
made to the earth, you will be without a portion of honor’ (A. Ch. 484-5).
In Euripides’ verses, the meaning of the adjective is not subject to controversy: ‘composé de mets somptueux’ (Bailly), ‘with goodly feasts’, ‘wellappointed’, ‘sumptuous’ (LSJ). The interpretation given by the scholiast to
Aeschylus’ words is the most satisfactory: παρ᾽ εὐδείπνοις = παρὰ
κατοιχομένοις δείπνωι τιμωμένοις, ‘with those who underneath are honoured with feasts’ (cf. Blaydes 1899, 136: “apud eos qui laute epulantur”;
Garvie 1987, 177: “in the presence of those dead who are well-feasted”).7)
Therefore, the meaning of εὔδειπνος as ‘with goodly feasts’, etc., makes the
translation of εὐδειπνίας as ‘good appetite’, ‘bon dîner’, etc., completely
unjustified.
In fact, the dictionaries propose for εὐδειπνία the following translations:
‘heureux festin’ (Bailly) or simply ‘feast [offered to departed souls]’ (LSJ).
Assuming for the sake of the argument these interpretations, a better translation of Harmodius’ passage reflecting Dobree’s genitive εὐδειπνίας would
be ‘to a feast!’, ‘to a splendorous meal!’, vel sim. But the renderings given by
the dictionaries are also inadequate. Since the derivation found in εὔδειπνος
7)
Later grammarians link εὔδειπνος to an otherwise unknown Athenian festival, cf.
εὐδείπνοις· θυσία τις παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις ἐπ’ Ἠριγόνης (Hsch.), εὐδείπνους· τὰς τοῖς
τεθνεῶσιν ἐπιφερομένας χοάς (Phot.), Αἰώρα· Ἑορτὴ Ἀθηναῖς, ἣν καλοῦσιν εὔδειπνον
(St. Byz.), but this may have originated from a misunderstanding of εὐδείπνοις in Aes-
chylus (cf. Garvie 1987, 177). There is nonetheless evidence of the adjective used as a personal name, cf. LGPN I s.v. Εὔδειπνος.
242
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
→ εὐδειπνία is similar to hundreds of parallel formations—for example,
Hom. ἑκηβόλος, ‘attaining his aim’ → ἑκηβολία, ‘the ability of attaining
his aim’ = ‘skill in archery’, ἄτιμος, ‘unhonoured’ → ἀτιμία, ‘the fact of being
unhonoured’ = ‘dishonour’, etc.—, we would expect εὐδειπνία to be an
abstract, not a common noun like ‘festin’ (Bailly) or ‘feast’ (LSJ). A more
appropriate translation for εὐδειπνία would then seem ‘sumptuosity [in a
banquet]’, vel sim. It is true that we find toasts referring to abstract nouns (cf.
supra φιλίας, ἔρωτος, ἡδονῆς, ἐλευθερίας, ὁμονοίας, etc.), but a concept so
peculiar as the one expressed by εὐδειπνία (‘splendour [in the banquet]’)
would have been inadequate for a toast. Surely, if the expression ‘to the good
banquet!’ were ever to be uttered in Greek, we would expect τοῦ καλοῦ
δείπνου, like the examples in §2.
All the aforementioned arguments invite us to reject the interpretation
of εὐδειπνίας in the Harmodius fragment as a genitive ‘of toast’.
5. Other Interpretations of Harmodius’ Passage
Having discarded the possibility of a genitive, we must explore other proposals for the passage.
Isaac Casaubon in his 1597 edition of the text of Athenaeus (3rd edition
in 1612) conjectured εὖ δειπνήσεις in 149b, although he oddly edited in
479c εὐδειπνίας, ultimately leading Dobree to his own proposal (cf. §1).
But in his critical notes, aware that a future would not fit in this context,
the French scholar posits the following: “lego εὖ δειπνήσειας, adstipulante
scriptura libri undecimi [sc. εὐδειπνειας]” (cf. Schweighäuser 1802, 498).
Eventually, Schweighäuser (1802, 498), while conceding that εὐδειπνιαις
in 149b would be easily explained as a corruption of εὖ δειπνήσαις, found
that εὐδειπνειας in 479c could not be justified in the same way. For the
sake of simplicity, Schweighäuser considered that the text of 479c
εὐδειπνειας should be corrected into εὖ δείπνειας, which would be equivalent to Att. εὖ δειπνοίης, judging from the Latin translation accompanying his own edition (1801-1807): ‘bene coenes!’ (149b) and ‘bene
coenaveris!’ (479c).8)
8)
From which derives Yonge’s translation (1854): ‘may you sup well’. Although Olson
(2006; 2009) accepts Dobree’s εὐδειπνίας, his translation ‘enjoy your dinner!’ (cf. §1) is
closer to this interpretation.
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
243
Although the emendation εὖ δείπνειας has not made its way into modern standard editions—it was only adopted by Dindorf (1827)—, considerable attention has been paid to it by linguists.
5.1
εὖ δειπνείας
For some, we should read δειπνείας with paroxytone accent, instead of
δείπνειας. This δειπνείας would be equivalent to athematic 2nd sg.
δειπνείης = Att. δειπνοίης (cf. Kühner and Blass 1890-1892, II 74; Keil
1899, 150-1 n. 1; Thumb 1909, §§264.4 and 265.10; Schwyzer 1939,
795 n. 1; probably Schmitt 1977, 84). This hypothesis rests upon the wellknown fact that verbs in -έω have an athematic inflection in some dialects,
particularly Arcadian: ποέντω (= Att. ποιοῦντω), οφρονῆναι
(= Att. φρονεῖν), etc. (cf. Thumb and Scherer 1959, §265.16). The anomalous ending -είας is justified through a change *-ē- > /æ‫׃‬/: δειπνείης >
δειπνείας, with <A> noting /æ‫׃‬/. This development is only found in Elean
inscriptions, cf. εἴα for εἴη, μά for μή, etc. The supporters of δειπνείας
believe accordingly that the phenomenon would have reached also Phigaleia in southwestern Arcadia, where the banquet described by Harmodius
took place.
But this interpretation is unsound. In the Greek phrase equivalent to
Eng. ‘may you have a nice dinner’, the aorist of the optative (δειπνήσαις /
δειπνήσειας) would be preferable to the present (δειπνοίης / δειπνοῖς),
since completion of the action is pragmatically expected in this context (cf.
Danielsson 1915, 106 n. 1; Bechtel 1921, 361). As a matter of fact, in
similar situations the aorist stem is equally attested, cf. ζήσειας ‘may you
live’ = ‘may you have a long life’ (D.C. 72.18.2), an expression also used in
banquets, ἡβήσειας ‘may you thrive’ (Simon. AP 7.24.3), and the banqueting wish δαιτὸς ὄνησο ‘be content with thy supper’ (Od. 19.68).
5.2
εὖ δείπνειας
Some propose that 2nd sg. δείπνειας (keeping the proparoxytone accent of
the transmitted text) is modelled after a hypothetical present optative 1st
sg. *δείπνεια = Att. δειπνοῖμι (Premerstein 1909, 259-60; Hiller von Gaertringen ad IG V 2.107 (lines 13-6) and 194; Thumb and Scherer 1959,
§265.22). According to the advocates of this view, the closest parallel of
this analogy would be Hom. 2nd sg. ἐπίσχοιας, a rara lectio for ἐπισχοίης
at Il. 14.241 (for the testimonies, cf. West 2001, 227), which would have
244
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
developed secondarily after 1st sg. -οια (cf. Arcad. ἐξελαύνοια).9) Although
ἐπίσχοιας has been questioned (cf. Janko 1992, 189), consistent arguments speak in favour (cf. Wackernagel 1916, 14; 1955-1973, I 806-7).
But this view adds to the problem of the present mentioned before for
δειπνείας (cf. §5.1) the difficulty of the otherwise unattested ending present optative 2nd sg. -ειας. First of all, a thematic inflexion 1st. sg. -οια,
2nd sg. -οιας would have yielded *δειπνέοια and *δειπνέοιας: the vowel
group would have been preserved (as in Hom. φορέοις, El. ἐξαγρέοι), or
would have eventually evolved into *-οῖα and *-οῖας (as in φιλοῖς, φιλοῖ),
but never into *-εια and *-ειας. Be it as it may, in Arcadian an athematic
inflexion is required for a verb in -έω and accordingly we should have 1st
sg. δειπνείην (cf. Aeol. φιλείην), not *δείπνεια: an athematic optative 1st.
sg. *-ih1-m̥ > -ια, parallel to thematic *-o-ih1-m̥ > -οια, is morphologically
ungrounded. Lastly, the ‘Aeolic’ aorist optative 1st sg. -σ-εια, 2nd sg.
-σ-ειας10) does not seem either a good candidate for explaining *δείπν-εια
and *δείπν-ειας, if only because it is not widely spread in Ancient Greek.
6. A Plea for a Neglected Hypothesis: εὖ δειπνήαἱς
Danielsson (1915, 106-7 n. 1) was the first to suggest an insightful and
linguistically satisfactory solution. Relying on Casaubon’s conjecture εὖ
δειπνήσειας, he proposed that εὐδειπνιαις at 149b is to be considered a
mere mistake for εὖ δειπνήαἱς < δειπνήσαις, i.e. the aorist optative 2nd sg.
with aspiration of intervocalic /s/. Although Danielsson is not explicit
about it, εὐδειπνειας on 479d can be easily accounted for paleographically
as a mechanical error for δειπνήαἱς.
Danielsson’s hypothesis is grounded on a linguistic feature—intervocalic
/s/ aspiration—unattested at Phigaleia or at any other Arcadian town.11) In
his own opinion, aspiration should not be surprising, since Phigaleia lies
near two areas, Elis and Messenia, in which the phenomenon would be
expected.
9)
For the original thematic optative 1st sg. *-o-ih1-m̥ > -οια, cf. Sihler 1995, §541.
For the origin of -σεια, -σειας see Jasanoff 1991, 116-7.
11)
Aspiration is also found in an inscription from Alipheira, in northwestern Arcadia, cf.
ἀποτειάτω < ἀποτεισάτω (Minon IÉD I 31.9, Alipheira < Elis (?), c. 244-219 BC),
καταχραάστω < καταχρησάσθω (ibid.11). But this document is written in Elean.
10)
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
6.1
245
δειπνήαἱς and the Geography of Aspiration of Intervocalic /s/ in Elis
Arguably, the feature could have come from Elis, where aspiration is well
documented from the fourth century BC onwards: φυγαδεύαντι (Minon
IÉD I 30.6, Olympia, ante 324 BC) < φυγαδεύσαντι = Att. φυγαδεύσωσι,12)
ἀδεαλτώhαιε (ibid. 12) < ἀδεαλτώσαιε, ποήασσαι (Minon IÉD I 34.33,
Olympia, 194-191 BC) < ποήσασσαι = Att. ποιήσασθαι, and ποιήαται
(ibid. 36) < ποιήσαται = Att. ποιήσηται. More specifically, Triphylia, the
southern part of Elis, may well have been the region from where the feature expanded into Phigaleia. Historical evidence supports this claim: by
400 BC a cultural and political alliance was forged between Triphylia and
Arcadia (Nielsen 2002, 248-62).
The fact that Elean aspiration of intervocalic /s/ is only attested in
Olympia is not an unsurmountable objection to our hypothesis.13) Despite
claims to the contrary, c. 400 BC the northern Triphylian poleis spoke the
same dialect found in documents from the city Elis and particularly its
sanctuary, Olympia.14) In fact, southern Triphylia and Elis-Olympia shared
at least one dialectal feature,15) the spirantization of initial *b. <B> for <F>
is attested in Elean epigraphically, cf. βοικίαρ (Minon IÉD I 34.24, Olympia, 194-191 BC), and in literary texts, cf. the toponym and hydronym
Βαδύ (Paus. 5.3.2; Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 79a).16) The phenomenon turns
up in two personal names found in Phigaleia showing the same root as in
12)
Minon (IÉD II 205) has recently resuscitated the old view that φυγαδεύαντι should be
interpreted as an aorist participle, equivalent to Att. φυγαδεύσαντι.
13)
An inscription from Macistos in northern Triphylia (Minon IÉD I 28, IV BC) shows
undisputedly Elean features, cf. rhotacism in τιρ (3), τᾶρ (7), accusative plural Μακιστίοιρ
(3-4), <Α> for <H> in συλαία (3) = Att. συλῷη, and dative singular τοῖ (1-2).
14)
For an extended account of this vexata quaestio, see now Alonso Déniz 2008, 296-334.
15)
Ruggeri (2000; 2004, 87-93) has recently argued that the variant spoken in southern
Triphylia (ancient Lepreum and the neighbour sites) was different from the rest of Elis
(including northern Triphylia). The data supporting this divergence pertain exclusively to
the sixth and fifth century BC (mainly initial aspiration in hιαρόν SEG 31, 359 [Kombothekra, 550-500 BC] and hυ̣ι[ός] [SEG 15, 253, Olympia < Lepreum, 475-450 BC]),
while aspiration of intervocalic /s/ in Elean is only attested from the fourth century BC.
In any case, Ruggeri’s view is not totally convincing (cf. Alonso Déniz 2008, 329-31).
16)
Minon (IÉD II 332) believes that <B> may have been merely an orthographic expedient for initial /w/, since the letter <F> was no longer in use. But spirantization of *b is paralleled by that of *d, as shown by the orthography <Ζ> for <Δ>, as in ζέ for δέ (cf. Méndez
Dosuna 1993; for a different explanation, cf. Minon IÉD II 332-3, with references).
246
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
Βαδύ: Βάδιμος Λεπρεάτας (SEG 23, 239.2-3, III BC) and Βάδιμε (SEG
23, 242, III BC). Both names are undoubtedly not Arcadian, but from
Lepreum (southern Triphylia), as shown (1) by the patronymic Λεπρεάτας
accompanying the example in SEG 23, 239, and (2) by the fact that the
phenomenon is not attested in any other Arcadian city (cf. Te Riele 1966,
255 f. and Dubois 1986, I §20).
All things considered, in addition to the spirantization of *b, Lepreum
and Elis-Olympia could have conceivably shared the aspiration of intervocalic /s/, which could have extended into Phigaleia from southern
Triphylia.
6.2
2nd sg. δειπνήαἱς and Elean 3rd sg. ἀδεαλτώhαιε
Finally, the emendation δειπνήαἱς would help to explain an elusive conundrum of Elean morphology. For some authors, the ending -αιε in aorist
optative 3rd sg. ἀδεαλτώhαιε (Minon IÉD I 30.12, Olympia, ante 324
BC) resulted from a phonetic evolution -σειε17) > *-hειε > -hαιε (cf. Méndez Dosuna 1980, 192-8; Minon IÉD II 405 and n. 205). To my mind,
this tenet is unwarranted. Quite to the contrary, in Elean, as in other Greek
dialects, -σα- has made its way into the optative of the sigmatic aorist, discarding the old paradigm.18) The reading δειπνήαἱς (< δειπνήσαις) would
show not only that the new optative in Elean had a 2nd sg. -σα-ις, but
would also indirectly confirm that the extension of -σα-, and not phonology, is responsible for the 3rd sg. -σαιε (Alonso Déniz ms).
7. Conclusions
To sum up the main conclusions of this paper, the purported Arcadian
toast εὐδειπνίας in Harmodius’ fragment FGrH 319 F1, transmitted by
Athenaeus, is a mistake perpetuated in the editions and translations of the
latter. Among the alternative explanations of the passage, εὖ δειπνήαἱς
‘may you have a nice dinner well’, from εὖ δειπνήσαις with distinctively
Elean aspiration of intervocalic /s/, is most satisfactory, from the point of
17)
Cf. κατιαραύσειε (Minon IÉD I 2.2, Olympia, ca. 475-450 BC).
About the prehistory of the optative of the sigmatic aorist, cf. Jasanoff 1991 and Kortlandt 1992.
18)
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
247
view both of morphology and syntax, and also in light of the history and
geography of the Elean dialect.
Bibliography
Alonso Déniz, A. 2008. Estudios sobre la aspiración de /s/ en los dialectos griegos del I milenio
(Madrid)
——— ms. The Origin of Elean ἀδεαλτώhαιε
Arnott, W.G. 1996. Alexis. The Fragments. A Commentary (Cambridge)
Bailly, A. 1950. Dictionnaire grec-français (Paris)
Bechtel, F. 1921. Die griechischen Dialekte, I: Der lesbische, thessalische, böotische, arkadische
und kyprische Dialekt (Berlin)
Blaydes, F.H.M. 1899. Aeschyli Choephoroi (Halle)
Broneer, O. 1954. Corinth. I.4. The South Stoa and its Roman Successors (Princeton, NJ)
Danielsson, O.A. 1915. Zu einer arkadischen Verbalform, IF 35, 99-108
Dindorf, W. 1827. Athenaeus (Leipzig)
Dobree, P.P. 1833. Adversaria (Cambridge)
Dubois, L. 1986. Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien, I: Grammaire. II: Corpus dialectal. III:
Notes, index, bibliographie (Louvain-la-Neuve)
Edwards, G.R. 1975. Corinth VII.3. Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery (Princeton, NJ)
Garvie, A.F. 1988. Choephori (Oxford)
Gow, A.S.F. 21952. Theocritus, I: Introduction, Text, and Translation. II: Commentary,
Appendix, Indexes, and Plates (Cambridge)
Green, J.R., Handley, E.W. 2001. The Rover’s Return: A Literary Quotation on a Pot in
Corinth, Hesperia 70, 367-71
Gulick, C.B. 1927-1943. Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists, I-VII (London/New York)
Janko, R. 1992. The Iliad. A Commentary, IV: Books 13-16 (Cambridge)
Jasanoff, J.H. 1991. The Ablaut of the Root Aorist Optative in Proto-Indo-European, MSS
52, 101-22
Jost, M. 1985. Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie (Paris)
Kaibel, G. 1887. Athenaei Dipnosophistarum libri XV, I-III (Leipzig)
Keil, B. 1899. Über zwei elische Inschriften, NGG 1, 136-64
Kortlandt, F. 1992. The Aeolic Optative, in: Beekes, R.S.P., Lubotsky, A., Weitenberg J.J.S.
(eds.) Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie (Innsbruck), 235-9
Kühner, R., Blass, F. 31890-1892. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, I:
Elementar- und Formenlehre (Hannover)
Kühner, R., Gerth B. 31898-1904. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, II:
Satzlehre, I-II (Hannover/Leipzig)
LGPN I = Fraser, P.M., Matthews, E. (eds.) 1987. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, I: The
Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica (Oxford)
Macurdy, G.H. 1932. The Grammar of Drinking Healths, AJPh 53, 168-71
Mastronarde, D.J. 2002. Medea (Cambridge)
248
A. Alonso Déniz / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 232-248
Meineke, A. 1858-1867. Athenaei Deipnosophistae, I-IV (Leipzig)
Méndez Dosuna, J. 1980. Clasificación dialectal y cronología relativa: el dialecto eleo, SPhS
4, 181-201
——— 1991-1993. On <Ζ> for <Δ> in Greek Dialectal Inscriptions, Die Sprache 35,
82-114
Minon IÉD = Minon, S. 2007. Les inscriptions éléennes dialectales (VIe-IIe siècle avant J.-C.),
I: Les textes, II: Grammaire et vocabulaire institutionnel (Genève)
Nielsen, T.H. 2002. Arkadia and its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods (Göttingen)
Olson, S.D. 2006. The Learned Banqueters, II: III.106e-V (Cambridge/London)
——— 2009. The Learned Banqueters, III: X.420e-XI (Cambridge/London)
Picard, C. 1910. À propos de deux coupes du Vatican et d’un fragment du Musée Kircher,
MÉFR 30, 99-116
Premerstein, A. 1909. Die Urkunde eines arkadischen Synoikismos, MDAI(A) 34, 237-68
Robertson, N. 1992. Festivals and Legends. The Formation of Greek Cities in the Light of
Public Rituals (Toronto)
Ruggeri, C. 2000. Note sulle divergenze nel dialetto e nella forma delle lettere tra le iscrizioni
del centro-sud della Trifilia e quelle dell’Elide, ZPE 133, 117-21
——— 2004. Gli stati intorno a Olimpia. Storia e costituzione dell’Elide e degli stati formati
dai perieci elei (400-362 a.C.) (Stuttgart)
Schmitt, R. 1977. Einführung in die griechischen Dialekte (Darmstadt)
Schweighäuser, J. 1802. Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas post Isaacum
Casaubonum, II (Argentorati)
Schwyzer, E. 1939. Griechische Grammatik, I: Allgemeiner Teil. Lautlehre. Wortbildung.
Flexion (München)
Schwyzer, E., Debrunner A. 1950. Griechische Grammatik, II: Syntax und syntaktische
Stilistik (München)
Sihler, A.L. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (New York)
Tarn, W.W. 1928. The Hellenistic Ruler-Cult and the Daemon, JHS 48, 206-19
Te Riele, G.-J. 1966. Inscriptions de Pavlitsa, BCH 90, 248-73
Thumb, A. 1909. Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (Heidelberg)
Thumb, A., Scherer, A. 1959. Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte, II (Heidelberg)
Wackernagel, J. 1916. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (Göttingen)
——— 1955-1979. Kleine Schriften, I-III (Göttingen)
West, M.L. 2001. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad (München/Leipzig)
Wilson, P. 2000. The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia. The Chorus, the City and the
Stage (Cambridge/New York)
Yonge, C.D. 1854. The Deipnosophists, or Banquet of the Learned of Athenaeus (London)