LEXIS Poetica, retorica e comunicazione nella tradizione classica 35.2017 ADOLF M. HAKKERT EDITORE LEXIS Poetica, retorica e comunicazione nella tradizione classica SOMMARIO ARTICOLI Francesco Bertolini, Critica del testo, storia del testo, storia della lingua ................................. 1 Biagio Santorelli, Cecità e insegnamento retorico antico ……………………………………... 10 Ettore Cingano, Interpreting epic and lyric fragments: Stesichorus, Simonides, Corinna, the Theban epics, the Hesiodic corpus and other epic fragments …………………………………… 28 Stefano Vecchiato, Una nuova testimonianza su Alcmane in ‘P.Oxy.’ XXIX 2506, fr. 131? … 58 Federico Condello, Di alcune possibili sequenze simposiali nei ‘Theognidea’ (vv. 323-8, 595- 8, 1171-6) ………………………………………………………………………………………. 63 Marios Skempis, Bacchylides’ ΥΠΟΡΧΗΜΑ Fr. 16 Blass …………………………………… 90 Maria Luisa Maino, Per una lettura di Aesch. ‘Suppl.’ 828 …………………………………... 99 Martina Loberti, L’enjambement in Sofocle …………………………………………………… 110 Francesco Lupi, Una nota a Soph. fr. 83 R.2 …………………………………………………... 123 Christine Mauduit, Annunci, attese, sorprese: riflessioni sulla struttura dell’‘Alcesti’ di Euripide 128 Nadia Rosso, La colometria antica del I stasimo delle ‘Supplici’ di Euripide ……………….. 147 Valeria Andò, Introduzione ovvero ‘Ifigenia in Aulide’ tra cerchietti e parentesi …………… 159 Luigi Battezzato, Change of mind, persuasion, and the emotions: debates in Euripides from ‘Medea’ to ‘Iphigenia at Aulis’ ………………………………………………………………... 164 Sotera Fornaro, Il finale dell’‘Ifigenia in Aulide’ sulla scena moderna e contemporanea …… 178 Ester Cerbo, Ritmo e ritmi della ‘performance’ nell’‘Ifigenia in Aulide’ di Euripide ………… 192 Anna Beltrametti, ‘…e infatti quella che supplica non somiglia affatto a quella che vien dopo’ (Aristotele ‘Poetica’ 1454a 31-3). L’ἀνώμαλον come marchio di autenticità ………………… 210 Paolo Cipolla, Il dramma satiresco e l’erudizione antica: sull’uso delle citazioni satiresche nelle fonti di tradizione indiretta ……………………………………………………………… 221 Lucía Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén, Menander’s ʻCarchedoniusʼ fr. 2 (227 K.-Th.) and its sources: a critical note …………………………………………………………………………. 249 Graziana Brescia, ‘Utinam nunc matrescam ingenio!’ Pacuvio, fr. 18.139 R.3 e il paradosso della somiglianza materna nella cultura romana ……………………………………………… 265 Francesco Ginelli, Difendere la tradizione. Nota a Nep. ‘Paus.’ 5.5 e Thuc. 1.134.4 ………… 281 Valentino D’Urso, Un intertesto ovidiano nella descrizione della fuga di Pompeo (Lucan. 8.4 s.) 288 Lucia Degiovanni, Note critiche ed esegetiche all’‘Hercules Oetaeus’ ………………………. 305 Alessandro Fusi, Nota al testo di Marziale 2.7 ………………………………………………… 321 Amedeo Alessandro Raschieri, Alla ricerca del lettore ideale: insegnamento retorico e modelli letterari tra Quintiliano e Dione di Prusa …………………………………………….. 335 Barbara Del Giovane, Seneca, Quintiliano, Gellio e Frontone: critica, superamento e rovesciamento del modello educativo senecano (con una lettura di Fronto ‘ad M. Caesarem’ 3.16, pp. 47.19-22 e 48.1-25 vdH2) …………………………………………………………….. 354 Giuseppe Dimatteo, È stata tua la colpa. Nota a Ps.-Quint. ‘decl. min.’ 275 ………………… 373 ADOLF M. HAKKERT EDITORE 35.2017 Maria Chiara Scappaticcio, ‘Auctores’, ‘scuole’, multilinguismo: forme della circolazione e delle pratiche del latino nell’Egitto predioclezianeo ………………………………………….. 378 Ornella Fuoco, Roma in lontananza: per l’esegesi di Rut. Nam. 1.189-204 …………………. 397 Antonella Prenner, I ‘Gynaecia’ di Mustione: ‘utilitas’ di una riscrittura ……………………. 411 Immacolata Eramo, Sulla tradizione della ‘Storia romana’ di Appiano: la seconda ‘adnotatio’ del ‘Laurentianus’ 70.5 ……………………………………………………………. 424 RECENSIONI Fabio Roscalla, Greco, che farne? (P. Rosa) …………………………………………………... 437 Fréderique Biville – Isabelle Boehm, Autour de Michel Lejeune (H. Perdicoyianni Paléologou) ……………………………………………………………………………………. 441 Ἀνεξέστατος βίος οὐ βιοωτός. Giuseppe Schiassi filologo classico, a c. di Matteo Taufer (V. Citti) ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 446 Gabriel Bergounioux – Charles de Lamberterie, Meillet aujourd’hui (H. Perdicoyianni Paléologou) …………………………………………………………………………………….. 448 Felice Stama, Frinico. Introduzione, traduzione e commento (F. Conti Bizzarro) ……………. 450 Jessica Priestley – Vasiliki Zali (ed. by), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Herodotus in Antiquity and Beyond (I. Matijašić) ……………………………………………………………. 454 Aristophane, ‘Les Thesmophories’ ou ‘La Fête des femmes’, traduction commentée de Rossella Saetta Cottone (S. Pagni) …………………………………………………………….. 458 Direzione VITTORIO CITTI PAOLO MASTANDREA ENRICO MEDDA Redazione STEFANO AMENDOLA, GUIDO AVEZZÙ, FEDERICO BOSCHETTI, CLAUDIA CASALI, LIA DE FINIS, CARLO FRANCO, ALESSANDRO FRANZOI, MASSIMO MANCA, STEFANO MASO, LUCA MONDIN, GABRIELLA MORETTI, MARIA ANTONIETTA NENCINI, PIETRO NOVELLI, STEFANO NOVELLI, GIOVANNA PACE, ANTONIO PISTELLATO, RENATA RACCANELLI, GIOVANNI RAVENNA, ANDREA RODIGHIERO, GIANCARLO SCARPA, PAOLO SCATTOLIN, LINDA SPINAZZÈ, MATTEO TAUFER Comitato scientifico MARIA GRAZIA BONANNO, ANGELO CASANOVA, ALBERTO CAVARZERE, GENNARO D’IPPOLITO, LOWELL EDMUNDS, PAOLO FEDELI, ENRICO FLORES, PAOLO GATTI, MAURIZIO GIANGIULIO, GIAN FRANCO GIANOTTI, PIERRE JUDET DE LA COMBE, MARIE MADELEINE MACTOUX, GIUSEPPINA MAGNALDI, GIUSEPPE MASTROMARCO, GIANCARLO MAZZOLI, GIAN FRANCO NIEDDU, CARLO ODO PAVESE, WOLFGANG RÖSLER, PAOLO VALESIO, MARIO VEGETTI, PAOLA VOLPE CACCIATORE, BERNHARD ZIMMERMANN LEXIS – Poetica, retorica e comunicazione nella tradizione classica http://www.lexisonline.eu/ [email protected], [email protected] Direzione e Redazione: Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Palazzo Malcanton Marcorà – Dorsoduro 3484/D I-30123 Venezia Vittorio Citti [email protected] Paolo Mastandrea [email protected] Enrico Medda [email protected] Pubblicato con il contributo di: Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia) Copyright by Vittorio Citti ISSN 2210-8823 ISBN 978-90-256-1329-7 Lexis, in accordo ai principi internazionali di trasparenza in sede di pubblicazioni di carattere scientifico, sottopone tutti i testi che giungono in redazione a un processo di doppia lettura anonima (double-blind peer review, ovvero refereeing) affidato a specialisti di Università o altri Enti italiani ed esteri. Circa l’80% dei revisori è esterno alla redazione della rivista. Ogni due anni la lista dei revisori che hanno collaborato con la rivista è pubblicata sia online sia in calce a questa pagina. Lexis figura tra le riviste di carattere scientifico a cui è riconosciuta la classe A nella lista di valutazione pubblicata dall’ANVUR (Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca). È stata censita dalla banca dati internazionale Scopus- Elsevier, mentre è in corso la procedura di valutazione da parte della banca dati internazionale Web of Science-ISI. Informazioni per i contributori: gli articoli e le recensioni proposti alla rivista vanno inviati all’indirizzo di posta elettronica [email protected]. Essi debbono rispettare scrupolosamente le norme editoriali della rivista, scaricabili dal sito www.lexisonline.eu (si richiede, in particolare, l’utilizzo esclusivo di un font greco di tipo unicode). Qualsiasi contributo che non rispetti tali norme non sarà preso in considerazione da parte della redazione. Si raccomanda di inviare due files separati del proprio lavoro, uno dei quali reso compiutamente anonimo. Il file anonimo dovrà essere accompagnato da una pagina contenente nome, cognome e recapiti dell’autore (tale pagina sarà poi eliminata dalla copia trasmessa ai revisori). Revisori anni 2015-2016: Gianfranco Agosti Stefania De Vido Jean-Philippe Magué Giovanni Ravenna Jaume Almirall i Sardà Carlo Di Giovine Giacomo Mancuso Andrea Rodighiero Alex Agnesini Rosalba Dimundo Claudio Marangoni Alessandra Romeo Mario Giusto Anselmi Angela Donati Antonio Marchetta Wolfgang Rösler Silvia Barbantani Marco Ercoles Antonia Marchiori Livio Rossetti Alessandro Barchiesi Marco Fernandelli Stefano Maso Alessandro Russo Giuseppina Basta Franco Ferrari Giulio Massimilla Carla Salvaterra Donzelli Patrick J. Finglass Paolo Mastandrea Enrica Salvatori Luigi Battezzato Alessandro Franzoi Giuseppe Mastromarco Federico Santangelo Anna Maria Alessandro Fusi Silvia Mattiacci Stefania Santelia Belardinelli Ivan Garofalo Christine Mauduit Anna Santoni Federico Boschetti Alex Garvie Enrico Medda Michela Sassi Alfredo Buonopane Gianfranco Gianotti Francesca Mestre Maria Teresa Claude Calame Helena Gimeno Luca Mondin Sblendorio Cugusi Alberto Camerotto Pascual Patrizia Mureddu Giancarlo Scarpa Domitilla Campanile Massimo Gioseffi Simonetta Nannini Paolo Scattolin Alberto Cavarzere Pilar Gómez Cardó Michele Napolitano Antonio Stramaglia Louis Charlet Luca Graverini Camillo Neri José Pablo Suárez Emanuele Ciampini Giuseppe Grilli Gianfranco Nieddu Chiara Ombretta Francesco Citti Alessandro Iannucci Cecilia Nobili Tommasi Vittorio Citti Paola Ingrosso Stefano Novelli Renzo Tosi Emanuela Colombi Diego Lanza Maria Pia Pattoni Piero Totaro Aldo Corcella Walter Lapini Matteo Pellegrino Giuseppe Ucciardiello Adele Cozzoli Giuseppe Lentini Antonio Pistellato Maria Veronese Carmelo Crimi Liana Lomiento Filippomaria Pontani Paola Volpe Lucio Cristante Francesco Lubian Federico Ponchio Cacciatore Alessandro Cristofori Carlo Lucarini Paolo Pontari Onofrio Vox Andrea Cucchiarelli Maria Jagoda Luzzatto Leone Porciani Joop A. van Waarden Nicola Cusumano Maria Tanja Luzzatto Ivan Radman Michael Winterbottom Giambattista D’Alessio Enrico Magnelli Manuel Ramírez Casper de Jonge Massimo Manca Sánchez Interpreting epic and lyric fragments: Stesichorus, Simonides, Corinna, the Theban epics, the Hesiodic corpus and other epic fragments Un poète doit laisser des traces de son passage, non des preuves. Seules les traces font rêver. (René Char, La parole en archipel) 1. Stesichorus in Simonides (PMG 564) and elsewhere. To illustrate the fascinating complexity that fragments often present, I shall start with a well known lyric fragment of Simonides quoted by Athenaeus (4.172EF = Simon. PMG 564 = F 273 Poltera): … προτέρου Στηcιχόρου ἢ ̓Ιβύκου ἐν τοῖc Ἄθλοιc ἐπιγραφομένοιc εἰρηκότοc φερέcθαι τῇ παρθένῳ δῶρα cαcαμίδαc χόνδρον τε καὶ ἐγκρίδαc ἄλλα τε πέμματα καὶ μέλι χλωρόν [= Stesich. F 3 F.]. ὅτι δὲ τὸ ποίημα τοῦτο Στηcιχόρου ἐcτὶν ἱκανώτατοc μάρτυc Cιμωνίδηc ὁ ποιητήc, ὃc περὶ τοῦ Μελεάγρου τὸν λόγον ποιούμενόc φηcιν· (Μελεάγρου) ὃc δουρὶ πάνταc νίκαcε νέουc, δινάεντα βαλὼν Ἄναυρον ὕπερ πολυβότρυοc ἐξ Ἰωλκοῦ· οὕτω γὰρ Ὅμηροc ἠδὲ Cτηcίχοροc ἄειcε λαοῖc. ὁ γὰρ Στηcίχοροc οὕτωc εἴρηκεν ἐν τῶι προκειμένωι αἴcματι τοῖc Ἄθλοιc· θρώιcκων μὲν ἄρ᾿ Ἀμφιάραοc ἄκοντι δὲ νίκαcεν Μελέαγροc [Athen. 4.172F = Stesich. F 4 F.]. …[But before him (Panyassis)] Stesichorus or Ibycus in the poem entitled The funeral Games [for Pelias] was the first to say that the gifts brought for the girl were “sesame cakes and groats and oil-and-honey cakes and other cakes and yellow honey” [= Stesich. F 3 F.]. That this poem is by Stesichorus is very aptly attested by the poet Simonides, when he says in the course of telling the story of Meleager: “... (Meleager) who defeated all the young men with his spear, hurling it over the eddying Anaurus from grape-rich Iolcus; for so Homer and Stesichorus sang to the peoples” [= Simon. PMG 564]. For in the poem in question Stesichorus (F 4 F.) said “Amphiaraus won in leaping [in the long jump], whereas Meleager won with the javelin”1. If we leave aside the mythological detail regarding Meleager’s victory at the funeral games for Pelias, the main interest and value of the passage in Athenaeus does not really lie in the problem(s) of attribution he raises and solves, but rather in the multi- layered information it conveys. Besides being a citation fragment from a poem by 1 The Loeb translation of Athenaeus is by S.D. Olson, and the Loeb translation of the Simonides fragment is by D.A. Campbell, with a few modifications. Lexis 35.2017 Interpreting epic and lyric fragments Simonides, the title of which remains unspecified2, these lines also stand as an un- placed paraphrase fragment of epic poetry, and as a paraphrase fragment of the lyric poet Stesichorus, followed by a citation fragment by Stesichorus (F 4 F.). Indirectly, it is also a testimony of how ancient scholarship dealt with problems of attribution through the centuries. Four different layers can therefore be detected in the Athenaeus passage, namely: 1. It is an unplaced epic fragment (= ‘Homerus’ F 29 Davies = F epic. adesp. 2 W.), insofar as Simonides recalls that the victory achieved by Meleager at the funer- al games for Pelias was also narrated by ‘Homer’. Although we know from the Iliad (9.529-99) that Homer was familiar with the myth of Meleager and the Calydonian boar, we have to discard Simonides’ claim that he dealt with Meleager’s victory at Iolcus, as no mention of the funeral games for Pelias can be found in our Iliad and Odyssey. The attribution to Homer of an epic poem narrating the funeral games for Pelias is not surprising, since in late archaic Greece the Homeric poems were not re- stricted to the Iliad and the Odyssey: as Wilamowitz remarked, «Um 500 sind alle Gedichte von Homer»3. Moreover, since Simonides displays great familiarity with Homer in a number of elegiac poems where he mentions him «in terms of unquali- fied admiration»4, the attribution by him to Homer of a poem on the funeral games for Pelias indicates that such poem had gained panHellenic recognition at the time; the existence and renown of an epic poem on the funeral games for Pelias is corrob- orated by the popularity of the theme on a number of early vases and works of art, including the Chest of Cypselus5. It is then hard to believe that with the name ‘Homer’ Simonides could refer to a local poet who composed a Thessalian epic, alt- hough the connection of Pelias with Jason, their dispute over the throne of Iolcus and the quest for the golden fleece may have been part of a Iolcus cycle. I am also unconvinced by the possibility that Simonides was here using the name ‘Homer’ as a Collectivname, considering that all the other quotations of Homer by him can be traced back either to specific lines in the Iliad (Simon. F el. 19.1 f. W.2 = Hom. Il. 6.146), or (as far as we can gauge) to the outlasting fame of his poetry (Simon. F el. 20.14 W.2), or to the war at Troy with which at some point he was identified, that is, not only the events narrated in the Iliad, but the entire epic tradition including the death of Achilles and the fall of the city (Simon. F el. 11.13-8 W.2). Eumelus of Corinth, a reputed early poet who told the myth of Medea and the Argonauts, stands out as a plausible candidate for the autorship of the poem men- tioned by Simonides (cf. Eum. FF 3-5, 8 B. / 20-3 W. = Eum. Cor. FF 2-5 D.), alt- hough no evidence is available that in his Corinthiaca he dealt with the funeral games for Pelias; he may also have told a different version of the myth of Medea6. 2 D. Page placed PMG 564 among the fragments of Simonides’ Europa, whereas O. Poltera cau- tiously places it among the fragments incertae sedis as F 273, and quotes W. Kegel’s surmise that it belongs to a lost epinician for a Thessalian victor (Poltera 2008, 512). 3 Wilamowitz 1884, 353; see also 352: «Bei Herodotos beginnt die Kritik ... subjective zweifel außert er». 4 West 1993, 6; see Simon. FF eleg. 11.13-8; 19.1 f.; 20.13 f. W2. 5 See the recent survey by Davies – Finglass 2014, 212-5. 6 For the attribution to Eumelus of the Funeral Games for Pelias see von der Mühll 1952, 358 f. and, most recently, Grossardt 2001, 42 f., 60-61; Debiasi 2015, 61-7. On Medea in Eumelus see - 29 - Ettore Cingano Besides, given that in antiquity the name of Homer was associated with many poems of the epic cycle, it is worth recalling that the association (or confusion) of Homer with another poet as famous as Eumelus is nowhere attested, unless one is willing to assume that the attribution to Eumelus of the epic poem Titanomachia (cf. Eum. FF 3; 14 W.), which at some point was arranged by the ancient grammarians as the first poem of the epic cycle (= Titanom. FF 1-11 B./1-10 D.), led to the confusion Eumelus = Homer7. We should also note that in his account of the myth, the mythographer Ps.Apollodorus relates the return of the Argonauts and the murder and burial of Pelias without mentioning the lavish funeral games (Bibl. 1.9.27) held in his honour; hence, it cannot be ruled out that the myth of the Ἆθλα ἐπὶ Πελίαι may have stood as an indipendent epic-heroic theme unconnected to the voyage of the Argonauts and to the murder of Pelias inspired by Medea. Similarly, an early Argonautic epic must indeed have existed on its own, dealing with the voyage of the Argo and with the love story between Jason and Medea, but not necessarily with the murder of Pelias at the hands of his daughters following the treacherous advice of Medea8. The fa- mous lines of the Odyssey (12.69-72) recalling the sailing of Ἀργὼ πᾶcι μέλουcα, παρ᾿ Αἰήταο πλέουcα (v. 70), provide clear evidence of the popularity of an early Argonautic epos; moreover, the existence of a poem narrating at least the nostos of the Argonauts composed at some point in the archaic age can nowadays also be in- ferred from POxy 3698 (IInd century CE), containing early hexameters of an Argonautic subject, where the names of Orpheus, Mopsos, Jason, Aietes occur, along with the mention of a νόcτοc (lines 10, 14, 15, 17, 18)9. Another possibility is that Simonides was referring to the epic poem Naupactia (or Carmen Naupactium), which also dealt with Medea and Jason at Iolcus (cf. Naup. FF 5-9 B./D./W./Tsagalis). The Naupactia was not included in the epic cycle, alt- hough it can be recalled that other non-cyclic poems, such as the Capture of Oechalia and the Phocais, were attributed to Homer by several sources (cf. Creophyl. TT 4-15 B. + F 1 B./D./W.; vita Homeri Herodot. 16 W.). Yet, this poem is never attributed to Homer and, as happens with Eumelus, the tying of the funeral games for Pelias to the Naupactia is far from granted: Pausanias only recalls that in the account of the Naupactia Jason migrated from Iolcus to Corcyra (not to Corinth) West 2002, 122-5. On the funeral games for Pelias see also Meyer 1980, 126 f.; Vojatzi 1982, 10- 107; Gantz 1993, 191-4. 7 This possibility is suggested by Debiasi 2015, 62 fn. 108. Grossardt 2001, 61, has suggested that Simonides is referring to Eumelus’ Corinthiaca: his opinion is countered by Davies – Finglass 2014, 218 fn. 53. 8 Pelias and Medea are mentioned in the same context in Hesiod (Theog. 992-1002), but the first connection between Medea and the murder of Pelias is attested on Attic vases around 530 BCE, and in poetry in 462 BCE (Pindar, Pyth. 4.250), where Medea is called Πελιαοφόνον. See also Pherec. F 105 Fowler. See on these matters Gantz 1993, 365-8; Tsagalis 2017, 390 f. 9 See POxy 3698, published by Haslam 1986, 10-5. Haslam (p. 10) wisely refrained from ascribing this fragment to a poet or to a specific poem; for the connection of this fragment with POxy 2513, and my doubts that it may be attributed to Eumelus of Corinth, see below, p. 52 and fn. 81. On the existence of an Argonautic epic see mostly West 2005; see also Davison 1968, 78; Martina 2007; Davies – Finglass 2014, 216 f. - 30 - Interpreting epic and lyric fragments after the death of Pelias (Paus. 2.3.9 = Naup. F 9 B./D./W./T.: see Tsagalis 2017, 390). Finally, of two other possibilities suggested by J.A. Davison, that the epic poem alluded to by Simonides could perhaps be a Meleagris or else the Ἀ μφιαράου ἐξέλαcιc «since Amphiaraus is so closely associated with Meleager by Stesichorus», the second one should be discarded since it originates from a misinterpretation of Stesich. F 4 F., θρώιcκων μὲν ἄρ᾿ Ἀμφιάραοc ἄκοντι δὲ νίκαcεν Μελέαγροc, where Stesichorus is simply referring that the two heroes won in different contests at the funeral games of Pelias: no close association between Amphiaraus and Meleager is implied here10. A Meleagris may sound like a more plausible hypothesis, and the early existence of an epic poem centered on Meleager has been surmised by many scholars11, although in Stesich. F 4 Meleager seems to have only been listed as one of the victors in the games for Pelias; moreover, such a poem remains merely con- jectural (just as its attribution to Homer). The hunt for the Calydonian boar and the death of Meleager were popular in early epic and lyric poetry, as is attested – be- sides the narrative in Hom. Il. 9.524-99 – by two Hesiodic poems (FF 25.1-13 M-W /16 H./22 M.; 280 M-W/216 M. ), by the Minyas (F 5 B./W., 3 D.), and by Stesichorus’ Boar-hunters (cf. FF 183-91 F., coming from two different poems)12. 2. Simonides PMG 564/F 273 P. has a twofold value with respect to Stesichorus. It stands as the earliest testimonium of the fortuna Stesichori (= Stesich. Tb37 Ercoles), attesting to the fame he had reached only a few decades after his death: his poems may have circulated well beyond the boundaries of Sicily and Magna Grae- cia, at the latest in the first decades of the Vth century BCE, unless one is inclined to surmise that Simonides became acquainted with the Ἆθλα ἐπὶ Πελίαι of Stesichorus during his stay in Sicily, which supposedly took place in the second quarter of the Vth century (cf. Plat. ep. 2, 311A; Paus. 1.2.3). It should also be recalled that in Ath- ens Aeschylus was familiar with the poems of Stesichorus in his early years, as stat- ed in an ancient commentary (= Stesich. F 181.1-12 F.), that is, at the end of the VIth century. Additionally, Simon. PMG 564 also stands as a paraphrase fragment from the Ἆθλα ἐπὶ Πελίαι of Stesichorus, to be placed alongside the citation fragment re- ported by Athenaeus immediately thereafter (= Stesich. F 4 F.). Besides confirming that Stesichorus agrees with Simonides on the victory of Meleager, F 4 provides the additional information that Amphiaraus was the victor in the long jump. In a later passage (14.645E) where he quotes again verbatim the same line on πέμματα which occurs in 4.172 E (= Stesich. F 3 F.) just before the Simonides fragment, Athenaeus 10 See Davison 1968, 78 [= Eranos 53, 1955, 134]; for the second possibility Davison was probably relying on Schneidewin 1835, 36. 11 See Kakridis 1949, 24 ff., passim, and the scholars listed by Aldeen 2000, 238 fn. 148. 12 The vengeance of Althaea on her son Meleager was dealt with in FF 187-91 F: on these fragments see Garner 1994; Davies – Finglass 2014, 525-31, 533 f. Althaea is also mentioned by Ibycus (cf. F 290 D.); on the epic and lyric fragments dealing with the boar hunt and the death of Meleager see, among others, Galiart 1912, 13-46; Grossardt 2001, 43-75. - 31 -