『アフロディテ讃歌』に関する文献学的注釈 : 136・136a行を中心に

抄録

At present, line 136a of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (h Ven) is almost always deleted from the text Editors include 136a in apparatus cnticus, or insert it between the text and apparatus cnticus, or omit it completely In fact, 136a is found in its full form in only nine out of the 23 existing manuscripts However, theoretically, this line must have been present in the archetype in its full form This line should receive equal treatment to the lines preserved in full in every manuscript So if 136a is to be deleted, the main text should be printed in the following way ου σφιν αεικελιη νυοζ εσσομαι, αλλ εικυια 136 [ει τοι αεικελιη γυνη εσσομαι ηε και ουκι] 137 As a matter of fact, line 136a is deleted since it is considered that 136 is the original and 136a merely its variant But the basis for the deletion of 136a is not very strictly defined, and the text after this deletion becomes problematic, specifically in view of the asyndeton in 136 and the omission of the digamma in εικυια On the other hand, if one deletes 136, ηε και ουκι does not have a corresponding η, η of γυνη must be shortened, and δειξον of 134 takes an ει-clause as its object All this is highly unusual for epic language In any case the deletion leads to some problems, so it is better to avoid it The reason is that the deletion of one line brings about radical changes to the reading of the archetype Actually, there is no evidence that only one line, either 136 or 136a, is original, and the other one merely its variant, in the first place I argue that instead of deleting the line, it is necessary to preserve the reading of archetype So I print text m the following way αδμητην μ' αγαγων και απειρητην φιλοτητοζ 133 πατρι τε σω δειξον και μητερι κεδν' ειδυιη 134 σοιζ τε κασιγνητοιζ, οι τοι ομοθεν γεγαασιν, 135 -ου σφιν αεικελιη νυοζ εσσομαι, αλλ εικυια- 136 ει τοι αεικελιη γυνη εσσομαι ηε και ουκι 136a Certainly, it contains the problems of 136 and 136a described above These constitute a problem only if h Ven was created in 7-6 century B C following in the oral tradition of Homer and Hesiod The fact that h Ven was created in 7-6 century B C seems doubtful, however, because some words and phrases are used in the meanings that they only acquired around 5 century B C Besides there is evidence in the text that the author had read Homer and then wrote his poem Moreover, the author probably did not understand Homer's grammar correctly Finally, there is a part of the poem which shows the author to be far removed from the times of the best epic poetry Though it is difficult to decide correctly when h Ven was created, it is possible that it was written in the classical period, as some parallels seem to point Besides the author of h Ven referred to the book of Ilias with all its scribal errors If h Ven was created after 5 century B C and was written down, the reading of the archetype at 136・136a ceases to present problems