著者

安西 眞

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.46, pp.1-11, 1998

---

As editor's critical sign in the present editions of Bacchylides shows, the supplement α[ιξν, ω] at Bacchylides 2. 1 will certainly be correct. The reference, however, to Pindaric parallels, "N. 5. 2 etc."(etc. means 0. 14. 20 as the history of the supplement demonstrates), which was first made by Kenyon and has been made by Teubner-B. editors and still stands in the ap. cr. of the present edition, is, I am afraid, misleading. αιξον, ελθε (0. 14. 20), and στειχε(N. 5. 2)are of similar meaning(of human physical actions, of going and coming), in the same person(2sg.)that represents "my song", in the same mood(imperative) , and belong to the same poetical tradition(as the variations of homeric "Sing-Muse"). Moreover, all these verbs work as a principal part of the same grammatical pattern, that is, they all work as the finite verb in the same structure[finite verb in the first person or in the persons related to the first person with a connotation of human physical action(go, jump, stop etc.) +participle which stands on human verbal capacity(sing, talk etc.)] Therefore, the reference made by the editors since Kenyon to these Pindaric "parallels" seems on the surface to be reasonable enough. The stylistic backgrounds, however, of each poet are entirely different. In sing-Muse-motif or in I-sing-motif, Pindar consistently uses verbs with connotation of human physical action ; Bacchylides uses them only here. In Pindar's epinicia we find 23 sentences in the grammatical pattern which is just mentioned ; in Bacchylides', on the contrary, αιξον φερουσ' αγγελιαν is a unique instance. Behind their differences in terms of style and sentencestructure shown here I see their basic difference in the mode of epinicionmaking: Pindar heavily relied upon the chorus'(i. e. ego in his epinicia) physical competence in their performance as well as on their verbal capaclty; their physical competence, on the other hand, never entered Bacchylides' mind when he was making his epinician text. Concerning, therefore, both poets' mode of epinicion-making, the ap. cr. could be considered misleading.