[So say]
the Issedoi, glorying in their flowing hair,
that there are men sharing a border above them,
near Boreas, many and very brave warriors,
rich in horses, of many sheep, of many cows.
And each has an eye in his handsome brow,
shaggy with long-flowing hair, the strongest of all men.
Author: Aristeas of Prokonnesos (or pseudonymous)
Title of Work: the Arimaspeia
Location in Work: 7.679-684 (Leone)
Date of Work: c. 625 BCE
Original Language: Greek (Ionic)
Original Text:
Ἰσσηδοὶ χαίτῃσιν ἀγαλλόμενοι ταναῇσι·
καὶ σφᾶς ἀνθρώπους εἶναι καθύπερθεν ὁμούρους·
πρὸς Βορέω, πολλούς τε καὶ ἐσθλοὺς κάρτα μαχητάς,
ἀφνειοὺς ἵπποιςι, πολύρρηνας, πολυβούτας.
Ὀφταλμὸν δ’ ἓν ἕκαστος ἔχει χαρίεντι μετώπῳ,
χαίτῃσι[ν] λἀσιοι, πάντων στιβαρώτατοι ἀνδρῶν.
Reference Edition: Leone, Tzetzae Historiae
Edition Notes: Most previous editors of Aristeas’ fragments have made two errors with this important fragment, one that is of little consequence to translation but is still worth correcting, and another that has greatly impeded understanding of this important fragment. Both errors stem from the unusual configuration of lines: the first line is a nominative participle clause without a verb; lines 2 to 4 are indirect speech not introduced by any speech verb; and lines 5 and 6 are not indirect speech, but continue to describe the same thing (Arimasps) described in lines 2 to 4, without any marked transition.
The smaller error has been to assume that the missing speech verb must have been within the excerpted lines, and to find it by emending the pronoun σφᾶς (‘them’) to φας᾽ (‘they say’). Thus Bernabé in PEG, Davies in EGF and Bolton (Aristeas, 8), while Vecchiato in EGEP marked σφᾶς corrupt and noted the traditional emendation. It is much better to assume the missing speech verb was in the line preceding this excerpt, allowing Ἰσσηδοὶ to be either the speech verb’s subject or in apposition. Dowden in BNJ differently emended to genitive σφῶν, although there is nothing wrong with καθύπερθεν taking accusative σφᾶς: this construction is paralleled by e.g. μιν καθύπερθεν in Iliad 2.754.
That said, σφᾶς is an Attic form, so the original might well have been Ionic σφεας (as in Kinkel, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta) or σφέας. Also the rare word χαίτῃσι (the only recorded dative plural of the adjective χαιτήεις) either requires a movable nu before a consonant to fit meter, or was not originally dative.
The bigger error, which goes back at least as far as Kinkel in 1877, and has been followed by all recent editors of Aristeas fragments except Dowden in BNJ, is to assume that line 1, lines 2 to 4, and lines 5 to 6 are three separate, non-consecutive fragments. This is an extreme ‘solution’ given that the train of thought flows completely naturally from line 1 through 6.
Disconnecting line 1 from lines 2 to 4 is an especially strange idea, as even if line 1 were missing we could easily deduce that the apparently plural (because σφᾶς is plural) speakers of the indirect speech of lines 2 to 4 must be Issedones. We have two statements from Herodotos that tell us both that the Issedones described what was above them and that the Arimasps were directly above the Issedones.
The proposal to disconnect lines 2 to 4 from lines 5 to 6 is more sensibly motivated by the abrupt and unmarked switch from indirect speech to what can be understood as either direct speech or narrative voice. Such switches are normally marked in ancient Greek, but there are many examples of unmarked switches, which are most common in more orally based texts (see Maier, Switches and Maier, Reported Speech). Notice that another kind of switch occurs from line 5, with singular subject and verb ἕκαστος ἔχει, to the two clauses in apposition in line 6, with plural adjectives λἀσιοι and στιβαρώτατοι. An unmarked mode switch seems much more likely than non-consecutive fragments forming such a naturally flowing train of thought.
Commentary:
These rare verbatim lines from the Arimaspeia confirm the accuracy of later writers’ reports about the poem, particularly Herodotos’ description of the one-eyed Arimasps living above the Issedones, and his report that the Issedones described what was above them (but this excerpt does not confirm Herodotos’ claim that Aristeas went no further than the Issedones).
These lines and another excerpt preserved by a Roman-era writer known as pseudo-Longinus also confirm that the Arimaspeia was a traditional poem in the same style as the Homeric epics and Hesiodic poetry, including dactylic hexameter verse and early Ionic dialect (albeit probably not perfectly preserved). The fifth line is particularly close to a line used twice in the Iliad, demonstrating vividly how the authors of the Iliad and Arimaspeia were both part of a common poetic community and joint heirs of a shared language of formulas developed through older traditions of oral extemporaneous performance.
Arimaspeia: ἀφνειοὺς ἵπποιςι, πολύρρηνας, πολυβούτας
Iliad 9.154/296: ἐν δ᾽ ἄνδρες ναίουσι πολύρρηνες πολυβοῦται
Since the longer name Issedones appears consistently in later writers’ references to the people called Issedoi in this excerpt, and there is no other known independent source of information about the Issedones aside from the Arimaspeia, it must be assumed that the Arimaspeia alternated between those two forms of the name for the sake of metrical flexibility. This collection prefers the name Issedones since it is much more familiar than Issedoi.
These six lines were preserved by the 12th century Byzantine classicist Ioannis Tzetzes in his wide-ranging work known as the Histories or Chiliades. Before quoting them, Tzetzes described finding Aristeas’ poetry (at 7.668-672), making clear that he only found some lines of the Arimaspeia, not a complete text:
Καὶ ὁ Φερένικος φησὶ πεpὶ Ὑπερβορέων,
ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ Ζηνόθεμις, ὁμοῦ καὶ Ἀριστέας,
ὁ Ἀριστέας ὁ σοφὸς ὁ τοῦ Καυστροβίου,
οὗπερ αὐτὸς μὲν ἔπεσιν ἐνέτυχον ὀλίγοις,
Ἡρόδοτος δὲ μέμνηται.
And Pherenikos tells about the Hyperboreans,
and likewise Zenothemis, and also Aristeas:
Aristeas the wise, the son of Kaustrobios.
Indeed I came upon a little of his verses,
and Herodotos has recalled him.
Concordance: EGEP Aristeas F3-5 and 8b; BNJ Aristeas (35) F4; EGF Aristeas F2.i-iii; PEG Aristeas F4-6; Bolton, Aristeas T&F 3.1-5