[So say]
the Issedoi, glorying in their flowing hair,
that there are men sharing a border above them,
towards 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 flowing hair, the strongest of all men.
Author: Aristeas of Prokonnesos (or pseudonymous)
Title of Work: the Arimaspeia
Location in Work: Tzetzes, Histories, 7.679-684 Leone
Date of Work: c. 625 BCE
Original Language: Greek (Ionic)
Original Text:
Ἰσσηδοὶ χαίτῃσιν ἀγαλλόμενοι ταναῇσι·
καὶ σφεας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι καθύπερθεν ὁμούρους·
πρὸς Βορέω, πολλούς τε καὶ ἐσθλοὺς κάρτα μαχητάς,
ἀφνειοὺς ἵπποιςι, πολύρρηνας, πολυβούτας.
Ὀφταλμὸν δ’ ἓν ἕκαστος ἔχει χαρίεντι μετώπῳ,
χαίτῃσιν λἀσιοι, πάντων στιβαρώτατοι ἀνδρῶν.
Reference Edition: Leone, Tzetzae Historiae
Edition Notes:
1. The traditional assumption that this passage represents three non-contiguous fragments
Since at least as far back as Gottfried Kinkel’s 1877 edition (Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Aristeas F2-4), nearly all editors (except Ken Dowden in BNJ) have assumed that line 1, lines 2 to 4, and lines 5 to 6 of this passage are three separate, non-contiguous fragments.\
The assumption is motivated by the passage’s unusual sequence of grammatical forms. Line 1 is a participle clause in nominative case. Lines 2 to 4 are indirect speech, with accusative subject and infinitive verb, but there is no verb within the six quoted lines that could introduce indirect speech. Lines 5 to 6 are in standard grammar with a nominative subject and finite verb, which can be understood as either narrative voice or direct speech, on the same topic as a the preceding indirect speech, and without any narrative transition signaling the end of the indirect speech or introducing direct speech.
But aside from these unusual grammatical freatures, when the six lines are read as one contiguous fragment, the train of thought flows entirely naturally from beginning to end, which would be very unlikely if they were three non-contiguous fragments. Disconnecting line 1 from lines 2 to 4 is especially problematic, as even if line 1 were missing, we would nevertheless deduce that the line preceding lines 2 to 4 probably identified the speakers as the Issedones, as we have statements from Herodotos that in the Arimaspeia 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. As explained in the general commentary, the ambiguity of this unmarked mode switch helps explain why two differing interpretations of the latter part of Aristeas’ journey are found in Herodotos and Maximus of Tyre.
Most previous editors of Aristeas’ fragments have made two errors with this important fragment. One is of little consequence to translation but is still worth correcting, and the other 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 described in lines 2 to 4 (Arimasps).
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, 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 σφέας or σφεας, as in Gottfried Kinkel’s 1877 edition (Kinkel, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Aristeas F2-4). Also the second of the two uses of the rare word χαίτῃσι in this passage requires a movable nu to make meter, which most editors have supplied and is added here to Leone’s edition.
Commentary:
These rare verbatim lines from the Arimaspeia provide important confirmation of later writers’ reports about the poem, particularly of Herodotos’ description of one-eyed Arimasps living above the Issedones and his report that the poem included an account of what the Issedones had said about what was beyond them.
These lines also appear to explain a major disagreement among later writers about the extent of Aristeas’ journey in the Arimaspeia. According to Herodotos, Aristeas traveled no further than the Issedones and relied on their account what was beyond them. But according to Maximus of Tyre, the limit of Aristeas’ extracorporeal flight was the country of the Hyperboreans. As explained in the edition notes, it is ambiguous who is speaking in lines five and six. Lines five and six can be understood as a continuation of the Issedones’ account of what lay above them, although it would be very unusual to switch from indirect speech (with accusative subject and infinitive verb, as in lines 2-4) to direct speech (with nominative subject and finite verb, as in lines 5-6) in the middle of a single reported speech. It appears that Herodotos followed such an interpretation, and that interpretation entailed understanding a larger part of the poem that followed lines five and six as a long account told in the voice of the Issedones. Alternately, lines five and six of this passage can be understood as narrative voice – that is, as the voice of Aristeas. Maximus of Tyre apparently followed this alternate interpretation, which entailed understanding that same larger part of the poem following lines five and six as an account told in the voice of Aristeas.
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