SIGLA STEPHANIANA

S Parisinus Coislinianus 228 (Seguerianus), pars vi (saec. XI)

R Rehdigeranus 47 (c. a. 1500 scriptus)

Q Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 253 (ante a. 1485 scriptus)

V Vossianus gr. F. 20 (ante a. 1522 scriptus)

P Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 57 (ante a. 1492 scriptus)

Π Perusinus 67 (pars prior c. a. 1500 scriptus = Π1, pars posterior saec. XVI ineuntis = Π2)

N Neapolitanus III.AA.18 (c. a. 1490 scriptus)

Ald. A ldina, editio princeps (a. 1502)

SIGLA PAPYRACEA

Π1 P.Lond.Lit. 40 (saec. IV exeuntis vel V ineuntis)

π2 P.Oxy. XXXVII 2818, LXXVII 5103 (saec. II)

π3 P.Oxy. XXXVII 2815 (saec. II)

Viros doctos qui in apparatu commemorantur in bibliographia reperies, Salmasii coniecturas in Berkelii editione vel in Holstenii notis, Casauboni in Holstenii notis.

This appendix presents the fragments of Dionysius’ other known poem, the Gigantias, essentially in the form and order found in Livrea's edition, but with a few corrections, new readings, and supplements proposed by Marcotte (1988), Meliadò (2014), Henry, and myself. Unlike some of the fragments of the Bassarica, those of the Gigantias are too disjointed and scrappy for one to determine confidently their contents and context. Six of the fragments are citations by Stephanus of Byzantium (one probably overlapping with fr. 14.3), while the rest are preserved by two papyri, P.Oxy. xxxvii 2815 = π3 of the second century and P.Lond.Lit. 40 = π1 of the late fourth or early fifth century, the last of which also carried the Bassarica. The poem encompassed at least three books (fr. 5). Stephanus quotes from all three. Because fr. 14.3 from P.Oxy. 2815 mentions the toponym Keladone, which according to Stephanus occurred in the first book of the Gigantias, it may be that all the fragments preserved by this papyrus are from Book 1, but this must remain uncertain. The scene in fr. 7 from P.Oxy. 2815, which relates to Heracles’ alliance with Aigimios, ought to take place after the events narrated in the fragments of P.Lond.Lit. 40 (Heracles’ sack of Kos and the gigantomachy).

Two of the places cited by Stephanus from this poem are in Thessaly (Dotion, Nesson) and one is in the Chalkidike peninsula (Titon). Their exact connection to the gigantomachy is uncertain, apart from the fact that they are relatively close to the site of the battle in Phlegre (cf. fr. 52v.4), which was commonly identified with the Pallene peninsula in antiquity (across the Thermaic Gulf from Thessaly). The Thessalian localities might alternatively be connected to Heracles’ alliance with Aigimios against the Lapiths, which is related in fr. 7 (see below). The other two fragments from Stephanus, whose original context is unknown, name a region of Epirus (Orestis) and a town in Locris (Keladone).

Dionysius stands at an interesting juncture in the history of Greek hexameter epic, with lines taking us back to the learned poetry of the Hellenistic age and forward to the monumental epic poets of the Roman Imperial period. He is the only Greek writer of mythological epic poetry between Apollonius of Rhodes (third century BCE) and Quintus of Smyrna (third century CE) for whom we have relatively substantial fragments, and his work belongs to a period from which very little Greek poetry survives besides epigram. Two of his poems are known: a Gigantias in at least three books relating the battle of the Giants against the Olympian gods and its prehistory, and a Bassarica in at least eighteen books on Dionysus’ campaign against the Indian king Deriades. These works did not survive to medieval times, but sizeable fragments have been preserved in some papyri and in citations in the geographical dictionary of Stephanus of Byzantium. The Bassarica, the better preserved of the two poems, is the earliest known poetic account of Dionysus’ Indian war and an important literary precursor of the fullest elaboration of this legend, Nonnus’ Dionysiaca of the fifth century. Partly modelled on Alexander's eastern conquests, the legend was to prove enduringly popular in the Imperial and Late Antique periods, and Dionysius’ epic poem no doubt contributed to its growing vogue.

The last edition of Dionysius’ fragments was that of Enrico Livrea in 1973. This edition is fundamental in many respects, and it will be obvious throughout how much I am indebted to it. There are nevertheless several compelling reasons now for undertaking at least a re-edition of the Bassarica. Livrea omitted a number of entries from Stephanus of Byzantium which are almost certainly attributable to the poem, despite the fact that they do not cite Dionysius or the Bassarica explicitly. These entries, together with two new papyrus fragments from Oxyrhynchus, need to be incorporated in a more comprehensive edition of the poem. Close re-examination of the main papyrus of the Bassarica, P.Lond.Lit. 40, has also resulted in a significant number of corrections and new readings. Finally, several studies in the intervening decades have cast new light on some of the fragments.

The substantivized adjective constituting the title is rare; cf. Phal. AP 6.165.1 (third century bce) βαϲϲαρικοῦ … θιάϲοιο, Posidipp. 44.4 A–B Βαϲ[ϲαρικῶν] … ἐζ ὀρέων, and Propert. 3.17.30 cinget Bassaricas Lydia mitra comas (of Bacchus). A four-book poem of the late third century ce by Soterichus of Oasis was similarly titled Βαϲϲαρικὰ ἤτοι Διονυϲιακά according to the Suda (β 140, ϲ 877). The adjective derives from the noun Βαϲϲάραι or Βαϲϲαρίδεϲ, which designates Thracian maenads clad in fox-skin (βαϲϲάρα), on whom see Bremmer (2006) 39–40. The Bassarai notably featured in the procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus as part of the Dionysiac tableau (Ath. 5.28 (p. 198e) = Rice (1983) 10). Nonn. D. 26.220–27 characterizes the Bassarides as the elite corps of Dionysus’ female troops (cf. 220 κρείϲϲονεϲ) and as former nurses of the god, naming eighteen of them individually; see Gerlaud (1994) 7–8, 189 on D. 14.217–20. Dionysus himself bore the title Βαϲϲαρεύϲ or Βάϲϲαροϲ (e.g. Hor. C. 1.18.11, Corn. ND 62.1, Clem. Al. Protr. 2.22.4, [Orph.] H. 45.2, 52.12), so that Βαϲϲαρικά can effectively be considered a recherche alternative to Διονυϲιακά. On the suffix -ικά in titles of poems (‘matters concerning …’), cf. Overduin (2015) 169.

ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL WITNESSES

On these testimonia and the confusion of the author of the Bassarica with Dionysius Periegetes, see Introduction, Section ii.

GEOGRAPHICAL FRAGMENTS

Frr. 1–30: Catalogue technique

The fragments from Book 3 and (apparently) Book 4 derive from a geographically organized catalogue of the troops allied with Dionysus and Deriades respectively, after the model of the catalogue of Achaean and Trojan contingents in Iliad Book 2.

DIONYSIUS’ DATE

Virtually nothing can be said about the person of Dionysius. Because his fragments share several expressions and elements of diction with Oppian's Halieutica (composed c. 177–80 CE), and a papyrus of his Gigantias (P.Oxy. 2815) is securely assigned to the second century CE, it has been inferred that Oppian was the imitator of Dionysius rather than the other way round, and that Dionysius lived prior to the middle of the second century CE. The terminus ante quem may be pushed a little further back in view of Bass. frr. 39–40, written on a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus originally assigned to the late first or early second century CE. If this palaeographical dating is correct, Dionysius’ floruit could not postdate the turn of the second century, so as to allow time for his work to find its way to Oxyrhynchus by the end of the first quarter of the second century at the latest. Recently, however, a slightly later redating of the papyrus to the mid to late second century has been proposed, making it inconclusive testimony. There is no precise indication in the poems of a terminus post quem, except for the imitation of some expressions of Nicander, who probably lived in the second century BCE. In the present state of the evidence, Dionysius could have flourished either at the end of the Hellenistic period or in the early Imperial period. Agosti (2001) 136–42 sees in the sensationally macabre contents of Bass. fr. 33v, with its suggestion of human sacrifice and cannibalism, a reflection of the literary tastes of the Imperial age. From this perspective, it might be preferable to anchor Dionysius in the first century of our era rather than earlier, but this must naturally remain an impressionistic argument. Bass. fr. 28* may suggest a date after the reign of Vespasian (69–79 CE), depending on how its relation to Paus. 8.29.3–4 is interpreted (see commentary).