Callimachus: Aetia - Commentary [2] 019814492X, 9780198144922

Citation preview

CALLIMACHUS Aetia Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary

by

ANNETTE HARDER Volume 2. Commentary

OXFORD U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS

OXFORD U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford 0X2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective o f excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries.

Contents Volume 2

© Annette Harder 2012 The moral rights of the author have been asserted

COMMENTARY

1

First published 2012 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available ISBN 978-0-19-814491-5 (voi. 1) ISBN 978-0-19-814492-2 (voi. 2) ISBN 978-0-19-958101-6 (set) Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CRO 4YY

Appendix 1. Survey of the Aetia

1025

Appendix 2. Other fragments attributed to the Aetia

1027

The numbering of the fragments: comparative tables

1029

Index o f Greek Words

1032

Index o f Names and Subjects

1043

Index o f Sources

1055

Commentary

Commentary T 1

3

T 1 These lines are part of an epigram which in some manuscripts preceded the text of Callimachus’ hymns and contained a little catalogue of his works. They offer additional evidence that the Aetia consisted of four books (see further Introd. 1.1). Pfeiffer 2, lv and ad loc. assigns the epigram to a date certainly not earlier than the 6 th cent, a d , but presumably not before the 9th-10th cent, a d , and refers to similar iambic summaries dated after the 10th cent, a d ; see also Bulloch 1985, 80 f. n. 2. The origin and author of the epigram are unknown, but it is worth noting that the Aetia is described as a ‘big’ work (cf. also T 6,1). T 2 This passage from the Suda-lexicon shows that in late 5th-early 6 th cent. a d the Aetia remained a source of poetic inspiration. The reference to the number of lines is of some interest. The Suda records other paraphrases of Marianus as well and shows that the number of lines might roughly correspond with the original: for Aratus’ Phaenomena (1154 lines) Marianus needs 1140 lines, for Apollonius’ Argonautica (5835 lines) 5608, for the works of Theocritus (2792 lines) 3150, for Nicander’s Theriaca (985 lines) 1370. So, if Marianus wrote roughly one iambic line for each hexameter and/or pentameter of Callimachus, the fact that the Hecale, Hymns, Aetia, and Epigrams contained 6810 lines together would mean that for the Hecale and Aetia C.5430 lines were available (assuming that the number of epigrams was the same as ours). As the length of the Hecale is generally considered to have been c.1000 lines, but may have been more (see Hollis 1990a, 337 if.), this would leave c.4430 lines for the Aetia. Other evidence suggests that the Aetia was somewhat longer; for further discussion see Introd. 1.4. T 3 This epigram shows Callimachus and the Aetia as objects of criticsm at an unknown date. It has been attributed to Apollonius Rhodius (fr. 13 Powell) as well as to a grammarian Apollonius. Both views have found defenders, but the rather coarse criticism is hard to reconcile with the subtle interaction between Callimachus and Apollonius Rhodius that their texts demonstrate (see the Commentary passim and Introd. 4.4). For convincing arguments against attribution to Apollonius Rhodius see recently e.g. H.Lloyd-Jones, Review of D.L.Page, Further Greek Epigrams . . . , CR 32, 1982, 139-44, esp. 139 (= Academic Papers 2, Oxford 1990, 224); Cameron 1995, 227 f.; for arguments in favour of Apollonius Page on FGE 53 f. and the literature adduced by Fraser 1972, 2, 1056 f. n. 276. 3,1 This line suggests that the speaker in the epigram regards Callimachus as a worthless, stupid trickster; for details and further discussion see Page on FGE 53 f. For criticism of Callimachus in the early empire see the evidence

Commentary T 3,1

Commentary T 6,5-6

adduced by Cameron 1995, 228; for contemporary criticism see comm, on ff. lb, 2 if. 3,2 The interpretation of this line is not clear. Page on FGE 53 f. discusses various possibilities, but finds none of them convincing and suggests that perhaps we must assume the reference to guilt is to a context beyond the scope of the epigram: ‘it might be a reply to a charge that the author himself was “to blame” for something’. Another possibility is to read the epigram as two lemmata: line 1 explains Κ αλλίμαχοc as το κάθαρμα etc., line 2 ai'rtoc explains ‘guilty’ as ‘the man who wrote the Aetia of Cal­ limachus’ (so e.g. W. R. Paton, The Greek Anthology 4, London 19919, 199; see also F. Cairns, ‘Callimachus the ‘Wooden-top’ (AP XI 275)’, in L.Belloni-G.Milanese-A.Porro (edd.), Studia classica Johanni Tarditi oblata, Milano, 1995,607-15). As Lehnus 1990c, 291 f. observes there is no need to read Κ αλλίμαχοε at the end of this line; cf. T 4,4.

beginning of the story of the dream could have been the common source of both passages. 6,5 The fact that the movement is said to be from Libya cannot be regarded as evidence that Callimachus dreamed of his younger self as still living in Cyrene. In other authors Libya could refer to the whole of North Africa, as in e.g. Hdt. 2,42,1 (see also S.A.Stephens, ‘Writing Epic for the Ptolemaic Court’, in M.A.Harder-R.F.Regtuit-G.C.Wakker, Apollonius Rhodius (Hellenistica Groningana 4), Leuven 2000,195-215, esp. 203), but there is also a tendency to separate Egypt from Africa (see Chamoux 1953,35), so that Libya could suggest ‘from Africa, but not from Egyptian Alexandria’. Cal­ limachus himself is also ambivalent, as in fr. 228,51 he uses the name Libya to indicate Egypt and Alexandria, whereas in h.2, 66 it refers to the area of Cyrene. It is therefore conceivable that the epigrammatist also used Libya to indicate northern Africa in general, particularly because there is evidence that Callimachus went to Alexandria while still young (see test.14 Pf.). The fact that Callimachus placed himself emphatically outside Greece may be of programmatic significance; see Acosta-Hughes - Stephens 2002,250. 6,7 As Nitikinski 1996,205 remarks, Callimachus would not himself have used the word ώ γυγίω ν about his heroes, as he applies it only to the very distant past long before these heroes lived.

4

T 4 This epigram of Martial gives evidence of a negative reading of the Aetia as a work which does not deal with human affairs, but with mythological characters and monsters which do not help the reader to know himself. T 5 This passage of Clement of Alexandria shows that the Aetia was regarded as a difficult work in late 2nd-early 3rd cent. a d . This agrees with the evidence from the papyri, which shows that from an early date explanatory notes and commentaries accompanied the work (see e.g. the comments on the Victory of Berenice in fr. 60d-j). T 6 This epigram offers some information about the dream which carried Callimachus to Mt. Helicon. It tells us about the dialogue-format of the Aetia (i.e. of the first two books, as we know now) and about the subjects of the aetiological stories: gods, half-gods, and ancient heroes. It is conceivable that at some stage it figured as an introduction to an edition of the Aetia; see for this notion P.Waltz {et al), Anthologie Grecque 4, Paris 1960, 75 n. 6 . 6,1 In this line μ εγα recalls T 1,2 and περίττυετον adds the notion of wide­ spread fame. Kambylis 1965,71 regards the patronymic ΒαττιάΒαο as an indication that the epigrammatist was closely following Callimachus, who may well have presented himself in this way in the Aetia (as in Ep. 35,1). 6,3—4 The epigram presents the Aetia as a source of knowledge about gods and half-gods, a claim which is repeated in 7 f., where we find gods and heroes. The emphasis on knowledge agrees with the idea that the Aetia was a work in the tradition of didactic poetry; see Introd. 4.2. 6,5-6 These lines may owe something to Callimachus, as the phrasing is rather similar to Ov.Trisf.4,10,119 f. (to the Muse:) tu nos abducts ab Histro, I in medioque mihi das Helicone locum. The lost part of the Aetia at the

5

T 7 In calling Callimachus ‘not bombastic’ Propertius may refer to words used by Callimachus himself (as in 2,1,40 intonet. .. Callimachus, which recalls fr. 1,19 f.). As Enk ad loc. observes, the phrasing recalls Euripides’ description of the nature of Aeschylus’ tragedies in Ar. Ra. 939 f., where particularly οίδονεαν (940) is significant. For Callimachus’ use of the Ranae see comm, on fr. 1,9 καθέλκει. T 8 This epigram, regarded as an epitaph for Callimachus by Page on FGE 1244 f., may be related to fr. 2b,12-13, where we find a possible indication of a banquet of the Muses (see comm, ad loc.). 8,1 As Cameron 1995,370 observes, ευνεετιε may be related to fr. 2d,2 ε(υμ)μείξαε and indicate ‘conversation between equals’. See also comm, on T 9. T 9 Cameron 1995,369f. first adduced this testimonium and Hollis 2002,37 ff. also discusses it. The description suits the dream and the dia­ logue with the Muses and the reference to speaking as well as listening fits in neatly with the evidence of the papyri (cf. e.g. fr. 7a,12 ff. and 43,18 ff). An additional argument for the attribution may be the close similarity between Synesius’ text and fr. 2 d ,2 κ]ατ οναρ ε{υμ)μείζαε ταΐε Μούε[αic (so Hollis 2002,38 n. 13).

Commentary T 9 The reading ypóvoc occasions a difficulty, as it suggests a contemporary poet. As it is hard to imagine that a later poet would imitate the Aetia so closely Cameron 1995,370 n. 35 emended χρόνοο to χώροο so that the poet would become a compatriot instead of a contemporary of the author Synesius of Cyrene (late 4th cent, a d ) and could be identified with Callimachus. Hollis 2002,38 regards this solution with favour, and as an alternative suggests to delete ajcnep . . . παραδόξων, originally omitted by o. If the attribution is correct it implies that (1) we should bear in mind the possibility that Callimachus’ own contributions to the dialogue were perhaps even more prominent than we are now able to perceive; ( 2 ) the dream may have been presented as some kind of initiation as Callimachus went to sleep apovcoc (for further discussion of this aspect see Hollis 2002,38 ffi).

1 - le AGAINST THE TELCHINES Acosta-Hughes-Stephens 2002; Ambühl 20046, 29 ff.; Asper 1997; Benedetto 1993α; Cameron 1995,104 ff; dayman 1977; Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004,66 ff.; Hopkinson 1988,91 ff.; Kambylis 1965,75 ff.; Lohse 1973; Pfeiffer, 1928 (= 1960); Pretagostini 2006α; Prioux 2007,85 ff.; Schmitz 1999; Sier 1998; Torraca 1973; Wimmel 1960,71 ff. Contents

Fr. 1, generally considered to be the prologue of the Aetia, contains a spirited defence against literary opponents. Although the passage does not read as a complete and systematic literary programme, it gives a good impression of the literary issues that were at stake for Callimachus and of the way in which he positions himself in the literary tradition through both explicit statements and subtle allusions. The fragment’s contents can be summarized, roughly, as follows. In 1-6 the speaker, who represents himself as an old poet and is generally regarded as an impersonation of Callimachus, begins with a description of his critics, whom he calls the Telchines. The speaker summarizes their view that he is blameworthy, because he has not written one long, continuous poem on kings and heroes. In 7-20 the speaker reports his reaction to his critics: he rejects long and noisy poems and emphasizes that poetical skill, not length, must be the criterion by which poetry is judged. In 21-8 he explains that, when he first started to write poetry, Apollo told him that he should keep his Muse slender

Fr. 1 -le Introduction

7

and go along untrodden paths. In 29—38 the speaker says that he has followed Apollo’s instructions and expresses the intention and hope to be a subtle and refined poet, singing like the cicada and untroubled by old age, and he shows himself confident that the Muses will continue to be his friends. In 39-40 there seems to be a reference to a swan, which may be connected with the preceding passage on old age. In its overall arrangement the fragment consists of two main sections: in 1-20 the focus is on the rejection of the Telchines and on the importance of short and subtle works, in 21-40 the style of such works appears through a series of metaphors both in the speech of Apollo and in the speaker’s own words. This passage has been much discussed and its overall interpretation as well as a number of details are still the subject of dispute. I highlight a few central issues here, but for detailed discussion and further reading I refer the reader to the commentary and to the literature cited above in the select bibliography. The status o f fr. 1

Fr. 1 may be understood to continue the tradition of the so-called sphragis, a ‘seal’ by means of which a poet explains his views on poetry (see in general Kranz 1961 and for further references Fakas 2001,52 n.153). As in the other examples of such programmatic passages (like e.g. Timotheus PMG 791,202 ff.), Callimachus here defends his own style of poetry. Apart from that, however, he also seems to give a demonstration of the kind of refined poetry he wishes to write, because the fragment is full of subtle allusions and sophisticated phrasing (so also Ferguson 1980,32 ff.; for the use of metaphor in the prologue see Asper 1997 and 2001; for the effect of the allusions Harder 2 0 0 2 a, 206 ff.). That the fragment is autobiographical has recently been the subject of dispute and, since the notion of old age and the contrast between young and old seems to have a certain programmatic value itself (see Ambühl 20046, 28 ff. and comm, on fr. 1,30), it is wise to review the arguments care­ fully. Earlier scholars, e.g. Pfeiffer 1928 (= 1960), who speaks about an ‘Altersgedicht’, attributed the fragment to Callimachus’ old age, which could bring it well into the 240s (see Lehnus 1995a). This notion was of course inspired by the explicit references to old age in 32 ff, but, as Pfeiffer also observes, ‘nicht nur die Einzelbemerkungen ( . . . ) sagen uns das, sondern vor allem und am nachdrücklichsten die Haltung des Ganzen. In der Abwehr siegt über alle Bitterkeit ein überlegener Humor . . . ’ (1928,333 (= 1960,125)). Because of this and because the prologue presupposes that a considerable literary production had already been published and was the

8

Fr. 1-1 e Introduction

subject of the Telchines’ attack, Pfeiffer argues that it must have been added to a second edition of the Aetia or of the complete works of Callimachus ( 1928,338 ff. (= 1960,129 if.) ). This view was modified by Parsons 1977,49 f., who argues that there had been an early edition of Aetia 1-2 (the dialogue with the Muses) and a second edition in which another group of aitia was framed between the Victory of Berenice and the Lock of Berenice (Aetia 3-4), and that the four books were framed between a prologue (ff. 1 ) and an epilogue (ff. 112). Parsons’ view has generally found favourable reception, but has been challenged by Cameron 1995,174 ff., who wants to regard ff. 1 as the prologue of an early edition of Aetia 1-2 and argues that already c.270 b c Callimachus could have complained about old age. Schmitz 1999,151 ff. and Asper 2001,85 ff. regard the notion of a bio­ graphical interpretation altogether sceptically and suggest that one should not read ff. 1 as referring to a historical conflict, but as a metaphorical Leerstelle in which the Telchines were presented as a kind of a negative foil and ‘outgroup’, which helped the readers to feel part of a select and homogeneous group and to identify with the speaker, who flattered his readers by appealing to their erudition and understanding. The idea that the prologue was primarily a sophisticated captatio benevolentiae is attractive and helpful for the interpretation of ff. 1 , but the fact that Callimachus shaped the prologue as he did, with emphasis on old age and on a literary dispute, would be hard to account for if it had no historical basis at all. The best solution seems to be to assume that Callimachus used his position as an aged poet confronted by certain criticisms as the raw material for a captatio benevolentiae at the beginning of his Aetia in which he rose to a level of abstraction in which the actual conflict became a metaphor for a more important message about the nature of poetry. The idea that ff, 1 was composed as a prologue to the whole of the Aetia in Callimachus’ old age may also draw some support from the way in which it seems to ‘foreshadow’ various aspects of the contents of both halves of the Aetia: (1) the allusions to the song of the old chorus in E. HF 637 ff. in 32 ff. may point to the aitia about Heracles in ff. 22-25d of book 1 as well as in the Victory of Berenice (ff. 54-60j) and in ff. 76b-77d of book 3. Thus 32 ff. may pull the two halves of the Aetia together and provide a non-biographicad argument for ff. 1 as an ‘Altersgedicht’ and prologue to the whole work; (2) both the Victory of Berenice (ff. 54-60j) and the Lock of Berenice (ff. 110-11 Of) illustrate the statement in 3 f. about not writing a long poem about kings: these brief poems were about a queen and in the Lock of Berenice the lock’s suffering was presented as the main focus of interest, whereas the successes of Ptolemaeus III Euergetes in the Syrian War receive only brief

Fr. 1-1 e Introduction

9

mention of less then two lines (as we may infer from the translation in Cat. 66,35 f.); (3 ) the emphasis on the poems with female subjects and, possibly, with erotic themes in 9-12 may point forward to the importance o f ‘love’ in Aetia 3—4; (4 ) the notions of lack of chronological order, brevity, and originality in 3 ff. and 23 ff. are rather emphatically put into practice in Callimachus’ treat­ ment of the story of the Argonauts. At the beginning of the Aetia the poet treats the events at Anaphe (fr. 7c-21d) from the end of the return journey in a relatively brief passage, which contains references to the whole expedition as Apollonius Rhodius tells it in the Argonautica, whereas an episode from the journey’s beginning is told towards the end of the Aetia in fr. 108—109a. For further discussion of the composition and date of the Aetia see Introd. 1.1 and 3.

The position o f fr. 1 in the ancient literary tradition

Through explicit reference as well as subtle allusion Callimachus locates fr. 1 within a long literary tradition. As is fitting for an elegiac poem the only explicit references are to other elegiac poets in 9ff., where a comparison between the long and short elegies of Antimachus, Philitas, and Mimnermus seems to be indicated by the text. Apart from these explicit references there are many allusions to other authors, which evoke the extensive literary tradition before Callimachus and also reflect ancient views on matters like originality, literary quality, and size. A brief list of the poets and genres included consists of Homer (cf. 1; 9 f. and 13 f.); Hesiod (cf. 2; 27 f. and 37 f.); epic in general (cf. 1 and 13 ff.); Pindar (cf. 2 and 25 ff.); tragedy and its reception in old comedy, particularly the contest of Aeschylus and Euripides in Aristophanes’ Ranae (cf. 9 f.; 17 f.; 19 f.; and 32 if.). Apart from these allusions to earlier poets we find references to passages of literary criticism and critical terminology in 3 (to Aristotle?); 23 ff. (to several earlier texts on refinement and originality; see comm.) and 32 (to Plato’s Ion). Thus the reader is presented with a kaleidoscopic view of the literary tradition and literary points of view before Callimachus. For further discussion and a more extensive survey see Harder 2002a,206 ff.; Acosta-Hughes-Stephens 2002,246 ff. In Hellenistic poetry the prologue may be related to Callimachus’ own works, to passages like fi.2,105 ff.; ia.fr. 203; Ep.ll, 27, and 28, where similar issues of style and asserting position in the post-Homeric tradition are at issue (for an extensive discussion of these passages see e.g. Wimmel

10

11

Fr. 1-1 e Introduction

Fr. 1-1 e Introduction

1960,50 ff.; for fi.2,105 ff. see also Williams ad loc.; for la. ff. 203 Kerkhecker 1999,250 ff.; Acosta-Hughes 2002,60 ff.). We also find views parallel to those in the Aetia prologue in Theoc. 7 (see e.g. Falter 1934,29 ff.; Lohse 1966,413 ff.) and perhaps in Theoc. 1 (see Goldhill 1987,1 ff.); Posidippus 118 AB (= SH 705; see Lloyd-Jones 1963 b, 95 ff. and about the poem in relation to the new fragments of Posidippus B.M.Gauly, ‘Posidipp und das Gedicht­ buch’, ZPE 151,2005,33-47); Antip. Sid. AP 7,409 (= HE 638 ff.; see A.Grilli, ‘Antipatro di Sidone e Callimaco’ (AP 7,409), PP 34,1979,202-4). For the influence of the prologue in later Greek literature see e.g. Brandis 2002,172 ff. on the imitation of the prologue in the Visio Maximi (an inscrip­ tion of the lst-3rd cent, a d ); S.Costanza, ‘Motivi callimachei nel proemio di Cynegetica di Oppiano d’Apamea’, in Studi. . . G.Monaco. I Letteratura Greca, Palermo 1991,479-89. On the reception of the prologue in Latin literature see e.g. Wimmel 1960; Hutchinson 1988,277 ff.; R.F.Thomas, ‘Callimachus back in Rome’, in M.A.Harder-R.F.Regtuit-G.C.Wakker, Callimachus (Hellenistica Groningana 1), Groningen 1993,197-215; Cameron 1995,454 ff.; Hunter 2006b, passim (see his index); R.R.Nauta, ‘The recusatio in Flavian poetry’, in R.R.NautaH.-J.vanDam-J.J.L.Smolenaars (edd.), Flavian Poetry, Leiden-Boston, 2006, 21-40.

variety (see Introd. 4) and alludes to many of the predecessors hinted at in the prologue. For general discussions of the programmatic aspects of the prologue see e.g. Kambylis 1965,75 ff.; Lohse 1973,20 ff.; M.Fuhrmann, Einführung in die antike Dichtungstheorie, Darmstadt 1973,129 ff. and 180 ff.; Schwinge 1986,20 if.; Schmitz 1999,151 ff.; for further discussion of Cameron’s views on epic see Harder 2002 c, 603 f.

The m ain issues o f ff. 1

Scholars have sometimes thought that the prologue of the Aetia is a rejection of epic, but, as Herter 1937,111 already observes, for Callimachus works in elegiacs and hexameters were both part of the genre ‘epic’ and therefore the issue in the prologue must have been style rather than genre. Cameron 1995,263 ff. takes up Herter’s idea, but Cameron’s claim that ff. 1 is about the proper style of elegy is too narrow. In fact, as shown above, the prologue of the Aetia refers the reader in a highly allusive manner to a variety of literary genres and passages of literary criticism and is best read as referring to poetic style and quality in general. It touches on values and criteria that are applicable to a variety of poetic genres, of course including elegy and epic, but by no means restricted to one of these genres. The message seems to be that a poet should aim for the quality of small-scale, subtle, and original (and there­ fore ‘sweet’) poetry, with techné as a more important criterion than length, and the reader is invited to read this message against the background of a kaleidoscopic and allusive picture of earlier Greek poetry and earlier literary criticism. This fits in with the character of the Aetia, which, in spite of its being basically an elegiac catalogue poem, shows a great deal of generic

P osition in the A etia

The first editor of P.Oxy.2079 suggests that this fragment, which contains many lines which were quoted and attributed to Callimachus by gram­ marians, must be part of the prologue of the Aetia (see Hunt 1927,46; similarly Pfeiffer 1928,335 ff. ( - 1960,127 f.) ). This view has been confirmed by the Florentine scholia in fr. lb, which have fr. 1,1 as the first lemma. The evidence from the grammarians agrees with this state of affairs: ( 1 ) when they quote from fr. 1, they do not attribute their quotation to the Aetia, but only mention Callimachus as its author, which can been explained by the fact that the fragment was a prologue and not part of the Aetia proper (see Pfeiffer 1928,338 f. (= 1960,129 ff.) ); (2) Hephaestion’s examples for certain metrical patterns seem to be the first he came across in the Aetia (i.e. 2 , 6 , and 20). As suggested above, the prologue seems to be carefully tuned to prepare the reader for reading the Aetia. It points forward to the work’s composition and its treatment of important figures like Heracles and the Ptolemies and it prepares the reader for the work’s generic complexities and highly allusive character as well as for the unchronological arrangement of the stories and the brevity of the presentation. By means of the emphasis on the poet as a child or young man as well as on his old age the prologue also represents the double perspective of the Aetia, in which the old poet dreams about himself as a young man. For similar views see Hutchinson 2003,49; Ambühl 2004b, 29 f. On the relation between ff. 1 and 2 see introd. to fr. 2-2j on Position in the Aetia. C om m entary

1, 1-6 These lines contain a short description of Callimachus’ opponents, the Telchines, who are enemies of the Muse (1-2). Their complaint that Callimachus is writing the wrong kind of poetry is briefly summarized in 3-6.

12

Commentary 1, 1-6

The passage opens with a disqualification of Callimachus’ opponents, which recurs, differently phrased, in 7 f., at the beginning of the quotation of the speaker’s address to the Telchines, and again in 17, where it intro­ duces the final rejection of the Telchines. Thus the first half of the prologue is characterized by repeated vehemence towards the opposition, inter­ spersed with the rejection of its point of view. The Telchines are absent from the second half of the prologue, where, apparently, the speaker feels he has dealt with them sufficiently and here he turns to his own attitude on poetic composition. 1, 1 The opening line of the prologue recalls 71.9,311 die μη μοι τρύζηre παρημενοι άΧΧοθεν άΧΧοε, where Achilles feels himself surrounded by messengers from Agamemnon (cf. 168 ffi), and perhaps Agamemnon’s defence in 71.19,85 ff. ποΧΧάκι δη μοι τούτον ’Α χαιοί μύθον εειπον, I και τ ε μ€ νεικείεεκον, εγώ 8’ ούκ αίτιόε είμι, I άλλα Ζεύε (which Callimachus may have found attractive to evoke because of the connection aiTioc/Aetia; cf. also T 3,2). These epic reminiscences could remind the readers of Achilles, the epic hero par excellence, refusing to fight in the epic battles in spite of attempts to make him decide otherwise, and of Agamemnon, another epic hero under attack, adducing one of the gods as ultimately responsible for his behaviour. Thus they may foreshadow the speaker’s concern with epic poetry and his claim to be following divine instructions in 21 ffi Several later poets imitated this line and apparently it was quite famous; cf. e.g. Nestor Larand. AP 9,537,1 τ ίπ τε με θρυΧηεαντεε εμην άπεπαύεατ αοιδην; [Apollin.] Met.Ps.40,15 πάντεε επιτρύζεεκον άπεχθεεε άμφ’ εμοι ανδρεε; Greg.Naz.C. 2,1,19,72 (PG 37,1277,2) ττοΧΧοι μεν τρύζεεκον όμοιε παθεεεειν άπιετοι; Mich.Chon. Theano 17 (2, ρ. 375 Lampros) τίε κεν επιτρόζων νεμεεήεηι ευκηε άοιδήι (on which see Introd. 8.1.4). ποΧλάκί i: several supplements have been suggested here, but now ποΧΧάκι, which already seemed rhetorically the most effective supplement, is con­ firmed by a scholion on Od. 2,50 (quoted in app.), adduced by Pontani 1999,57 ff. In this scholion the words ττοΧΧάκιε ΤεΧχΐνεε apparently introduce a parellel for the double dative Od.2,50 μητερι μοι. The use of this adverb here suggests that the prologue was a kind of ‘speech’, because ττοΧΧάκιε and similar words are often found at the beginning of speeches in Greek drama, Thucydides, and rhetors; cf. e.g. A.Pers.176; Th.3,37,1; 1,80,1; Lys.3,1; for more examples see Eduard Frankel, ‘Eine Anfangsformel attischer Reden’, Gioita 39,1960,1-5; Cameron 1995,339. Besides, as Torraca and Massimilla ad loc. observe, the adverb goes well with the present επιτρύζουειν, as it conveys a notion of ongoing mutterings. In the sequel the notion of ‘many times’ seems to be picked up

Commentary 1,1

13

and associated with the concerns of the Telchines in εν πολλάΐε . . . χιΧιάειν in 4 and ούκ όΧίγη in 6 (see Acosta-Hughes-Stephens 2002,238 n.5). Perhaps there is also an allusion to the two Homeric instances of ττοΧΧάκι ( . . . ) μοι in 71.9,490 f. -ποΧΧάκι μοι κατεδευεαε επί ετήθεεει χιτώ να I οίνου άποβΧύζων εν νηπιεηι άΧεγεινήι, Phoenix speaking to Achilles as a troublesome child, just like the Telchines who in 6 accuse Callimachus of writing poetry like a child, and 19,85 f. (quoted above), where the notion of criticism and the use of αίτιοε might be relevant (cf. perhaps also T 3,2), but the connection with both passages is slight. In Latin authors Callimachus’ ποΧΧάκι seems to have acquired a certain programmatic value and may be alluded to in e.g. Cat. 116,1 f. saepe tibi studioso animo uenante requirens I carmina uti possem mittere Battiadae and Martial. 1,107,1 f. saepe mihi dicis. . . I ‘scribe aliquid magnum’. ΤεΧχΐνεε: the Telchines were mythical metal-workers and sorcerers of an early age, sons of the sea, living on islands like Rhodes and Ceos. Their main characteristics were envy, the Evil Eye, and godless hubris, as well as technical skills; cf. e.g. Stes.PMG 265; Pi. 0.7,50 ff. (about the Rhodians, i.e. presumably the Telchines); B.l and in the Aetia also ff. 75,64 ff. (about the destruction of Ceos). Also later sources often mention their negative characteristics. For their envy cf. e.g. Nonn.D. 14,36 φθονεροί ΤεΧχΐνεε; 30,226; Mich.Chon.Epist.2, p. 60,9 Lampros φεΰ τού φθόνου, φεύ τών ΤεΧχίνων. φθόνοε ην ό τοΐε άγαθοΐε βαεκηναε; Hsch. τ 448 s.v. ΤεΧχΐνεε; Sud. τ 293 s.v. ΤεΧχΐνεε; and D.S.5,55,3 . . . και είναι φθονερούε εν τήι διδαεκαΧίαι τώ ν τεχνώ ν (which is part of an extensive description of the Telchines in D.S.5,55). For the Evil Eye, which is also an aspect of Phthonos and the main instrument of Βαεκανίη, to whom the Telchines are related in 17, cf. Ov. Met. 7,365 ff, where Juppiter drowns the Telchines because of it. As to their antiquity, in hA, 31 Bing 1988α, 112 f. regards the Telchines as part of the ‘violent and museless world’ before the birth of Apollo. In a similar vein Acosta-Hughes-Stephens 2002,241 and 245 f. point to parallels for the pattern of the defeat of the old chthonic powers by young gods elsewhere in Callimachus and suggest that the childlike Callimachus (cf. 6 ) may be related to these young gods. See further on the Telchines e.g. Herter 1934,206 ff ; Wimmel 1960,72 f.; Dasen 1993,196 ff; A.Ambühl in Der Neue Pauly 12.1,86 f. s.v. Telchines; D.Musti, 7 Telchini, le Sirene, Pisa-Rome 1999. In calling his critics Telchines Callimachus seems to have created an ‘outgroup’ of an old-fashioned, envious, malicious, and destructive nature with a certain pretence of being artists themselves. See further on the use Callimachus makes of the Telchines here Pfeiffer 1928,316 and 340 f.

14

Commentary 1,1

(= 1960,110 f. and 131 f.); Wimmel 1960,72 ff.; Kambylis 1965,76 ff.; Fraser 1972, 747 ff.; Asper 1997,209 ff. and 2001,88 f. In the later tradition this particular use of the Telchines in contexts of literary criticism recurs in e.g. Philippus AP 11,321,2 (= GP 3034) τελχίνεε βίβλων and in a general sense in e.g. Paul. Sil. S. Soph. 195 Τελχΐναε κακοεργεαε (of the opponents of Christ); see further Herter 1934,210; Kambylis 1965,76 n.23. It is uncertain whom Callimachus might have meant with the qualifica­ tion Telchines. Schmitz 1999,162 ff. argues that their identification might not be important because the main point of Callimachus’ rhetoric in this passage must be to create an ‘outgroup’ of the wrong kind of readers or critics from which the proper reader may dissociate himself. Even so, the reference to literary opponents would seem pointless if there was no historical basis at all (as argued above on The status offr. 1) and already in antiquity attempts were made to identify the Telchines. There is a list of people who may be meant by the Telchines in the scholia in ff. lb,3 ff., but sadly it is very lacunose and its value is disputed. Within the larger framework of the prologue the evil Telchines, whose name is the first substantive in the first line of the poem, form an effective contrast to the Muses in 37 ff., who look on Callimachus with a favourable eye (see Kambylis 1965,77; Reinsch-Werner 1976,328). In the first two lines of the prologue this contrast is already briefly indicated because of the metrical position of Τελχίνεε in 1 and Μ ούεηε in 2 , both before the caesura. επιτρύζουειν: the compound is not attested before Callimachus, but the verb τρύζω is normally used of the sounds of animals, which may vary between low, muttering croaks or high-pitched squeaking (for examples of both see Cameron 1995,340; Kidd on Arat.948). The simple verb is first attested in II. 9,311 (quoted above), where it is a Homeric hapax and used in a metaphorical sense of the continuous muttering of people; cf. for this interpretation of the verb Σ II. 9,311 . . . ij τονθορύζητε; Eust. 751,11 . . . το πολύλογε tv rj πολυφωνεΐν. This meta­ phorical use is also attested of τρύγω ν (‘turtle-dove’), which is sometimes used of people who cannot stop talking (cf. e.g. Theoc. 15,87 f. and the examples in Gow ad loc.). In Hellenistic and later Greek poetry we find επιτρύζω also in Theoc. 2,62 επιτρύζοιεα (‘of sinister muttering’ Gow); Euph. ff. 134 Powell ήπεδαναί π εμ φ ιγεε επιτρύζουει θανόντα (probably also of a soft, muttering sound; see vGroningen ad loc.). Related verbs, in contexts which sometimes recall Callimachus, include κατατρύζω in Philipp. AP 11,321,7 (= GP 3039) (of the τελχΐνεε βίβλων, followers of Callimachus) and ύποτρύζω in Nonn. D. 12,76; 17,374 and 39,359; Nonn.Ev Joh. 7,39 ύποτρύζοντι δε λαώι I μυρίοε ερρεε μΰθοε ά α γή τω ν

Commentary 1,1

15

από λαιμών; 6,186 and 7,120. For more examples from later Greek poetry see Massimilla ad loc. Here the verb seems to suggest the insistent criticism of the Telchines as well as the secrecy of envy which is elsewhere attested (‘a whispering campaign’ Hunter 1993a,190); cf. e.g. Pi.O.1,47 εννεπε κρυφάι tic αυτίκα φθονερών γειτόνων; Ρ.1,84; Ν.8,26 and Phthonos’ behaviour in h.2,105 επ ’ οΰ'ατα λάθριοε εΐπεν. Besides, the various animal sounds which are evoked by the use of this verb may be contrasted effectively with the notion of song in a LoiSrji (as Acosta-Hughes-Stephens 2002,241 observe). μ ο ι . . . ί^οιδήι: these words have been explained either as a double dative depending on επιτρύζουειν (the so-called ‘word and part appos­ ition’; see KG 1,289 f.) or as a dative incommodi (μοι) and a dative dependent on the verb (άιοιδήι). Pfeiffer prefers the latter, because he considers the first as unattested in Callimachus, and Q.Cataudella, ‘Note critiche al testo di Callimaco’, RFIC 37,1959,148-57 (= Utriusque linguae. Studi e ricerche di letteratura greca e latina 1. Parte greca, Messina-Firenze 1974, 431-42) rather implausibly regards άιοιδήι as an instrumental dative. However, there is no reason to reject the ‘word and part apposition’, because Σ Od. 2,50 (quoted in app.) clearly accepts this interpretation and the construction is attested also with certainty in e.g. ff. 24,1 (for more examples from Callimachus see Lapp 1965,92; Hopkinson on h.6,82). Elsewhere too the ‘part’ is not necessarily a part of someone’s body, but may also be a trait of character or words spoken, as in e.g. E.HF 162 άνδρόε δ’ ελεγχοε ούχ'ι τό ζ’ εύφυχίαε (with Bond ad loc.); Hel.82 εύγγνω θι δ’ ημΐν τοΐε λελεγμενοιε (where see Kannicht); for more examples see Wilamowitz on E.HF 162; Diggle on E.Pha.90 ff. Therefore here too ‘word and part apposition’ is an attractive and likely explanation (similarly Torraca and Massimilla ad loc.; Pretagostini 2006a,18). άιοιδήι: either in a concrete sense ‘my song’ or more abstractly in the sense of ‘my singing’, ‘my poetry’. As early as Homer we find passages where άοιδή may be interpreted in this abstract sense, like e.g. II.2,595 Θάμυριν . .. παΰεαν (sc. the Muses) άοιδήε and 599; 13,731; Od.8,44, 64 and 498. In Callimachus it recurs in Ep.35,1 f. Β αττιάδεω . . . ευ μεν άοιδήν I είδότοε, /i.2,44 and perhaps h.3,137. There is no reason to change the text to άοιδήε (as does Cameron 1995,340, following an earlier suggestion by Hunt). The evidence of Σ Od. 2,50 (quoted in app.) does not favour this change of the text and, as the genitive would have to be connected with νήιδεε in 2 , this emendation would also diminish the rhetorical force and clarity of 1. For metrical objections see Magnelli 1999,52 f.

16

Commentary 1, 1

In the Homeric hymns forms of άείδω are often found at the end of the first line; cf. e.g. h.Cer.l; h.Hom. 11 , 1 ; 13,1; 16,1; 21,1; 22,1; 26,1; 28,1; similarly Hes. Th. 1 . Callimachus imitated this pattern in h. 1,1; ff. 228,1 and presumably ff. 8 6 (i.e. the first line of Aetia 4), and it is conceivable that άιοιδηι too was meant to recall this practice, thus briefly suggesting the notion of an epic prooemium. Besides, the notion of Callimachus as a singer seems to have been of programmatic importance, as it recurs at several points in the prologue; cf. also 3,19,23,29,33 and see Acosta-Hughes-Stephens 2002,245; Kaesser 2004,39-42 (who relates the frequent use of these terms to Od. 1,336 ff. and explores the possible etymological implications). 1,2 The pentameter is standing in apposition with the subject of the pre­ ceding line as in ff. 67,8; 110,54; 190c,9; h.5,34; see further on this kind of arrangement Henrichs 1975η, 142 η.14 and on patterns of enjambement within the distiche Introd. 6.1.2. »njiSeje. . . Μούεηε: these words are best taken together as ‘ignorant of the Muse’. The adjective vijic is well attested from Homer onwards and the combination νήιSec with genitive is attested already in Od.8,159. In Callimachus it recurs also in ff. 75,49 and 178,33. The concept of being ignorant of the Muses is found as early as Pi.fr.** 198a οϋτοι μ ε ξένον I οΰδ’ άδαήμονa Moicäv έπαίδευεαν κλυτα ί I Θήβαι, to whom Callimachus may well be alluding here. Later poets in their turn seem to have imitated Callimachus’ phrasing; cf. adesp.AP 9,191,5 f. et δε ce φίλατο Καλλιόπη, λάβε μ ’ ec χέρ α ν et δε I νήιε έφυε Μουεεων, χερει βάροε φορεειε (addressed to readers of Lycophron) and 9,583,2 (for similar expressions cf. perhaps also fr. 633; SH 967,10). Syntactically our passage is a little more complex than the passages just quoted, because of the singular and because from Μ ούεηε we must supply a dative Μ ούεηι with φίλοι. The construction derives support from passages like Pi.0.1,86bf. τον μεν άγάλλων θεόε I έδωκεν δίφρον; Ε.ΙΑ 319 εύ δέ τ ί τώ ιδ’ εε έριν άφΐξαι, Μενέλεωε, βίαι τ ’ άγειε; and perhaps fr. 137m,l. The singular may be meant to recall the singular in II. 1,1 and Od.1,1 (see also Magnelli 1999,52) and allows for a certain ambiguity: on the one hand Μούεηε seems to stand for the actual Muse, whose ‘friend’ one can be (as in 37 f.), on the other hand it may stand metaphorically for ‘poetry’ as in 24 and fr. 75,77 (for the latter notion see Acosta-HughesStephens 2002,239 n.7). In Hopkinson’s νηιδεε, οι Μούεηιε, the sequence νήιδεε, ofm ight seem attractive, because it looks like the most natural reading of the passage (see also Magnelli 1999,52 ff.) and νηιδεε used absolutely could imply complete ignorance, as in II.7,198 (where see Kirk); h.Cer.256 and h.Merc.487 (of an

Commentary 1,2

17

unskilled player of the lyre; there is no reason, though, to assume with Cameron 1995,340 that νήιε in these passages means ‘feeble’; see also Magnelli 1997,450). The phrase would then be reminiscent of such lines as Od. 1,8 f. νηπιοι, of κατά βοΰε . . . ‘Η ελίοιο I ηεθιον, and one could consider the interpretation of Di Benedetto 2003,102 ff., who suggests that Callimachus varies the Homeric νηπιοι, οι . . . and thus reacts to the Telchines’ reproach that he is νήπιοε in 5 f. Against Hopkinson’s dative, however, one may argue that the genitive Μούεηε, which is found in the papyrus, can be defended syntactically, is attractively ambiguous, and derives support from the parallels in Pindar and adesp.AP 9,191,5 f. and 9,583,2 (Pfeiffer 1928,309 already regards a change to the dative as unnecessary). Even so, the fact that νηιδεε oi'evokes νηπιοι, ο ί . . . should not be ignored: it is conceivable that Callimachus wanted to remind the reader of the Homeric phrase and at the same time varied it not only by means of his vocabulary, but also syntactically. For a more speculative interpretation of this line see Magnelli 1999,55 ff, who points to the fact that on Samos there were remains of prehistoric beasts, which according to one source were called νηιδεε, and suggests that learned readers might be reminded of these remains by the use of νηιδεε in 2 and relate them to the Telchines. of: the relative pronoun is placed second, a kind of inversion which is not uncommon in Greek poetry and may help to draw the reader’s attention to the word which is placed first, because it contains important information; cf. in Callimachus e.g. fr. 41,2 κούροι τον φιλέουειν; 43,51,53 and 81; 73,2; 75,58; h.1,65. Elsewhere the relative pronouns are placed even further to the right; cf. fr. 64,10; 66,2 f.; 75,13; 110,49 and perhaps fr. 80,16; see further KG 2,598; Lapp 1965,50; S.R.Slings, ‘Critical Notes on Plato’s Politeia, III’, Mnem.4.43,1990,341-63 (esp. 346 f.); Introd. 6.1.1. In this passage the position of the pronoun also helps to draw the readers’ attention to the Homeric νηπιοι, ο ί . . . (see above). έγένοντο: this word is explained by Pfeiffer ad loc. as ‘nati erant’, but Di Benedetto 2003,103 ff. points out that when the verb goes with an adjective it always means ‘to become’, as in e.g. fr. 43,14 and Ia.fr. 191,32 ff. άνηρ Βαθυκλήε ‘Α ρκάε . .. των πάλαι t i c ευδαίμων I έγενετο, whereas in the sense ‘to be born’ it is always found without an adjective, as in e.g. h. 1,6 and 4,83. This could imply that the Telchines did not manage to become friends of the Muses through some fault of their own. However, in 37 f. we find the idea that the love of the Muses is a life-long affair, starting at one’s birth, as in Hes.Th.81ff. οντ iva τιμηεουει Δ ιοε κοΰραι μεγάλοιο I γεινόμενόν τ ’ εείδωει διοτρεφεων βαειληων, I τώ ι μεν επί γλώ εεηι γλυκερήν χείουειν εέρεην. It is conceivable that by means of these fines Callimachus invited

Commentary 1,2 his readers to reconsider εγενοντο and to interpret it in the less idiomatic, but appropriate sense of ‘they were born’. φίλοι: this adjective presupposes a dative, to be derived from Μούεηε (see above); cf. e.g. Theoc. 1,141 τον Moicaic φίλον άνδρα; Nossis AP 7,718,5 (= HE 2833); adesp.AP 9,213,4 άμφοτερουε Μ ούcaie ούρανίηici φίλονε (sc. Homer and Nicander); Hor.C.1,26,1 Musis amicus. The motif of being loved by the Muses recurs in 37 f., where Callimachus implicidy contrasts himself with the Telchines by insisting on the permanent love of the Muses. 1,3-6 Here, as elsewhere, Callimachus mentions the point of view from which he dissociates himself, presented as the reproaches of his opponents, before offering his own point of view, presented as a defence by himself or others; cf. Ia.fr. 203,l(?)-22 and h.2,105 f., both in direct speech. By giving the Telchines’ criticism in indirect speech Callimachus is able to paraphrase and select from their words as he likes and to give his readers already some idea of his opinion of their views (similarly Hunter 1993a, 190). The Telchines’ criticism concerns the composition, contents, and length of poems and apparendy it was a combination of these elements which made Callimachus’ poetry objectionable to them, as Herter 1937,112 already explains: Callimachus was certainly able to write a continuous poem (like the Hecale), but then he made it short; he could also write a comparatively long poem (like the Aetia), but then it was not continuous. Kings and heroes appear in the Aetia, the Hecale, and the hymns, but do not form the subject of long continuous works. Besides, they often appear from an unusual perspective (cf. e.g. the treatment of the exploits of Heracles and Theseus in the Victory of Berenice and the Hecale respectively; the treatment of Ptolemaeus III Euergetes and Berenice II in fr. 110; and the brief references to the Ptolemies in the hymns). 1,3 eivexejv: - o n . Apollonius Dyscolus and [Ammonius] (see app.) criticize this use of εΐνεκεν/εΐνεκα instead of οϋνεκα, but there are other instances of it in e.g. fr. 6 ; 75,6; AR 4,1523 (where see Livrea) and in earlier Greek poetry in e.g. Hes.fr. 180,10; Pi.J.8,31f. είπε δ’ εϋβονλοε . . . θεμιε, I εΐνεκεν πεπρωμενον ην and perhaps h.Ven. 198f. Elsewhere Callimachus uses the forms οϋνεκα (fr. 54,7) or τοϋνεκεν (on which see Massimilla ad loc.). ev: this has been interpreted as either ‘which has unity of plot’ or a litde more plausibly as ‘one single’. The first view is defended by e.g. Pohlenz 1933,320; Herter 1948,140 f.; Torraca ad loc. and Hunter 1993a,190 ff. In this sense etc is used in Arist.Po.8,1451a16 ff. μΰθοε δ’ εετιν εΐε ούχ ώσπερ τινεε οϊονται εάν περί ενα ψ · πολλά γάρ και άπειρα τώ ι ενί ευμβαίνει, εζ ών εν ίων ούδεν εετιν εν etc. According to Aristotle this kind of unity does not occur in epics on

Commentary 1,3

19

Heracles or Theseus which just sum up all the events of one hero’s life, but in epics which consist of the mimesis of a single action, like the Iliad and Odyssey. If εν were here used in this Aristotelian sense, the Telchines would have absurdly high standards, like Creophylus in Ep. 6 , Phthonos in h.2,105 f. (whose words are best interpreted as an accusation of not coming up to Homer’s standards in length and quality; see Williams on 105-13) and the poets who try to emulate Homer in Theoc.7,45 ff. (on which see Lohse 1966,416 ff.). Besides, their standards would be contradictory, because the demand of a εν άειεμα διηνεκεε would combine two charac­ teristics which are mutually exclusive: ‘a continuous work with unity of plot’ (see below on διηνεκεε). This would be a muddled and ill-informed requirement, as one might expect from those who are ignorant of the Muses, and Callimachus’ choice of words would be subtle and malicious in the extreme (for this idea see Hunter 1993a,193). With this interpretation of εν the idea of the unattainability of Homer’s level and the rejection of the inferior poetry resulting from such attempts and the poetic standards it implies would subtly combine and lead to the choice of a different kind of poetry. Callimachus would then seem to agree with Aristotle’s demand of unity in principle, but to solve the problem by avoiding the writing of large-scale epics altogether and by producing short poems, which have their own, different, kind of unity, instead. Thus interpreted the passage need not be regarded as an indication that Callimachus was basically anti-Aristotelian, as some scholars argue (e.g. Brink 1946,16 ff, Pfeiffer 1968,136 f., and Schwinge 1986,22), but would fit in with the more positive view of Callimachus’ attitude towards Aristotle suggested by Koster 1970,120 ff. On the question whether Aristode’s Poetics were known in Alexandria see now I.A.Schmakeit, Apollonios Rhodios und die attische Tragödie, Groningen 2003,17 ff. As to the second view, ‘one single work’, M.Heath, Unity in Greek Poetics, Oxford 1989,56 righdy draws attention to the fact that we cannot be certain that εν is not ‘a simple term of enumeration, “single” as opposed to “many” ’. In fact, this interpretation may be supported by Hor.C. 1,7,5f. sunt quibus unum opus est intactae Palladis urbem I carmine perpetuo celebrare (see on this poem and its relation to Callimachus e.g. C.W. McLeod, ‘Ethics and Poetry in Horace’s Odes: II (1.7; 2.9)’, G&R 28,1981,141-8) and by Ov.Met. 1,4 perpetuum . . . carmen, which point to άειεμα διηνεκεε rather than ev άειεμα διηνεκεε as the characterization of the poetry not written by Callimachus (similarly Koster 1970,117 f.). The notion of ev as ‘one single’ may also derive some support from Hdt.2,79,1 (quoted below on άειεμα) about the only song of the Egyptians (cf. per­ haps also AR 4,498 f. ελπομαι ούχ ενα μύθον, δτιε προτερωεε δίεεθαι I

20

Commentary 1,3

ή με ac ότρυνεει, rove πειεεμεν). Besides, the word-order would offer a linguistic argument in favour of this idea: ‘one single continuous work’ would show the well-attested order numeral-noun-adjective (cf. e.g. Hdt.8,38). Cameron 1995,345 proposed yet another view, suggesting that εν indicates uniformity and monotony, but offers no Greek evidence to support this interpretation. On the whole, although the connection with Aristotle is attractive, the arguments in favour of ‘one single work’ seem to be slightly stronger. αειεμα: ‘song’ as in Hdt.2,79,1 και δη καί ciacca ev ieri, Aivoc, oc ττερ ev re Φοινίκηί αοίδιμόε ieri and Ep. 27,1 Ήειόδου το τ ’ αειεμα (where, however, it could also indicate the theme of the poem; see Gow-Page on HE 1297). This word may have been chosen in order to remind the reader of Hdt.2,79,1 (on which see in this respect Stephens 2002,243 f.; 2002-3,24 ff.) or for the sake of variation after αοιδήι in 1. Similar kinds of variatio are often found in Callimachus; cf. e.g. fr. 75,22 δρκοε—29 δρκια; 70 ττόΧηαε— 72 τττολίεθρον; /j.6,75 καΧεοντεε— 79 κικΧηεκοιεα—97 καΧιετρεων; see further Lapp 1965,112 ff. As αειεμα is a generically neutral term, it offers no indication about the genre the Telchines would have demanded, but the further qualifications, that the ‘song’ should have been διηνεκεε and in many thousands of lines in honour of (?) kings and heroes, strongly suggest that the Telchines demanded traditional and/or encomiastic epic (so also Koster 1970,117 ff.). Against this demand Callimachus offers his own stylistic criteria, which by implication exclude the kind of epic demanded by the Telchines, but not necessarily all epic poetry. διηνεκεε: ‘continuous’, i.e. telling a story completely, from beginning to end. The word’s position suggests that it is an adjective rather than an adverb and imitations in Latin poets point in the same direction (see below). It is therefore unlikely that Hsch. δ 1749 s.v. διηνεκεε- δι oXov refers to this line (it would better fit fr. 43,64). For the sense one may compare: ( 1) the use of the adverb διηνεκεωε with verbs like αγορεύω in epic poetry in e.g. Od.4,836 ov . . . διηνεκεωε άγορενεω; 7,241 f. άργαΧεον .. . διηνεκεωε άγορεic a t I κηδε-, 12,56; Hes.T/j.627; AR 1,648 f. άλλα τ ί μύθουε I ΑΙΘαΧίδεω χρειώ με διηνεκεωε αγόρευειν and 2,390 f. άλλα τίη μ ε ττάΧιν χρειώ άΧιτεεθαι I μαντοεύνηι τα εκαετα διηνεκεε εξενεποντα, where the word indicates that something is told completely, from beginning to end and where, apart from Hes. T/i.627, this activity is presented as something which is painful or which for some reason the speaker does not want to do (see further on the use of the adjective Becker

Commentary 1,3

21

1937,107 n.17; LfrgrE s.v. διηνεκήε; H.van Tress, Poetic Memory, Leiden 2004,31 ff.); (2) the way in which the Latin poets used this passage: Hor.C.l,7,5f. (quoted above) with Nisbet-Hubbard ad loc. (‘a carmen perpetuum is a long continuous poem .. .’); Ov.Mef.1,3 f. primaque ab origine mundi I ad mea perpetuum deducite tempora carmen, where the idea of continuity and chronological order is evident and Ovid has been thought to announce an un-Callimachean epic (see e.g. Börner ad loc.; Herter 1948,138 ff.; M.von Albrecht, ‘Zum Metamorphosenprooem Ovids’, RhM 104,1961,269-78; E.Mensching, ‘Carmen perpetuum novum’, Mnem.22,1969,165-9; B.Otis, Ovid as an Epic Poet, Cambridge 19702,45 ff.); similarly also Cic.Fam.5,12,2 perpetuis . . . historiis (about the work of Callisthenes, Timaeus, and Polybius); on the other hand, Stat.Theb.7,288f. numquam uestri morientur honores, I bellaque perpetuo memorabunt carmine Musae is ambiguous, because here perpetuo could also mean ‘remaining for ever’; (3) references in later Greek poetry, where the word is used of endless singing in Greg.Naz.C.l,l,34,10f. (PG 37,515) γηθοεύνηι τ ε φόβωι τε διηνεκεε άείδουει I ύμνον άννμνείοντεε άκηρατον η καί άπαυετον (adduced by A.S.Hollis). These connotations of completeness, continuity, and chronological order and their negative evaluation are reminiscent of the kind of epic poetry which Aristotle rejects at Po.23,1459a17ff., i.e. poetry about one man or period with plots like ‘histories’, which do not lead to ‘unity’ (cf. also Po.8,145T16 ff), and 4 εν ποΧΧαΐε . . . χιΧιάειν points to poems far longer than prescribed in Po.24,1459b17 ff. (c.4000-5000 lines, a limit more or less observed by Apollonius; see Lucas on 1459b21). Clearly it is difficult for post-Homeric poets of these kinds of long poems to achieve the required unity of plot and the message seems to be that one should not attempt it. When one looks at the Aetia the claim of discontinuity and lack of completeness and chronological order seems to work in several ways and at several levels: (1) although the Aetia seems to begin with characters like Minos and the Argonauts in the early days, when Hesiod’s Theogony has just finished, and ends in the 3rd cent, b c with the catasterism of Berenice’s lock, there is no continuous chronological line and in fact we are back with Minos’ son Androgeos in fr. 103-103a and with the Argonauts in fr. 108-109a shortly before the end of the work. Thus there is a chronological line, but it is presented in a highly discontinuous way (see further Harder 2003); (2) on a smaller scale we find examples of discontinuity in the Aetia within

22

Commentary 1,3

the individual stories, e.g. in fr. 43,28 ff., where readers hoping for a full survey of Sicilian history find only a highly elliptic, a-chronological catalogue and one brief story; in the Victory of Berenice (ff. 54-60j), where the episode of Molorcus and his mousetraps is prominent, whereas the reader seems to be referred to other sources for the— expected— story of Heracles killing the Nemean lion (cf. ff. 54h); in fr. 67-75, where the reader’s attention is drawn in various directions and interruptions by the narrator interfere with a continuous and complete narrative (as in e.g. fr. 75,4 ff. and 44 ff.); (3) more specifically the a-chronological way in which Callimachus presents his Argonautic story in fr. 7c-21d and fr. 108-109a may be in deliberate contrast to the Argonautica of Apollonius (see introduction to fr. 7c-21d on Contents and Position in the Aetia). Although the notion of a poetic dispute between Callimachus and Apollonius has rightly come to be questioned and is definitely too simplistic (see Introd. 4.4), it is worth noticing that the Argonautica is a continuous epic, containing the complete story of the Argonauts’ journey in chronological order. In fact, Apollonius draws attention to this arrangement of the events in AR 2,762 ff., where Jason tells Lycus the story of his journeys in chronological order (cf. 721 εξείηε), which Lycus much appreciates in 771 f., and in 4,1775 ff., where the end of his narrative coincides with the end of the journey. The negative evaluation of telling something at length in AR 1,648 f. and 2,390 f. (quoted above) is a complicating factor here, but may have been part of an ongoing discourse between the poets. 1,3-5 βαειΧ[η . . . ηρωαε: in combination with the reference to length the subjects which the Telchines demand point to traditional epic poetry, probably with an encomiastic element. However, the text leaves room for some disagreement and uncertainty: ( 1 ) we do not know whether historical/contemporary or mythological kings were meant here; (2 ) we do not know exactly what kind of poetry about these kings and heroes the Telchines demanded. As to (1), both views have found their defenders. The idea that Cal­ limachus refused to write about historical/contemporary kings finds favour with e.g. Wimmel 1960,78 ff. (Callimachus found these themes too con­ crete and therefore un-poetic); Schwinge 1986,37 ff. (Callimachus’ refused to sanction Ptolemaic rule); Koster 1970,117. The possibility that these kings were mythological occurs to Haussier 1976-8,318 f. (who takes the kings as the subject of epics on the Trojan war and the heroes as the subject of epics on generations before the Trojan war). The word βαειΧεΰε itself is indecisive. There is no reason to accept Häussler’s distinction between Trojan kings and earlier heroes, because

Commentary 1,3-5

23

even though in Homer the Greeks at Troy are sometimes called ßaciXfec (e.g. II.2,445), Homer elsewhere calls them heroes (see on 5 ηρωαε). Also, the noun does not necessarily point to contemporary kings, because, although Callimachus does sometimes use it in this sense (e.g. h.2,26), he also uses it of a specific mythological king (e.g. /j.6,114) or of kings in general (e.g. Ji.1,79). An important argument in favour of taking βαειΧ[η as a reference to historical/contemporary kings, however, is the fact that one would expect a contrast with ηρωαε, so that there were two different categories as in 13-16. This idea also derives some support from Theoc.17,5 ff. (ηρωεε were the subject of singers of the past, but I shall sing of Ptolemy τον άριετον . . . βαειΧηων ( 1 0 ) ) and 16,80 Ιερώ ν (i.e. a con­ temporary king) ττροτεροιε ί'eoe ήρώεεει, where we find a similar contrast between βαειΧεύε as a contemporary king and ηρωε as a mythological hero, and from Roman imitators of Callimachus, who suggest this inter­ pretation of βαειΧεύε, when they speak of historical/contemporary reges in recusatio-passages (cf. e.g. Verg.£c/.6 ,3 reges et proelia; Hor.C.2,12,11 f.; Prop. 2,1,33; 3,3,3). Therefore Callimachus probably refers to poetry about historical/contemporary kings here. On the distinction between poetry about historical/contemporary kings and poetry on mythological subjects in Hellenistic poetry see further Ziegler 1934,13 ff.; comm, on 13-16. As to (2), it seems that the Telchines did not only demand poetry on kings and heroes, but continuous poems in many lines and of a specific nature. This last point is still unclear: obviously kings (the Ptolemies, and in particular their queens) and heroes (e.g. Heracles, Theseus) are not absent from Callimachus’ poetry, so that one expects a further qualifica­ tion. Sadly the words which must have further defined the treatment of these themes as the Telchines desired it are partially lost (4 ]ac and 5 ] t otic), and the remains are hard to interpret; see further comm, on 3-4 and 5. The m otif of rejecting certain subjects, particularly of a military nature, occurs as early as Xenoph.fr. B 1,21 ff. W ον τι μάχαε διεττειν Τιτηνων ουδέ Γ ιγάντω ν I ούδε ( ) Κένταυρων, ττΧάεμα(τα) των προτερων I η ετάειαε εφεδavete- rote ονδεν χρηετόν ενεετιν (on which see Bowra 1969,125 ff.; Ford 2002,46 ff.); Anacr.e/eg.2,2 W νείκεα και πόΧεμον, Ibycus SLG S 151,10 ff. (a refusal to treat epic themes; see B.K.Gold, Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome, Chapel HiU-London 1987,19 fi). It recurs in later Greek and Latin poets; e.g. Strato AP 12,2 (the suffering of mytho­ logical characters); [Opp.] Cy«. 1,24 ff. (Dionysus, wars, love); Verg.Ec/.6 ,3 (reges et proelia)·, Hor.C.2,12,1 ff. (contemporary and mythical strife); Ov.Mef.5,294ff. (where the Pierides sing about the Gigantomachy in a

24

Commentary 1,3-5

Commentary 1,3—4

contest with the Muses, and lose); 10,150f. (Gigantomachy); A m .l,l,lff. (wars); 2,1,11 ff. (Gigantomachy); Prop.2,1,17-21 (various mythological and historical battles); 3,3,3-16 (epic on the early history of Rome). This series of examples and imitations suggests that the demand of the Telchines also concerned historical and epic battles, but the text itself allows no certain conclusions. 1,3-4 βαειλ[η I ........ ]ac: three kinds of solutions for the lacuna have been suggested: ( 1 ) an aorist participle with βαειλ[ήαε and ]_ουε ηρωαε as its object, e.g. κληιc]ac. This particular form, however, is unlikely because Hephaestion 15,14 f. seems to take his pentameter examples from the earliest possible lines in the Aetia, so that with κλήιε]αε he could have used line 4 as an example of a line beginning with two spondaics. As he used line 20 instead, line 4 probably began with a dactyl (see Pfeiffer 1928,310 (= 1960,105)); (2) βαειλ[ήων Iπρήξι\αε (velsim.). . . [17 ],ουε ηρωαε as an apposition after άειεμα, which looks somewhat unbalanced (‘vix tolerari potest’ Pfeiffer ad loc.), but may derive some support from a few passages adduced by Lelli 2000,73 ff, like Diosc.AP 11,195,5 (= HE 1695) eie πΰρ ηρώων ire πρήξιεε (about tragic subjects); Hor.Serm. 1,10,42 f. regum I facta; Ars 73 f.; Prop. 3,3,3; (3) a preposition with a substantive in -ac on which a genitive βαειλ[ήων depends, e.g. Pfeiffer’s βαειλ[ηων I εε εεβ]αε . . . I [17...... ].ovc ηρωαε ‘on the glory of kings or on . . . heroes’, which, although a little too short, is the most attractive supplement so far. This kind of phrase, which often is a periphrasis of glorious gods or people, is well attested in Greek poetry, particularly in tragedy; cf. e.g. A.Eu.545 τοκίω ν εεβαε; 585; Pr.1091 (where see Groeneboom); S.OT 830 ώ θεών αγνόν εεβαε; PA. 1289; E.Cyc/.580; Or. 1242; see further KG l,280d. In support of e’e one may compare the use of eie indicating the object of song, as in e.g. Ar.Lys.1243 f. «receteοι καλόν I εε τώ ε Άεαναίωε re t και εε ήμάε άμα t and Paus. 1,38,6 ηιεαν e’e την θεόν (see further LSJ s.v. etc IV b 1), and for the preposition found only with the first of two words we find parallels in e.g. h.6,72 ούτε viv etc εράνωε ούτε ξυνδείπνια πεμπον; 1,95 f.; 4,280 (see further Lapp 1965,77; Hopkinson on h.6,72). Gallavotti’s e’e ye'pjac, defended by Nitikinski 1996,70 f., would be another possibility. The third solution is also the most attractive, because it is best fitted to describe a specific kind of encomiastic poetry about kings, one Callimachus does not himself write and which he presents here as a foil for the kind of poetry he favours. Poetry about kings, particularly epic poetry about Alexander, is subject to criticism elsewhere too. Poets like Choerilus

of Samos (SH 314-32), who wrote about the Persian wars and seems to have been the originator of the genre (see Häussler 1976-8, 1,70 ff), wrote historical epic, and some authors of this genre garnered heavy criticism for flattery or incompetence; cf. e.g. SH 17 (about Agis Argivus an epic poet at the court of Alexander, criticized for his flattery and bad poetry); SH 45 (suggesting that Anaximenes of Lampsacus wrote an ill-received epic about Alexander); SH 333 (about an extremely bad epic about Alexander by Choerilus of Iasus). This evidence suggests that the genre was thought to be liable to excess, and we may find some hint of the dangers of encomiastic poetry in Theoc.17 (called ‘stiff, conventional and sycophantic’ by A.S.F.G0 W, Theocritus, Cambridge 1950, 2,325). This kind of poetry must have been very different from Callimachus’ playful and slightly ironic poems on queens and kings, of which the Lock of Berenice (ff. 110-110f) and the Victory of Berenice (ff. 54-60j), but also the speech of Apollo predicting the birth and exploits of Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus from Leto’s womb (h.4,162 ff) are good examples; see also above on The status offr. 1. A statement about singing and kings is found also in fr. 8 6 , the first line of Aetia 4, but the interpretation of the line is very uncertain. 1,4 εν πολλαΐε . . . χιλιάειν: ‘in many thousands of lines (sc. επεων or ετίχω ν)’. This probably was an important point in the Telchines’ criticism, because Callimachus’ defence in 7-20 is largely concerned with matters of length. The phrasing recalls Philemon PCG 281,6 f. (about Homer) οντοε γά ρ ημΐν μνριάδαε εττών γράφει, I άλλ’ ούδε είε °Ομηρον εϊρηκεν μακράν, from a context which shows an awareness of the fact that long texts could be acceptable if the amount of information offered was in accordance with their length, i.e. if they showed the right amount of ενντομία (for further discussion of this issue see Rüsten 1982,61 f.; Cam­ eron 1995,334 ff; comm, on 9). If fr. 1 is rightly dated late in Callimachus’ career this may well be an allusion to Philemon (who presumably died c.264 b c ) and one may read the phrase as a reminder that Homer’s quality was not disputed, because he was able to combine length with quality. In Callimachus the notion that length is not a good thing in itself also occurs at h.2,106 ovK άγαμαι τον άοιδόν oc ουδ’ oca πόντοε άείδει (see Williams on 105—13) and fr. 465 o n Κ αλλίμαχοε 6 γραμματικόε το μ εγα βιβλίον ΐεον ελεγεν είναι τώ ι μεγάλω ι κακώι (of which the interpretation is not quite certain; see e.g. Pfeiffer ad loc.; T.M.Klein, ‘Callimachus, Apollonius Rhodius and the Concept of the Big Book’, Eranos 73,1975,16-25). These words are imitated by later authors, e.g. Cat.95,3 milia .. . quingenta (quickly written by Hortensius in contrast to Cinna’s well-polished Zmyrna) and Greg.Naz.C., 1,1,11,13-16 (PG 37,471) et δε μελαίνειε I τον

25

26

Commentary 1,4

χάρτην πολλαίε χιλιάειν cnéow, I δεΰρ’ aye, πλα ζί reale όλιγόετιχα τα ΰτα χαράζω I γρά μμ α τ ’. 1,5 η ......\,ουε rjpatac: no satisfactory supplement has yet been found. Because of the context an adjective that could distinguish the Telchines’ heroes from the Callimachean heroes, e.g. ‘famous’ or ‘much-celebrated’, would be possible, but something like ‘ancient’, contrasting the heroes of the past with contemporary kings, is also conceivable. Some supplements have been proposed, but none of them is without problems: ( 1 ) η προτέ]ρουε: this is in itself quite attractive and derives support from passages like Hes. Op. 159 f. άνδρών ηρώων θειον ye'voc . . . I . . . προτερη γενεή (about the generation fighting at Thebes and Troy); Pi.N.3,13; Theoc.15,141; 16,50 φυλόπιδαε rτροτέρων ϋμνηεαν άοιδοί; 16,80; SEG 6,829,5 f. oc ττοθ’ Ό μηρε laici μετέπρεπον iv εελίδεεειν I δείκνυε ηρώων ήνορεην προτέρων (about a teacher); see further on 7τρότεροε indicating the past Nitikinski 1996,190 ff. It is, however, palaeographically difficult, because }p does not account for the traces; ( 2 ) άρχα]ίουε and ώγυγ]ίουε; the second may be attractive because of AP 7,42,7 ώ γυγίω ν ηρώων (about the heroes of the Aetia), but palaeographically there may be somewhat better prospects for ]π than for ]i because of the space. Besides, as Nitikinski 1996,205 observes, ώ γύγιοε would not be applicable to the heroes of Greek myth in the Aetia, because it denotes a more ancient phase. ήρωαε: this is a suitable term to indicate the heroes of the ancient epic tradition and we find it in this sense already of the heroes of the Trojan War in e.g. J/.2 ,110 ήρωεε Δαναοί·, 19,41; Od.1 , 1 0 1 ; 7,44 and Pi.P.1 ,53 ήροαε àvTidéovc. The noun is used of the Argonauts in e.g. fr. 7c,7; Pi.P4,58 and 199; AR 1,20 f. οάνομα μυθηεαίμην I ηρώων; 2,97 etc.; Theoc.13,28 and 73; 22,78 and 92; Orph.A.51 ηρώων τε καί ημίθεων πρόμοε. See further West Hes.Op.p. 370-373; Braswell on Pi.P.4,12(b); Campbell on AR 3,167; Sens on Theoc.22,78. 1,5-6 After saying what Callimachus does not do the Telchines apparently added that he was playing around like a child in spite of his age. e v oc . . . έλ[ίcca>: three supplements should be considered: (1) Hunt suggested cX[Ìccoj. If so, it is best to take e'AJiccw in the meta­ phorical sense ‘turn in one’s mind’, ‘revolve’ (LSJ s.v. I 5), because that would fit in with the use of έποε in the well attested sense ‘a poet’s word’ or ‘a line’ (LSJ s.v. IV c; see also H.Koller, Ε ποε, Gioita 50,1972,16-24; Koster 1970,118), which would provide a clear contrast with the thousands of lines in 4 and might convey a notion of ‘playing’ (for which one may compare Culex 1 and 3 lusimus). The verb is attested in the sense ‘turn in

Commentary 1,5-6

27

one’s mind’ in e.g. AR 1,463 (Idas to Jason) τίνα τήνδε μ ετά φρεεί μ ή τιν έλίεεειε; S.Ant.231; E.Or.891 f. καλούε κακούε I Aóyouc έλίεεων; Paul.Sil.S.Sop/i.312 τ ί δε μύθον έλίεεομεν έκτοθι νηοΰ (adduced by Massimilla ad loc.) and we find a similar use of related verbs in e.g. Pi.N.4,40 γνώ μαν κενεάν .. . κνλίνδει; SH 980,3 f. (= FGE 1694) εκ κιεεηρεφεοε κεφαλήε εΰνμνα κυλίων I ρήματα; Εηη.Ληη.6,164 Skutsch ingentis oras euoluere belli and Verg.A.9,528 (but in both Latin passages the idea of unrolling a book might be present too). The pejorative notion of AR 1,463 and E.Or.891 f. (where see Willink) would make the word par­ ticularly suitable to be part of the Telchines’ criticism. Since έποε is not attested in the sense o f ‘book’ it is less likely that ελίεεω refers to the rolling up of a papyrus roll (as in fr. 468 γρά μ μ α τα δ’ ούχ εΐλιεεεν απόκρυφα; SH 705,16 and Nonn.Ev/oh.7,191, where books are mentioned explicitly as object of ελίεεω; see Pfeiffer 1928,311 n.13 (= 1960,105 n.13); for a defence of this interpretation see Pretagostini 2006a,19 f. and 26). For the same reason one cannot regard επ ί. .. e'Ajiccaj as tmesis of εφελίεεω (attested in e.g. Paus.4,26,8 έπείλικτο δε ώ επερ τα βιβλία); (2) Friedländer thought about ελ[αύνω, recendy defended by Lehnus 1991c,24 (and accepted by Cameron 1995,340, but rejected by Massimilla ad loc.). Lehnus compares M etrodAP 14,121,10 f. διεεάε ήνυεα χιλιάδαε, I πράε δ’ ετι πεντ επί ταίε εκατοντάδαε ένθεν έλαύνων (about a journey), and points to h.3,141 and 5,61 for the verb in this metrical position. It is, however, hard to see how the verb could suit our context; (3) Acosta-Hughes-Stephens 2001,214 ff. reject both earlier supplements and suggest ελ[εξο., pointing to the way in which Callimachus uses έποε of significant speech in fr. 54,6 and 75,21. However, as the words must convey the point of view of the Telchines it is unlikely that we should take εποε as referring to significant speech here. Besides, the construction with επί τυτθόν is not clear and the aorist is difficult, because one expects the verb to indicate a continuous action, whereas έλ[εξα would indicate the simple fact o f ‘declaring’ something (see comm, on fr. 7c,10). Although a definite choice is difficult, the parallels for the use of ελίεεω ‘turn in one’s mind’ make this verb the most attractive in this context. επί τυτθόν: this expression here helps to contrast work on a small scale with the large-scale poetry in 3 f. Elsewhere it may have local or temporal connotations; cf. h.3,54 f. δοΰπον άκουεαν I ακμονοε ήχήεαντοε επί μεγα (with Bornmann ad loc., who gives prose examples); AR 1,1359 άτάρ οΰδ’ επί τυτθόν άητο; 4,1529; Nic.fr. 70,11. The adjective τυτθόε is often used of small children, so that the phrase fits in neatly with 6 παΐε arjc; cf. e.g. II. 11,223 έθρεφε . . . τυτθόν εόντα; A.Ag.1606; h.3,64.

Commentary 1,6

Commentary 1,6

1,6 naie ατ,ε: the Telchines charge Callimachus with the limited mental faculties of a child, which are even worse in an old man who ought to know better, a reproach which is reminiscent of II.2,337 f. η δη παιειν εοικότεε άγοράαεθε I νηπιάχοιε, where aged Nestor is addressing the Greeks (for more examples see Schmitz 1999,160), but his readers would also remember II 18,569 ff. toìclv δ’ εν pecco ια π ate φ όρμιγγι λιγείηι I ίμερόεν κιθάριζε, λινόν δ ύττό καλόν άειδε I λεπταλεηι φωνήι, where the singing of the child is presented in a positive way and the terminology relates to Callimachean aesthetics (see further Stephens 2002-3,13 ff. and below on 24 λεπταλεην). If 21 refers to Callimachus’ first attempt at writing as a child these words might also be related to Apollo’s instructions: the Telchines’ negative quali­ fication then turns out to be in fact a positive aspect of Callimachus’ poetry, because ‘writing like a child’ turns out to be writing according to Apollo’s instructions given to him when he was a child (so Asper 1997,149 f.; on the programmatic aspect of childlike writing in relation to Theoc.1,45 ff. see Goldhill 1987,2). In a similar vein the contrast between youth and old age, which is indicated in this line, arises again in the second part of the pro­ logue (cf. 21 ff. and 33 ff.) and in the story of the dream in which the old poet dreams about his younger self (see comm, on ff. 2). The childlike or youthful poet is a positive contrast to the Telchines’ demand of adulthood and Callimachus shows how, in spite of old age, he is able to preserve and renew his youthful qualities. For this kind of brief comparison see further comm, on ff. 23,2 ff. and Introd. 6.1.4. τώ ν . . . ολίγη: the litotes suggests that the speaker wants to present himself as really old and underlines the contrast with παΐε άτ,ε. This contrast is further enhanced by the fact that the clause τών δ’ . . . ολίγη is logically subordinate to the preceding clause, so that one could translate: ‘although the decades of my years are not few’; on this aspect of μεν . . . δε clauses, also when μεν is omitted, see Denniston 19542,165 and 370. On the question whether Callimachus was really old when he wrote these words see introd. on The status of fr. 1. Similar phrases are wefi attested; cf. e.g. Agath. AP 5,282,4 (= 78,4 Viansino) τών δ’ ετεων η δεκάε ούκ ολίγη; Leonid. AP 7,295,6 (= HE 2079) tÙc ττολλάε τώ ν ετεων δεκάδαε; Philodem. AP 5,13,8 (= GP 3173); Menecr. AP 9,55,2 (= HE 2598); Antip. Sidon. AP 6,47,4 (= HE 461); adesp. AP 16,356,5; Opp. H. 2,686; Greg. Naz.C. 2,2,1,324 (= PG 37, 1474). For more examples see Massimilla ad loc., who also draws attention to the fact that this kind of phrase often occurs in funerary epigrams to indicate the age of the deceased.

Apart from the immediate contrast with παΐε άτ^ε the expression recalls 3 f. ουχ . . . εν πολλαΐε . . . χιλιάειν, to which it is chiastically opposed, while ολίγη is picked up again in 9 [όλ]ιγόετιχοε (see Lohse 1973,25). Thus the notion of ‘a few’ is brought to the reader’s attention several times, which suggests that its programmatic connotations were important (cf. also ff. 178,12 ο λ ίγ ω ι. . . κιεευβίωι with comm.). 1,7-20 Callimachus’ answer to the Telchines begins with another negative description. He now draws attention to their envious nature (7f.) and, as it were, accounts for their behaviour and demands in 1-6. He then seems to focus on length and style, and these two aspects are intricately interwoven. In the much-disputed lines 9—12 Callimachus argues that brevity is better and seems to indicate his own position in the elegiac tradition as one who favours the short poems of Mimnermus and Philitas rather than the long poems of others. In 13-16 he rejects length and associates brevity with sweetness, while the choice of imagery suggests the notion that the grand subjects of mythological and historical epic should be avoided. In 17-18 Callimachus claims that poetry should be judged by its quality, not by quantity, and in 19—20 he rejects ‘noisy’ poetry in the grand style, by implication indicating his preference for the slender style. Callimachus sometimes begins direct speech in mid-line, as in e.g. h.3,29; 4,150; 162; 212; 5,85; 6,41; cf. also the dialogue in ff. 114,1 ff. and the bits of conversation in ft.6,84 ff. For a discussion of this phenomenon see e.g. Führer 1967,66 ff; McLennan 1977,147 ff; Hopkinson on ft.6,41 + n.2; Mineur 1984,29 f. The latter observes that this practice is rare in Homer and Hesiod, where it occurs almost exclusively in brief quotations (like e.g. 11.6,479, a brief quotation within a speech, and Hes.Op.453 f.), and that Callimachus’ practice may have been influenced by tragic messenger-speeches (McLennan 1977,149 points to some examples from Theognis, which might indicate that early elegy was ffeer than epic in this respect, but in fact these passages also concern only brief quotations, like e.g. Thgn.22 and 921). Elsewhere we find this practice also in Antim.ff. 84 M (from the Lyde); Theoc.7,27 and 91; 16,18 (also a brief quotation); 24,68; in Latin epic the practice is common (see Norden on Verg. A. 6,45 ff). The beginning of the line must have contained the verbal part of the speech introduction, and, although Hunt’s φημ'ι δ[ε] seems too short, it is hard to think of another supplement that would fit the metre and context. In any case the first-person present tense in the speech introduction would be strikingly different from the Homeric practice, just like Callimachus’ handling of Homeric speech-formulas elsewhere (on which see Mineur 1984,26 ff).

28

29

30

Commentary 1,7

Commentary 1,7

1,7 ]και: Hopkinson ad loc. reads καί and points to the epic use of καί to introduce replies, which is more or less equivalent to ‘in his turn’, as in e.g. II.2,336 r o ta Se και μετεειπε. If so, the particle would help to draw attention to the opposition between 1 μοι Τελχΐνεε and 7 Τε[λ\χΐειν εγώ. φΰλον α[ : one expects a negative qualification, summarizing or accounting for the impression given of the Telchines in 1-6. Besides, one must also take into account the explanation in the scholia in fr. ld ,l if., which suggests that the adjective beginning with a[ could be ‘etymologically’ related to A'iac and a tat. Of the proposals made so far Rostagni’s ά[ηνεε (adopted by Massimilla in his text) fulfils these conditions best: ( 1 ) it may be hidden in the scholion in fr. ld.l.a^veooc; (2) the explanation in Hsch. a 1513 s.v. άηνεε- αιδιον, λάβρον, άθλιον suits the context well, as it contains notions of length and violence; cf. also Hsch. a 1293 s.v. ϊάεινεουε· ον προεηνεΐε, βλαβερούε; (3) the explanations in Hesychius indicate that άηνήε was equivalent to αίανηε (Ion. αίηνήε); cf. Hsch. a 1835 s.v. (αίηνεε)' αιώνιον, βλαβερόν; similarly EtGen. a 187 L-L (and related lexica) s.v. αίηνεε. The coexistence of αίανήε {αίηνήε) and άηνήε may be compared with such pairs as αΐητοε and άητοε (see Frisk 1,36 s.v. αΐητοε; LfrgrE s.v. άητοε, αΐητοε) or αίεί and αεί. In this respect it is also worth noticing that Philipp.Thess.AP 11,321,7 f. (= GP 3039 f.) τρίβοιεθ’ etc αιώνα κατατρυζοντεε άλιτροί I άλλων addresses the grammarians who are presented as τελχΐνεε βίβλων in 2 (= GP 3034). The adjective αίανηε is well attested in Greek poets. We find it first in Archil.fr. 179 W, then several times in Pindar, e.g. Pi.P.4,236 κεντρον αίανεε; 1,82 f. κόροε . . . I αίανηε; 7.1,49; 3/4,2, where we find both senses, ‘long’ and ‘painful’; in tragedy, e.g. k.Eu.562 and 572, and in Hellenistic poetry, e.g. Lyc.928 atavi) θεόν. The notion that αίανηε and αίαΐ were related may also be present in A.Pers.280 if. ΐυζ’ άποτμον 8αίοιε I δυεαιανή βοάν, I ώε πάντα Π ερεαιε παγκάκω ε I {θεοί) εθεεαν, αίαΐ, ετρατοΰ φθαρεντοε (cf. 636,941 f.) and it is certainly present in S.Aj.430 ff. and 914. The adjective is also explained as being derived from αίαΐ in e.g. EM 32,26 ff. See further E.Degani, Αίανηε, Helikon 2,1962,37-56; Braswell on Pi.P.4,236(a). Other supplements are less easily defended: (1) Pfeiffer’s ά[κανθεε (for which see also Pfeiffer 1928,311 f. (= 1960, 106 f.) ) may derive some support from Ov.Mef.2,807 ff. and 789 f. (Invidia’s staff) quod spinea totum I uincula cingebant (on which see Bömer ad loc.), but does not account for the scholia in ff. ld ,l ff. Passages like Antipater AP 11,20,2 (= GP 186) ποιητώ ν φΰλον άκανθολόγων, Antiph.AP 11,322,2 άκανθοβάται, and Pfeiffer’s other parallels (as well as

those in Gow-Page on GP 186) are not cogent, because they are not from a context about envy; (2) Wilamowitz’s ά[μουεον (defended by e.g. Meillier 1979a,164 f. (= 39 f.); P.Bing, ‘The Voice of those who Live in the Sea . . . ’, ZPE 41,1981,33-6, esp. 35 f.; Weber 1993,290 f.; Tsantsanoglou 2007,27) recalls Emp.fr. 74 D-K φΰλον άμουεον (about fishes), but seems unlikely because it rather flatly repeats 2 and does not fit the context in the scholia in ff. Id. The second objection against ά[μουεον applies also to the following three supplements: (3) ά[λιτρόν (suggested by Hopkinson 1988,93 and defended by Lehnus 1991a, 9 f.), which recalls the qualification of the Telchines’ behaviour in ff. 75,68 f. and of the grammarians in Philipp.Thess.AP 11,321,7 (= GP 3039) (adduced by K.Bassi, ‘The Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo’, TAPhA 119,1989,219-31, esp. 222 f. n.15); (4) φΰλον ά[οιδών, suggested by Dubielzig 1995,341 ff., who refers to Od.8,480 f. (on which see below on φΰλον) and to the fact that Odysseus is mentioned in ff. Id,5, although the context in which the name appears in the scholion does not point to Od.8,480 f. or even to the Odyssey, (5) ά[βουλον suggested by Luppe 1997,51. φΰλον: this word indicates that there were many Telchines, but it is too common to suggest a particular metaphor (e.g. of insects, as Meillier 1979a, 164 (= 39) thinks; see further comm, on fr. 137b,3). The use of φΰλον of the Telchines, whom the Muses do not love, may be intended to recall Od.8,480 f. (about rhapsodes) τιμ ή ε εμμοροί είει καί αίδοΰε, οννεκ άρα εφεαε I οΐμαε Μ ούε’ εδίδαζε, φίληεε δε φΰλον άοιδών. A reader familiar with this passage might be surprised by the negative adjective which is now lost at the end of the line. For a similar effect at line-end cf. h.2,4 επενευεεν ό Δήλιοε ήδύ τι φοΐνιξ, where one might have expected Φοΐβοε (see Williams ad loc.). Such effects would be even stronger if the text were orally performed. 1 ,8 ]: none of the supplements proposed is cogent and μοϋνον εόν and εφωίτερον are definitely too long. D’Alessio’s ofov εόν (which Lehnus 1998,40 finds convincing) would suit the space better and the rare adverbial ofov may find support in passages like 772,486, Hes.Th.26, [Theoc.] 25,199 (where see Gow). Alternatively, however, the lacuna could have contained a word qualifying either ήπαρ in 8 or φΰλον α[ in 7, which could have been an adjective or a plural genitive (with φΰλον), or it could have contained a verb; cf. e.g. Nicarch.(?) AP 6,285,5 f. (= HE 2741 f.) ‘ερρετε', φωνήεαεa, ‘κακών λιμηρά γυναικών I έργα, νεον τήκειν άνθοε επιετάμενα’. τήκ[€ΐν] ήπαρ: these words are a clear indication of the jealousy of the Telchines, because the idea of self-destruction through jealousy was

31

32

Commentary 1,8

proverbial. We find this notion in e.g. adesp.AP 11,193 d φθόνοε ieri κάκιετοε, εχει δε τ ι καλόν εν αύτώι· I τήκει γάρ φθονερών δμματα καί κραδίην; 10,111; Isoc.9,6; Theoc.5,12f.; Greg.Naz.C.2,1,68,9 (= PG 37,1409); Ov.Mef.2,780 f. and 807 ff.; for more examples see Aubreton on A P 11,193 and Massimilla ad loc. The idea of the envy of literary opponents parallels h.2,105ff. and Ep. 21,4 and for Callimachus apparently was an important means for defining his position among his contemporaries; see further Fraser 1972,1,757 f.; Bundy 1972,45 ff. Hsch. r 448 s.v. Τελχΐνεε explains the name etymologically η παρά την τήξιν, η παρά το θελγειν, with τηζιν referring to the melting of metals (cf. e.g. Hdt.3,96,2), so that τήκ[ειν] may also contain a pun on the original activities of the Telchines as blacksmiths (see also Hopkinson ad loc.). The noun ήπαρ is well chosen, as it indicates the seat of emotions; cf. for this use of ήπαρ also e.g. Theoc.9,16 and Bion, Adonis 47 (with Reed ad loc.). Besides, the combination of the idea of self-destruction and the word ήπαρ recall ff. 2,5, so that Callimachus seems to pick up a pro­ grammatically important point from the first edition of the Aetia in his prologue to the whole work; see Harder 1987,29 (the ideas of ReinschWerner 1976,309 ff. presuppose that ff. 2 was written after fr. 1 and are therefore less likely). επιετάμενον: the use of this participle may well be ironic, as it occurs in descriptions of able poets, as in e.g. Od.21,406 άνήρ φ όρμιγγοε έπιετάμενοε καί άοιδήε; Hes.Op.107; h.Merc.479; Archil.fr. 1,2 Μουεεων ερατον δώρον επιετάμενοε; Solon ff. 13,52 W; Theoc.17,7 and 113; Posidipp.HE 24,4 (?); Theodor.AP 7,406,1 ( - HE 3558); see also Dubielzig 1995,343 f. Besides, as Hutchinson 2003,49 n .8 observes, the participle may also contrast with the Telchines’ ignorance of the Muse in 2: they are, as it were, knowledgeable in the wrong field. 1,9-12 Here Callimachus justifies his own position within the elegiac tradition and mentions some of his predecessors in his support. We find the same technique in Ia.fr. 191 (Hipponax) and 203 (Ion of Chios); Ep. 27 (Aratus following Hesiod) and by implication in fr. 2 and 112 (Hesiod) as well as in Roman poets who followed Callimachus’ example (see Wimmel 1960,54 ff. and 87 ff.). The fact that the predecessors mentioned here are elegiac poets concurs well with this passage from the prologue to the elegiac Aetia, but does not justify the conclusion that the prologue as a whole is concerned with elegiac style only; see further introd. on The main issues of fr. 1. It is also worth noting that the poems referred to in these lines all have female subjects and that some of them may have been addressed to poets’

Commentary 1,9-12

33

mistresses. This may suggest that not only a refined style and brevity were an issue here, but also the contents of poetry (see also Acosta-HughesStephens 2002,247; Hunter 2006a,122 f. on Demetrius’ view that poetic χάριε consists of subject and style). In this respect too these lines may contrast with the warlike subjects of the long poems referred to in 13-16 and they may foreshadow the importance of erotic subjects in the Aetia, particularly the love stories of Acontius and Cydippe (fr. 67-75e) and of Phrygius and Pieria (fr. 80-83b) in Aetia 3 and the treatment of the Syrian War from the point of view of married love in the Lock of Berenice (fr. 110-1 lOf) in Aetia 4. Thus Callimachus seems to draw attention to the notion of the ideological importance of ‘love’ already in this part of the prologue. All things considered the likeliest interpretation of 11-12 seems to be ‘of the two kinds of poems (hinted at above in 10 ) the subtle poems (of Philitas) showed that Mimnermus is sweet, but the big woman (of Antima­ chus) did not show that’, but the exact interpretation of these lines has long been a matter of dispute and a firm decision is not possible. Apart from the difficulty of supplementing the lines, the main question has been whether Callimachus compared the short elegiac poems of Philitas and Mimnermus ( 1 ) with their own long poems or ( 2 ) with the long poems of other poets. For the first view, which was also accepted by Pfeiffer ad loc., see recently e.g. Hollis 1978,402 ff.; Töchterle 1980,225 ff.; Pretagostini 1984,121 ff.; Allen 1993,146 ff.; Cameron 1995,308 f; d’Alessio 1996, 2,370 f. n. 8 ; Torraca and Massimilla ad loc.; Asper 1997,153 ff.; Serrao 1998,305 ff. (and among earlier scholarship e.g. Gallavotti 1933,232 f.; Wimmel 1960, 89 ff.). The second view is defended by e.g. Herter 1937,99 ff. and 1973,195 f.; Puelma 1954,101 ff. and 1957,90 ff.; Barigazzi 1956,162 ff.; Eichgrün 1961,74 ff. For a recent discussion without preference see Hunter 2006«, 119 ff. An important argument adduced in favour of (1) is that in the scholion in fr. lb ,15 we must read αύτ(ών) and not αΰτ(ά), as McNamee 1982,83 ff. demonstrates. Her palaeographical evidence makes it certain that at least the scholiast, who had a complete text in front of him, took the passage in this sense (for more examples of this kind of abbreviation see K.McNamee, Abbreviations in Greek Literary Papyri and Ostraca (BASP Suppl. 3), Chico 1981,116). There are, however, also some doubts about (1). The first difficulty is that Callimachus does not praise all the works of Philitas and Mimnermus. This kind of ambiguity would presuppose an important difference in quality between their long and short poems, which is hard to imagine (see also Herter 1937,101). Besides, this kind of

34

Commentary 1,9-12

qualified judgement is never found in other Greek or later Latin authors, where Philitas and Mimnermus are used as positive examples without any restrictions (see e.g. Puelma 1954,101 ff; Barigazzi 1956,164 ff.)· Against this Wimmel 1960,89 ff. argues that Callimachus deliberately rejected unrestricted praise of his predecessors because he wanted to appear as the great innovator himself and that in Roman love-elegy these subtleties were lost, but Müller 1987,93 rightly states that the rhetoric of the defence against the Telchines would demand unqualified praise of Mimnermus and Philitas and that the scholiast’s view is not necessarily right. Besides, one may wonder why τοϊν Sè] δυοΐν, which with the scholiast’s interpretation seems somewhat superfluous, should stand so prominently at the beginning of the line (see also below). Another argument against ( 1 ) is less compelling. In ff. Id ,13 the most natural interpretation of the scholion was thought to be ‘he is saying that Mimnermus is delightful, ’; on the other hand the interpretation ‘he is saying that Mimnermus is delightful ’ seems a little forced (see Puelma 1954,110). However, it is certainly possible that the scholiast in ff. Id,13 offers only a syntactical explanation, as in ff. ld,9f. about the way in which one should construct πολύ in 10 and fr. Id ,11 f. about the subject of εδιδα^ε in 12. In a similar way ff. Id,13 may explain that 11 Μ ίμνερμοε ότι γλ υ κ ύ c should be read as ότι γ λ v k { vc ) ό Μ ίμνερμος so that the scholion would refer only to the word-order. A difficulty with (2) is that one cannot very well interpret I lf . as ‘of the two (poets or poems?) his own small poems taught that Mimnermus was sweet, but the big woman (i.e. the Lyde) did not teach that ’, because then the line would exhibit a considerable imbal­ ance (see Hollis 1978,405 f.). However, Puelma 1954,115 already suggests interpreting the passage in the sense that Antimachus’ Lyde failed to show that he was the proper Mimnermus Redivivus and this notion has been further refined by Puelma 1957,93 ff.; Matthews 1979,134 ff.; Müller 1987,89 ff. and 1998,36 ff. These scholars argue that the poetry of Philitas was compared favourably, though not very explicitly, to the character­ istics of Antimachus’ cumbersome poetry in 9 f. (which Matthews 1979,131 f. regards as being represented by θεΰν, i.e. Antimachus’ Artemis); that the end of 11 and the beginning of 12 referred to Phili­ tas’— not Mimnermus’—subtle poems and that therefore in I lf . the point was that Philitas’ perceptive imitation of Mimnermus through sub­ tle composition showed the sweetness and quality of Mimnermus, whereas Antimachus’ long Lyde did not. Thus Callimachus would show that Philitas improved on Antimachus’ revival of archaic elegy and

Commentary 1,9-12

35

that he preferred Philitas. Luppe 1997,51 f. also accepts this idea as does Spanoudakis 1998,59 f. to a certain extent; see also Spanoudakis 2002,42 ff. Another drawback of (2) is that the scholion in ff. lb, 15 does not agree with this interpretation, but the scholiast might be mistaken if he did not realize that the first substantive in 10 did not indicate a poem by Philitas, but corresponded with the characteristics of the poetry or even with a specific poem of Antimachus. The idea that the scholion might be con­ sidered as solid proof of (1) (for which see e.g. Pretagostini 1984,125 f. and 2006a,23 f.) seems to go too far. Arguments in favour of (2) are: (a) it eliminates the notion of restricted praise, which is a drawback of ( 1), and fits in with Callimachus’ criticism of Antimachus elsewhere (cf. ff. 398 Λύ8η καί πα χύ γρά μμ α καί ού τορόν) and perhaps with ff. 532 τώ ι ΐκελον το γρά μμ α το Κώϊον, which may refer to Philitas’ imitation of Mimnermus (see Pfeiffer ad loc.). As Herter 1937,100 f. observes, the con­ trast between two extremes would also agree more with the rhetoric of ff. 1, where we also find the extremes represented by the cicada and the ass in 29 ff.; ( b) syntactically the interpretation ‘of the two kinds of poems (hinted in 10) the subde poems (of Philitas) show that Mimnermus is sweet, but the big woman (of Antimachus) does not’ accounts better for the use of the article (which seems a fairly certain supplement) than ‘of the (i.e. Mimnermus’) two works the small poems taught that Mimnermus was sweet, but the big woman did not’; besides, the function of τοίν δε] δυοίν in 11 is more understandable if these words refer to the work of two other poets with whom Mimnermus is compared and thus emphasize the difference between two directions within the elegiac tradition (see also Puelma 1957,98; Müller 1987,91); (c) in Posidipp.AP 12,168,1 f. (= HE 3086 f.) Antimachus’ Lyde receives favourable mention together with Mimnermus’ Nanno and it is possible to interpret these words as Posidippus’ being against the view that Antimachus was not a proper successor of Mimnermus. In this regard it is worth noting that Posidippus was mentioned as one of the Telchines in fr. lb,5. All things considered the arguments in favour of (2) seem to be the strong­ est, although the first word of 10 still remains an uncertain factor (see comm, on 10 ) and a significant remaining difficulty is that the plural in I lf . would indicate the same poem as the singular ομπνια Θεεμοφόρο[ε in 1 0 . For general discussions of this issue and references to earlier literature

36

Commentary 1,9-12

see further Herter 1937,99 ff.; 1973,195 f.; Töchterle 1980,225 ff.; Pretagostini 1984,121 ff; Allen 1993,146 ff. 1,9 ].. per/vi the verb-form εην is attractive and is probably best taken, with the majority of scholars, as a third-person singular imperfect; cf. e.g. h.4,49; Hec.fr. 238,15 f. (= 18,1 f. Hollis). Some scholars, e.g. Torraca ad loc., Pretagostini 1984,123 and 2006a,22, and Tsantsanoglou 2007,28, prefer to take it as a first-person singular, but the evidence for this inter­ pretation is scanty (a possible instance of εην as a first-person singular imperfect is a variant reading in II. 11,762, which is rejected by Hainsworth ad loc.). The particle γάρ is less certain and it is not quite clear how it could explain the address of the Telchines in 7 f. (for the position of γάρ cf. fr. 67,11 with comm.). Perhaps one should also consider γ ’ dp’ (see Denniston 19542,43 and Wakker 1994,343 ff., who discusses the use of äpa to signal surprise). Scholars have proposed several supplements and interpretations: ( 1 ) Pfeiffer suggests η μεν δι)] γάρ, but this leaves the subject of the sen­ tence obscure and the strong asseveration does not seem to fit the con­ text very well (see Denniston 19542,389 on η μεν δή); (2) Maas apud Pfeiffer 1,499 suggests punctuating before [ύλ]ιγόετιχοε, in spite of the evidence of the papyrus, and taking the adjective with ομπνια Θεεμοφόρο[ε in 10 , but this makes it hard to think of supplements for the beginning of 9; (3) Wimmel 1958,352 ff. suggests Κώϊοε οΰ]κ ap’, which is somewhat modified by Luppe 1997,51, who argues that one would need an article with the ethnic and suggests χώ Κώιοε ] γάρ (although Wimmel 1958,353 n.3 gives several examples of ethnics with­ out an article, like e.g. h.5,18). The idea of a reference to Philitas as ‘the poet from Cos’ also finds favour with e.g. Matthews 1979,136; Töchterle 1980,227; Müller 1987,89 ff. Alternatively one could think of a conditional clause and/or a non­ human subject, e.g. et μΰθοε ] γ ’ ap’ εην . . . : ‘if, as I am surprised to hear from you, my narrative was short, yet . . . ’. For αλλά following a con­ ditional clause see Denniston 19542,11 ff. and for μΰθοε in a similar context cf. Greg.Naz.2,2,7,304 (= PG 37,1575) δλιγόετιχον .. . μΰθον (see on this passage also below). The suggestion of a non-human subject is also made by Pfeiffer 1928,312 n.19 (= 1960,107 n.19) [Μοΰεά γ ε μοι] παρεην, in which the notion of Movca is certainly attractive. If εην could be a firstperson singular one could also consider: ov γ ’ ap’ εην [ολ] ιγόετιχοε with an adverb lost in the lacuna and indicating something like ‘not, as I am surprised to notice, did I write short poems, yet . . . ’. For this kind of construction one may compare e.g. Od. 17,454 ούκ

Commentary 1,9

37

apa cot y . . . φρενεε ηεαν and H es.O p.llf. ούκ άρα μοΰνον εην Ερίδων γένος, άλλ’ επί γαΐαν I είεΐ δύω (where see West, who gives several examples of this kind of phrase in the opening of a speech, where the speaker is struck that what seems new to him now was already reality in the past). [ολ] ιγόετιχοε: although the exact text in 9 is not certain, the adjective must, in this context, refer to the shortness of poems and be used either of the poems themselves or of a poet who composes such poems. Other instances of the use of this and similar words suggest that they might refer to absolute as well as to relative shortness, i.e. to texts in which, although they are long, no superfluous words occur. Although μακρήν in 10 and μ εγά λη in 12 suggest that here absolute shortness is the main issue, there is some evidence that the notion of relative shortness was also familiar to Callimachus, as in 4 above. More generally his predilection for brevity is also apparent from e.g. fi.2,105 ff. and fr. 465 (see further Poliakoff 1980,46 f). We find όλιγόετιχοε and similar words in an absolute sense in e.g. Philipp .AP 4,2,6 (= GP 2633) όπλοτερων την όλιγοετιχίην, where it refers to the ‘short poems’, i.e. the epigrams, of later poets (see Gow-Page ad loc.); Parmenion AP 9,342,1 f. (= GP 2608 f.) φημι πολυετιχίην επιγρά μ μα τοε ου κατά Μ ονεαε I είναι; Greg.Naz.C.l,1,11,15 (= PG 37,471, quoted on 4); Mich.Chon.fpist. 2,p. 55,12 f. Lampros.In Posidipp. 102,4 AB we find όλιγορρημων of ‘a man of few words’ (trans. AustinBastianini) from Crete. In Greg.Naz.2,2,7,304 f. (= PG 37,1575) καί τά δ’ επιδρομάδην, όλιγόετιχον εύρεα μΰθον, I ώε νόμοε εετίν εμοιγε we find the notion that a brief text may contain a great deal of content and this fits in with his observations in a brief letter to Nicobulus in Ep. 54 το λακωνίζειν ού τούτο εετιν, οπερ οί'ει, όλίγαε ευλλαβάε γράφειν, άλλα περί πλείετω ν ολίγαε. οΰτωε εγώ καί βραχυλογώ τατον "Ομηρον λέγω , καί πολύν τον Α ντίμαχον, πώε; τοΐε πράγμαει κρίνων το μήκοε, άλλ’ ού τοϊε γρά μμαει. Cameron 1995,334 ff. argues that this letter, which also recalls fr. 1,17 f., might ultimately derive from Callimachus’ rejection of Antimachus and for the notion of relative length in Callimachus points to Ep. 11 εύντομοε ην ό ζεΐνοε, ο καί ετί'.χοε ού μακρά λεζων I “Θηριε Ά ριεταίου Κρήε" επ ’ εμοί δολιχόε (on which see M.S.Celentano, ‘L’elogia della brevità tra retorica e letteratura: Callimaco, ep. 11 P f = APVII 447’, QUCC 49,1995,67-97). Similar notions perhaps also figure in a discussion on οικονομία in Argonaut stories in SH 339A (cf. 11 εύντομοε τιε and 17 ] ευνεχεει καί πολυετίχοιε [sc. poems vel sim.]), on which see Rüsten 1982,53 ff. (who,

38

Commentary 1,9

however, on p. 57 observes that this text cannot be related to the Aetia with any certainty). καθέλκει·. this verb has generally been taken as ‘outweighs’ without much further consideration (so e.g. Hunt 1927,50; Pfeiffer 1928,313 (= 1960,107); Hopkinson 1988 ad loc.; see further Gargiulo 1992,124 n.7). However, Gargiulo 1992,123 ff. draws attention to the fact that strictly speaking the verb here indicates that the light item causes the heavy con­ tents of the other scale of the balance to go down and that this descent indicates the loser of the weighing contest. Thus Callimachus varies the idea of weighing poetry in Ar._Ko.1365 ff, where καθέλκω, with the scale of the balance as its object, is used of heavy items which triumph over light ones in 1397 f. (Dionysus to Euripides:) έτερον αΰ ζητεί τι τών βαρυετάθμων, I ο τ ι coi καθέλξει, καρτεράν τε καί μέγα. On the other hand, the notion of the descent indicating the loser comes from the weighing of human fates in 11.8,68 ff. and 22,208 ff., where the scales of those destined to perish go down. Callimachus therefore combines the Homeric idea with the Aristophanic phrasing (in a similar way the Homeric examples may have influenced the phrasing in Theoc. 17,95 δλβωι μεν πάνταε κε καταβρίθοι (sc. Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus) ßaciXrjac, which Gow ad loc. finds illogical). Gargiulo’s idea is accepted by e.g. d’Alessio 1996,2,370 n.7 and Massimilla ad loc.; for further discussion see also Asper 1997,155 n.100; Acosta-Hughes-Stephens 2002,246 f. In our context the idea of the light item associated with Philitas winning the weighing contest would be particularly apt if Callimachus were famil­ iar with the anecdote about Philitas’ lightness which we find in Ath. 12,552b and Ael.VH 9,14 (where he puts lead in his shoes so that he will not be blown away); see further Gargiulo 1992,127 n.17; Sbardella 2000,14 ff. The use of the verb in the sense we find here is rare, but it is recognized by Hsch. κ 122 s.v. καθέλκει· καταβάλλει and Hdas.1,15 f. to . . . yrjpac I ήμέαε καθέλκει is comparable; for a similar use of άνέλκω cf. Metrodorus AP 14,144,3. The victory of the light poet concurs with the contrast drawn here between poetry dedicated to women and martial epic and is opposed to the outcome of the contest in the Ranae, where Aeschylus wins. It also recalls the first part of the contest in Ai.Ra.1382 f., where Euripides throws in Med. 1 about the winged Argo, which evokes the love story of Medea and Jason, and Aeschylus a line about the river Spercheius, which evokes the Trojan war. In Callimachus’ view the heavy warlike items thrown in by Aeschylus seem to carry no weight, whereas Euripides’ light and erotic ones do. For the metaphor of weighing and the use Callimachus made of the

Commentary 1,9

39

literary critical terminology in Aristophanes’ Ranae see further Wimmel 1960,115; Schmitt 1970,76; Clayman 1977,28; 1980,25 n.38; Serrao 2000; comm, on 20 and 24. 1 , 1 0 __ 7τθ)λύ τη ν μακρην: supplements have to fit in with one of the two interpretations of the whole passage discussed on 9-12. If Callimachus compared the long and short poems of Philitas, την μακρην must refer to a poem by Philitas, which was longer than his Demeter, and supplements should be such that they could be interpreted metaphorically as the title of a poem (see also Asper 1997,155 f.; L.Sbardella, ‘L’opera “signora ignota” di Filita di Cos’, QUCC 52,1996,93-115; Sbardella 2000,28 ff). One could then consider references to female characters, like γραύν referring to the Bittis (so Gallavotti 1933,233 ff.) or θεόν referring to a poem with the name of a goddess as its title (so Hollis 1978,403 f., who, however, tentatively thinks of Antimachus’ Artemis, as is also suggested by Matthews 1979,131 f.; for the contraction see Bulloch on h.5,97; Hopkinson on h.6,53 and 57), but for criticism of the notion of an old beloved or the weighing of two goddesses see Müller 1998,37. Another possibility might be Κών, suggested by Norsa-Vitelli and accepted by Pretagostini 1984,129 and 2006,22 as a poem about Cos by Philitas; but as there is no other evidence that Philitas wrote such a poem the idea is highly speculative. Tsantsanoglou 2007,30 ff. suggests that δρΰν or νηύν could refer to an Argonautica or Telephus of Philitas, but this too is very speculative (see Sbardella 2000,41 ff). If, as is argued on 9-12, the line did not contain a comparison between two poems of Philitas, possibilities might be: (1) Housman’s δρΰν, which seems to presuppose that the comparison is not only between poems (see Puelma 1954,102 ff; Lohse 1966,417; differently Edwards 1930,110, who thinks of the oak of Dodona which was part of the Argo); (2) ναΰν (Smotrytsch 1963,250 ff, who takes it as a reference to Apollonius’ Argonautica, rather implausibly in a context about elegy; see Müller 1998,38); (3) θεΰν (referring to Antimachus’ Artemis, as suggested by Matthews 1979,131 f.). On the whole Housman’s δρΰν still is the most attractive. The comparison would then contrast the slender corn-ear, evoked by the reference to Demeter, and the big oak-tree and would be relevant on several levels. Each item would stand metaphorically for a certain poetic style, while δμττνια θεεμοφόρο[ε at the same time could remind readers of Philitas’ Demeter and ‘the long oak’ perhaps referred to another poem. See further for this

40

41

Commentary 1,10

Commentary 1,10

view e.g. Puelma 1954,102 ff.; Lohse 1966,417; Pretagostini 1984,124 f. n.14; Müller 1987,91; 1998,39 and 2002,237; G.B. d’Alessio, ‘Intersezioni callimachee . . in Martina-Cozzoli 2006,138-50 (esp. 139 f.). The notion of the superiority of the corn-ear over the oak-tree is found elsewhere too and may also imply a notion of progress and a contrast between ‘modern’ and ‘old-fashioned’ beside the contrast small/big; cf. Ov.Fiisf.4,399 ff. postmodo glans nata est; bene erat iam glande reperta, I duraque magnificas quercus habebat opes. I prima Ceres homine ad meliora alimenta uocato I mutauit glandes utiliore cibo (brought to my attention by Jackie Murray; see also Fantham ad loc.); V.F1.1,70 flaua quercum damnauit arista; for more examples see Massimilla ad loc. In this respect it may also be worth noticing that in the programmatic AR 1,28 ff. Orpheus charms the oak-trees, whereas in earlier texts we do not find them as the object of his charm (see B.Scherer, ‘Der Tod des Zauberers . . . ’, in M.A.HarderR.F.Regtuit-G.C.Wakker, Hellenistic Epigrams (Hellenistica Groningana 6 ), Leuven 2002,175-200, esp. 181). For further discussion of the supplements see Pretagostini 1984,127 ff.; Müller 1998,36 ff. and Massimilla ad loc. ομπνια Θεεμοφόρο[α these words refer the reader to two important aspects of Demeter, as they evoke her role as a goddess of agriculture and her role as a lawgiver, as in fi.6,18ff. and Ov.Mef.5,341 ff. (see also Massimilla ad loc.). On the other hand the notion of Demeter also reminds the reader of the corn-ear and of Philitas’ poem Demeter. The adjective δμπνιοε is a rather rare Attic word, which recurs in Hellenistic and later Greek poetry. It is often used of Demeter or things related to her and may here be translated as ‘nourishing’; cf. e.g. S.F 246 δμπνίου νεφουε; Mosch.Trag. TrGF F 6,10; Philitas ff. 44 Kuchenmüller (with Kuchenmüller ad loc.); Hec.fr. 287 (= 111 Hollis) δμττνιον εργον (cf. perhaps also ft. 357 (= 144 Hollis), of which the context is not known); AR 4,989 ereίχυν δμττνιον; Eratosth.fr. 16,17 Powell; Lyc.621; Nonn.D.l 1,213 ομπνια Δηώ; 31,39. For references in the lexicographers cf. e.g. Hsch. o 828 s.v. ομπνια καρποφόροε, ο 826 s.v. δμπνη- τροφή, ευδαιμονία; and ο 830 and 831; Sud. ο 306 s.v. ομπνια. See further Livrea on AR 4, 989; Hollis on Hec.fr. 111. Θεεμοφόροε as an epithet of Demeter recurs in ff. 63,10 and is well attested elsewhere too; cf. e.g. Pi.ff. 37 πότνια θεεμοφόρε; Hdt.6,91,2 and 134,2; Ar.Thesm.83, 89, 282 etc. (where we find the dual form Θεεμοφόρω of Demeter and Persephone); Asclep.AP 5,150,2 (= HE 851); D.S. 1,14,4; 5,5,2. The adjective is generally related to Demeter’s role as a lawgiver, which Callimachus also mentions in h.6,18 πολίεεειν έαδότα τεθμια δώκε, and is thus translated in e.g. Verg.A.4,58 legiferae Cereri (although this may not be its original meaning and there is no agreement over the

word’s origin; see Hopkinson 1984,36 n.2). On the Panhellenic cult of Demeter Thesmophorus see Graf 1985,277 n.47. Philitas was the first of a new generation of poets, who c.300 b c began a revival of poetry based on an innovative treatment of the earlier tradition (see Pfeiffer 1968,88 f.). His Demeter is a practically unknown elegiac poem, of which only a few fragments survive (ff. 5-11 Sbardella); see further G.Kuchenmüller, Philetae Coi Reliquiae, Diss. Berolini 1928,49 ff.; Edwards 1930,110; Sbardella 2000,44 ff. (et passim). For recent surveys of Philitas’ life and work see L.Sbardella, in Der Neue Pauly 9,819 f. s.v. Philitas; Sbardella 2000,3 ff.; Spanoudakis 2002,19 ff.; P.Bing, ‘La poésie érudite dans l’Alexandrie des Ptolémées: L’ example de Philitas de Cos’, in C.Jacob, Des Alexandries II: Les métamorphoses du lecteur, Paris 2003,263-70; P.Bing, ‘The Unruly Tongue: Philitas of Cos as Scholar and Poet’, CPh 98,2003,330-48. About the spelling of his name as Philitas see C.W.Müller, ‘Philetas oder Philitas?’, in P.Steinmetz (ed.), Beiträge zur hellenistischen Literatur und ihrer Rezeption in Rom, Stuttgart 1990, 27-37. 1,11 Μ ίμνερμοε δτι γλυκύε; the notion of ‘sweetness’, which recurs below in 16, is an important element in ancient descriptions of song and speech and well attested from the early Greek epic onwards. We find γλυκερόε and γλυκύε in such contexts in e.g. II. 1,249; 13,637 μολπήε . .. γλυκερήε (= Od.23,145); Hes.T7i.96 f. ο δ’ ολβιοε, δντινα Movcai I φίλωνταιγλυκερή οί από ετόματοε ρέει αύδή; hHom.7,59 and 25,5; Pi.N.5,2; fr. 152 M (for more examples from Pindar see Livrea on AR 4,1774); AR 4,1773 ff. αίδε δ’ άοιδαί (i.e. the Argonautica) I etc croc εξ ετεοε γλυκερώ τεραι αΐεν άείδειν I άνθρώποιε; [Theoc.] 20,27; for more examples see Massimilla ad loc. Mimnermus’ poetry is described in similar terms in Hermesianax fr. 7,35 f. Powell Μ ίμνερμοε δε, τον ήδύν oc εΰρετο πολλον άνατλάε I ήχον καί μαλακού πνεύμα το πεντάμετρου. That the ‘big woman’ fails to meet this widely accepted criterion for the quality of poetry implies an emphatic condemnation of this poem, not only as reception of Mimner­ mus, but also in general. On Mimnermus’ life and work see in general Allen 1993,8 ff.; E.Bowie in Der Neue Pauly 8,199 ff. s.v. Mimnermos. a Lt y ’ άπαλα'ι [ I [.........]: these words must indicate a certain group of poems of Mimnermus or - more likely - Philitas, depending on the overall interpretation of this passage (see on 9-12). In I lf . Rostagni’s a f κατά λεπτόν I ρήειεε to many scholars has long seemed an attractive supplement (cf. Ep. 27,3 f. λεπ τα ί I ρήειεε and see for further discussion of Rostagni’s ideas Benedetto 1990,115 ff.), but Puelma 1957,95 f. already suggests that Philitas’ poem might be indicated

42

Commentary 1,11

by something like ‘zarte Mädchen’ as opposed to the big woman. He thinks that this kind of supplement would account best for the elliptic description of the scholia in ff. ld ,l 1 if., which would probably have left out two words indicating ‘women’ rather than two different notions. He therefore pro­ poses to read a Li κατά λεπτόν I Κώ ϊαι (for the ethnic used of Philitas’ poetry cf. also ft. 532), accepting the text printed by Pfeiffer on the basis of Rostagni’s reading of ff. ld ,ll. Recently Bastianini 1996,69 ff. has convincingly shown that in ff. Id, 11 the suggestions of Rostagni 1928,9 f. cannot be verified in the papyrus, that the traces should be interpreted differently and that in any case λ επ τ ' would be λεπτ(ήν) rather than Ae7rr(óv). He tentatively thinks of at ' μετά μεγάλ(ην) instead, which has now turned out to fit in with earlier readings by Lobel ( ' μεγα ') and Bell (at μεγάλ(αι)) (see Lehnus 2006a,138 ff. and the app. on ff. Id, 11). If so, one could think of a Lt μεγάλαι [μεν in ff. 1,11 and perhaps of Anglo’s τερψιεε in 12 (for which she adduces many related words in the fragments of Mimnermus). A serious drawback, however, would be the repetition of the adjective in 12 and the fact that in this context ‘big’ seems to have a negative connotation. Soon after Bastianini’s discovery Luppe 1997,52 f. read at άπαλ(αί) in ff. Id , 11 with supralinear μ.ετα[ (indicating that the phrasing in Callimachus was ‘metaphorical’?) and suggested a j y άπαλαί [ rot or μεν for the end of 11 and νηνιεε for the beginning of 12. Although the papyrus is very difficult to read and one cannot be entirely certain, άπαλ(αί) palaeographically is more attractive than Bastianini’s reading (see app. on ff. ld ,ll) and it also seems to make more sense in the context. As Hunter 2006a,120 observes, this adjective might be imitated in Ov.Am.3,1,27 quod tenerae cantent lusit tua Musa puellae (where Tragedy addresses the love-poet Ovid) and 69 teneri properentur Amores (in Ovid’s conclusion of the poem); 3,15,1 tenerorum mater Amorum (in Ovid’s farewell to love poetry). For the insertion of y’ Luppe 1997,53 refers to ff. 186,11; 224; for the Ionic-epic νηνιεε in 12 to e.g. Anacr.PMG 358,3; Hdn.Pros.Cai/j.94,31 L vfjvtc ή νεάνιε; EM 448,30 νεάνιε, κράεει νήνιε, νήνιοε, νήνιϊ καί κράεει νήνι. Spanoudakis 1998,59 ff. suggests that these delicate young ladies indicate Philitas’ Demeter and argues that they might stand for the Coan nymphs (cf. Stat.Si7v.5,3,291 mitis . . . nympha), as nymphs were often associated with Demeter. He also observes that, if e.g. Luppe’s νηνιεε at the beginning of 12 were right, the sophisticated way in which the subtle poems were described would be neatly contrasted with the plain η μεγά λη . . . γυνή indicating the wrong kind of poetry (it should be noticed, however, that άπαλόε is well attested in poetry and prose from Homer onwards).

Commentary 1,11

43

Puelma’s Κ ώ ϊαι would still make good sense in 12 with Luppe’s reading in 11 as well and it is not possible to make a definite choice. 1,12 ή μ εγά λ η . . . γυνή: these words must indicate a poem by Mimnermus or - more likely - by another poet, depending on the overall interpretation of this passage (see on 9-12). There was a long tradition of poems called after a woman from Mimnermus’ Nanno to Philitas’ Bittis, Hermesianax’ Leontion, and Antimachus’ Lyde (see e.g. Gallavotti 1933,234 f.; Wimmel 1960,91; on the Lyde see now Matthews 1996,26 ff.). If these words refer to a poem by Mimnermus, one could think of the Nanno, a mythological-erotic poem named after a beloved flute-girl (cf. ff. 4, 5, 8 , 9, 10, 12, 24 W and the testimonia in West 2,81 f.). For other views see Colonna 1952,191 ff.; Töchterle 1980,225 ff; Pretagostini 1984,132 ff. and 2006,23, who all defend the Smyrneis (of which very little is known; cf. Mimn.fr. 13a W and see Allen 1993,23 ff). If this is not a poem by Mimnermus one could think of Antimachus’ Lyde, which Callimachus criticizes in ff. 398 Λ ύ8η καί παχύ γρά μμ α και ού τορόν and was apparently the subject of considerable dispute; cf. also Antip.Sid.AP 7,409 (= HE 638 ff; see on this poem A.Grilli, ‘Antipatro di Sidone e Callimaco (AP 7,409)’, PP 34,1979,202—4); Asclep.AP 9,63 (= HE 958 ff); Posidipp.AP 12,168 (= HE 3086 ff). Given the context, the qualifi­ cation μ εγά λη probably bears a negative connotation, as μ εγα ε often does in Callimachus (cf. also 19 and see Bissinger 1966,331 ff), and would there­ fore fit in with Callimachus’ judgement of the Lyde in fr. 398. On the reception of Antimachus in Callimachus and in antiquity in general see further e.g. Barigazzi 1956,163 ff; D.W.T.C.Vessey, ‘The reputation of Antimachus of Colophon’, Hermes 99,1971,1-10; G.Giangrande, ‘Kallimachos und Antimachos’, Hermes 102,1974,117-19; V.J.Matthews, ‘Antimachean Anecdotes’, Eranos 77,1979,43-50; G.Serrao, ‘La struttura della Lide di Antimaco e la critica Callimachea’, QUCC 32,1979,91-98; Matthews 1996,64 ff; Krevans 1993,149-160. Kuhlmann 2005,25 makes the interesting suggestion that in the story of Acontius and Cydippe (fr. 67-75e) Callimachus might be implicitly reacting against Antimachus by means of his innovative and experimental narrative technique (a notion which might derive support from his treatment of the Argonauts’ adven­ tures at Anaphe in fr. 7c-21d, where see comm.). For a possible allusion to our large woman in Cat.86 see T.D.Papanghelis, ‘Catullus and Callimachus on large women: A reconsideration of c.8 6 ’, Mnem.44,1991,372-86. The allusion does not help the interpretation of our passage, however, and Cameron 1995,317 n.74 is critical of it. δ’: the position of the particle following a word-group consisting of a noun and article is not unusual in Callimachus; cf. e.g. 24 τή]ν Μουεαν δ’;

45

Commentary 1,12

Commentary 1,13-16

Ια.ίτ. 202,65; /j.3,51; 5,85 and for Se following a preposition and noun fr. 7,12 and 43,74. Whereas these kinds of postponement are quite common (see Denniston 19542,185f,; Bulloch on h.5,85), elsewhere Callimachus’ positioning of Se' is bolder, because the particle follows not a word-group as here, but two or more separate units, which are thus brought to the reader’s attention, as in e.g. 35 αΰθι τ,ο S’ ιάκ,δνοιμιίρ ff. 75,12; 36 and 74. See also comm, on fr. 67,11 and Introd. 6.3. 1,13-16 In this passage the notion of length of the preceding lines is elaborated in the form of a priamel (although the passage is not discussed in Race 1982). This priamel rounds off the defence of oligostichia with references to examples of the ‘wrong’ kind of poetry and leads to the emphatic statement about brevity in 16, after which the Telchines can be finally dismissed (in 17 ff.). For priamels in the Aetia cf. also fr, 43,12 ff. and 110,43 ff.; on Callimachus’ use of priamels in general see Race 1982,99 ff. The examples given in the priamel suggest that the reader is referred to poems or genres in which both length and subject are particularly objectionable elements, which disqualify the whole poem or genre, but it is not entirely clear what exactly Callimachus is referring to. There are several proposals: ( 1 ) poetry about epic subjects in general; for this idea see e.g. Puelma 1954,106 f.; Wimmel 1960,30 ff. That the idea of the rejection of certain subjects recurs in Latin poetry may suggest that Latin poets also interpreted Callimachus’ passage in this way; cf. Ov.Mef.10,150 ff.; 5,294 ff. (Gigantomachy as a stale subject); A m .l,l,lff. (wars); 2,1,1 ff. and 15 ff. (Gigantomachy); Prop.2,1,17 ff. (Titans) and for battles as a subject of the ‘grand style’ also Demetr.Hoc.75 f.; (2) some specific poems; for this idea see e.g. Rostagni 1934a, 67 ff. (Apollonius’ Argonautica), Barigazzi 1956,168 ff. (Choerilus’ Persica), followed by Eichgrün 1961,73 ff.; Asper 1997,203 ff. (a Geranomachia). In any case one gets the impression that Callimachus refers to two kinds of subjects or poems, i.e. mythological in 13 f. and historical in 15 f. This may correspond to the distinction between kings and heroes in 3ff. and seems to recur in Latin poems like Hor.C.2,12,1 ff., where we also find a rejection of historical wars as well as mythological strife. Furthermore the poems or genres are evoked in a way that invites the reader to think about the style of these long works, which is equally objectionable. Thus Bornmann 1967,44 ff. points to Lucr.4,176ff., where the short songs of the swans are contrasted with the ugly shouting of the cranes (also mentioned by Pfeiffer 1928,316 (= 1960,110)), and believes that Callimachus is alluding to a contrast between long and sweet. The reference to sound is also accepted by Andrews 1998,5, but denied by Asper 1997,199 f. (with n.288), who regards the reference to the cranes as purely

spatial. It is, however, quite conceivable that the notion of length was com­ bined with stylistic judgements (as in Ti.2,105 ff.), particularly because both elements recur in the final rejection of the Telchines in 17ff. and sound is important in the second part of the prologue too (cf. 29 ff.). It is also worth observing that the dative ivovfji is attested in Homer only in 11.3,2 (quoted below on 14), of which our passage is reminiscent and where sound is the tertium comparationis, and recurs in the programmatic introduction of Orpheus in AR 1,27 άοιδάων άνοττήι (of Orpheus charming nature with his song), so that Apollonius and Callimachus both seem to remind the reader of the same passage, but with a different evaluation of the sounds made by the Trojans. This too suggests that the programmatical issues related to the passage about the cranes probably involved not just length, but also sound and style. Some scholars, e.g. Fraser 1972, 2,1058 n.287, suggest that these lines contained an allegorical reference to Callimachus’ enemies, who attacked him from a distance, but this does not agree with the idea of a secretive campaign in 1 ενιτρ νζο υ α ν and Asper 1997,201 f. rightly rejects the notion. 1,13 ]ov: Pfeiffer’s supplement μακρ]άv, which would pick up 10 μακρην and recur in 15 μακράν, is very attractive. The neuter singular is usually found of noises, as in e.g. 77.3,81 μακράν diicev and 6 ,6 6 , but sometimes also of a distance covered (normally μακράν or μακρά) as here and in e.g. Bion, Adonis 51 eóy€t,c μακράν (where see Reed). Here the somewhat unusual form, which at first sight might suggest the distance covered by sounds, may help to remind the reader that the notion of the noise of the cranes in /7.3,2 ff. is relevant for our passage too (but for a rejection of the idea that the adverb may here refer to sound too see Asper 1997,199 f.). i v i Θρήϊκαα α ν Α Ιγύντοιο: the usual movements of the cranes were from north to south in the autumn and back to the north in the spring (see Kannicht on E.Hel. 1478-94 and for further references Dasen 1993,177 nn.24-5). The flight of the cranes in 77.3,2 ff. (quoted below on 14) seems to indicate their autumnal journey, where they fly over the streams of Oceanus (though not strictly from north to south; see Asper 1997,200 n.290), bringing disaster to the Pygmies. The emphasis on the movement away from Egypt in Callimachus’ reworking of this passage is probably not accidental and may indicate that the ugly sounding cranes are to leave Egypt and disappear to the far north. Thus, as the issue of style is also implicit in the reference to the cranes (see on 13-16), the passage would evoke the notion that the wrong kind of poetry should be banished to the end of the world; see for this idea also Stephens 2002,242 and

44

Commentary 1,13

Commentary 1,14

Acosta-Hughes-Stephens 2002,247 f. In later Greek authors we find both directions without obvious programmatic connotations: in Opp.fi. 1,620 ff. (quoted below) the flight is the migration from Egypt to the north in the spring, whereas in Nonn.D. 14,332 ff. (quoted below) the sea-setting recalls 113,2 ff. But in Latin authors such as Stat.T/ieib.5,11 ff. there may be a programmatic aspect (see on this point C.McNelis, Statius’ Thebaid and the Poetics of Civil War, Cambridge 2007,88 ff.). For the form Θρήϊκαε, here with long t (as in ff. 104), see Bornmann on h.3,114. Elsewhere Callimachus also uses the longer form, as in e.g. ff. 178,11 Θρηϊκίrjv . . . άμυετιν. πέτοιτο: the supplement may find support at 113,5 (quoted below). For this use of the optative in a ‘concessive’ sense see KG 1,228 (who give several examples from Homer, e.g. II.21,274 επειτα δε καί τι πάθοιμι). 1,14 αϊματ]ι·. the supplement is guaranteed because the line recurs in Julianus Anticensor A P 11,369 άεφαλεωε οϊκηεον iv aerei, μη ce κολάφηι I αϊματι Π υγμα ίω ν ήδομενη γερανοε. The same idea recurs in Ov.Fast. 6.175 f. nec Latium norat.. . I nec quae Pygmaeo sanguine gaudet auem. Π υγμα ίω ν: the Pygmies were a people of dwarfs, located on the edges of the world in Africa and from the late 4th cent, b c also in regions like India and Thrace; see further Jacoby on Hecat.FGrH 1 F 325-328; Lloyd-JonesParsons on SH 996,8 (where they seem to be called Ethiopian); Dasen 1993.175 ff.; R.Bloch, in Der Neue Pauly 10,610 s.v. Pygmäen. Our text contains no certain indication of the Pygmies’ whereabouts. It would agree with the location at the southern edge of the world if 14 is interpreted as if the cranes were ‘rejoicing over the blood of the Pygmies’ which they had shed when they left Africa for Thrace or as a general characteristic of the cranes ‘who rejoice in the blood of the Pygmies’ (as in e.g. h.5,44 ΐπιτων και εακεων άδομενα πατάγω ι, sc. Athena). In the second case the description would also agree with a Thracian location and one could even think that the cranes were looking forward to shedding the Pygmies’ blood in Thrace. The ambiguity may well be deliberate. ήδομενη: as in //.3,2 ff. the cranes are female; for further evidence of the feminine gender of cranes see Kidd on Arat.1011. [y]épa[voc : the cranes, which fly to Egypt and attack the Pygmies already appear at 113,2 ff. Τρώεε μεν κλα γγή ι τ ’ ενοπήι τ ’ i'cav, δρνιθεε (Le, I ήύτε irep κ λα γγή γερανών πελει ούρανόθι πρό, I α ί τ ’ επεί ουν χειμώνα φύγον και άθεεφατον δμβρον, I κλα γγή ι τα ί γ ε πετονται επ ’ ’Ω κεανοίο ροάων, I άνδράει Π υγμαίοιει φόνον και κήρα φερουεαυ I ήεριαι δ’ αρα τα ί γε κακήν έριδα προφερονται (in a simile about the shouting of the Trojans; see on this passage L.Miillner, ‘The Simile of the Cranes and Pygmies. A

Study of Homeric Metaphor’, HSCPh 93,1990,59-101). This war then recurs as a subject in vase paintings in the 6 th cent, b c (see Kirk on //.3,5-6; Asper 1997,203 ff.) and the movements of the cranes appear several times in Greek and Latin literature; cf. e.g. Arist.HA 597“, 3 ff; Opp.H. 1,620 ff. ojc δ’ ότ’ απ’ Α ’ιθιόπων τε και Α ίγύπ το ιο ροάων I ΰφιπετήε γερανών χορόε ερχεται ήεροφώνων, I J^rAavroc νιφόεντα πάγον και χεΐμα φυγοΰεαι I Π υγμαίω ν τ ’ όλιγοδρανεων άμενηνά γενεθλα; Nonn.D. 14,332 ff Θρηικίοιε γεράνοιειν εοικότεε (sc. the Indians), eure . . . I Π υγμαίω ν αγεληδόν άπαίεε onci καρήνοιε I Τηθύοε άμφ ι ρεεθρα; Favorin. Exil. 12,1 ff. Barigazzi; see further Thompson 1936,72 f.; Bömer on Ov.Fast.6,176 and for some aetiological stories explaining the enmity between Pygmies and cranes Torraca ad loc. The points of comparison with the rejected kinds of poetry seem to be: length (of the cranes’ flight) and battle (against the Pygmies), and the reader who has the passage from the Iliad in mind may add the notion of noise, which is prominent there (and may already foreshadow the notion o f ‘noise’ in 19 f.). Kambylis 1965,80, who compares the Assyrian river in h.2,108 f., suggests that also a notion of dirt may be present, i.e. lack of the desired purity in poetry. In this respect it is worth noting, that in Posidipp. 22 AB, a passage from a poet included in the list of Telchines in ff. lb (see comm, on ff. lb,4-6), the Thracian crane appears in a favourable light and is asked to guide the speaker across the Egyptian Sea. 1,15 Maccajye-rat: the Massagetes were a people living east of the Caspian Sea, who were well known as archers and whose war with Cyrus is the subject of H dt.l,201-14. For the Massagetes fighting with bow and arrow against the Persians cf. especially H dt.l,214,2; for the Masagetes as archers in general e.g. Simias fr. 1,3 f. Powell Μ αεεαγεται . . . I . . . τόξοιει πεποιθότεε ώκυβόλοιειν, SH 939,1 ff. (with Lloyd-JonesParsons ad loc.) and D.P.739ffi; for more examples see Massimilla ad loc. The Massagetes might figure here because of the long distance they cover when shooting and because of the general idea that fighting - epic poetry (although there are no strong reasons to think, with Barigazzi 1956,168 ff, that this is a reference to Choerilus’ Persica). At the same time the fact that the Massagetes lived far away in the east (cf. e.g. H dt.l,201; D.P.739ff.) agrees with 13 f., where we found the notion that the wrong kind of poetry, of which ‘length’ was an important characteristic, should be confined to the ends of the world. iKSal: in Callimachus this particle often is the second word in the sentence. The effect of this arrangement seems to be to draw the reader’s attention emphatically to the preceding word; for similar cases cf. e.g. fr. 43,48, 53,

46

47

48

Commentary 1,15

Commentary 1,16

and 64; 69,1; 178,3; 384,24 and 27; Hec.fr. 260,66 f. (= 74,25 f. Hollis) and for a discussion of this kind of hyperbaton in the ancient grammarians Σ D.T.460,7 ff. Hilgard (quoted in app.). See further Lapp 1965,49. μακράν o'icrevoiev: similar expressions are attested with μακρά in e.g. Pi.P.1,45 μακρά Sc ρίφαιε; 1.2,35; Babr.68,1 Απόλλω ν . .. μακρά τοξεύων (adduced by Massimilla ad loc.). 1,15-16 άνδρα I [Μήδον]: this supplement is attractive as it agrees with the historical evidence about the Massagetes’ war against the Persians and with Callimachus’ phrasing elsewhere, although, as Bornmann 1967,47 remarks, one should perhaps consider the possibility that the beginning of 16 con­ tained a less usual adjective than Μήδον to indicate the Persians. For άνδρα with an ethnic adjective see comm, on ff. 7c, 1; for this kind of arrangement with a run-over word in the first foot of the next line, followed by a pause, cf. in Callimachus’ elegiac poetry e.g. ff. 75,4 f. λαιδρε I θύμε, 38 f. and 68 f.; see further e.g. Ziegler 1935,1402; McLennan on /i.1,11 and Appendix 1; Hopkinson on h.6,121; Introd. 6.1.2. 1,16 a^SoviSec]: Housman’s supplement and its interpretation as ‘poems’ may find support in the use of αηδών, which appears of poets in e.g. B.3,98 Κ η ίac άηδóvoc; E.F 588,3 (and perhaps already in Hes.Op.203; see West ad loc.) and of poems in e.g. Ep. 2,5 at Sc real ζώου civ άηδόνεε (on which see W.Swinnen, ‘Herakleitos of Halikarnassos’, Ancient Society 1,1970,39-52, esp. 42 f.); adesp.AP 9,184,9 θηλυμελεΐε τ ’ Άλκμάνοε άηδόνεε; Hsch. α 1498 s.v. άηδόνα· ώιδήν, for further references see Maehler on B.3,98 and Massimilla ad loc. The rarer form άηδονίε (first attested in [E.] Rhes.550) characterizes a poet in Nossis AP 7,414,2 f. ( - HE 2828 f.) ’Ρ ίνθων εϊμ ó €υρακόειοε, I Μουεάων ολίγη ti c άηδονίε and occurs in the sense of ‘nightingale’ in h.5,94 γοεράν .. . άηδονίδων (but Lobel’s supplement in ff. 137a,6 άηδο]νίδων is very uncertain); for further refer­ ences see Bulloch on h.5,94; Lightfoot on Parth.fr. 33,2. For a similar pair of words one may compare Άμαζόνεε and Ά μ α ζον(Sec (in e.g. Pi. 0.13,87; Hdt.9,27,4; AR 2,374). Bulloch on h.5,94 n.3 considers this admittedly bold supplement as very unlikely. He argues that it is a Doric poetic word, not attested in nonDoric texts before Parth. SH 646,2 (= ff. 33,2 Lightfoot). However, since Callimachus made frequent use of all kinds of dialect forms in the Aetia (for a survey of which see Schmitt 1970,159), Bulloch’s argument against qr?[8 ovtScc] is not entirely cogent (for similar objections against Bulloch see also Massimilla ad loc.). The supplements of Barigazzi 1956,172 f. (accepted by Fraser 1972,2,1053 n.252) are closely related to his notion that these lines are still about Philitas, which is altogether unlikely.

ώδε: Tike this’, which must here refer to the ‘shortness’ that is the subject of the debate long versus short in the preceding lines. A similar inter­ pretation seems to be suggested by the somewhat cryptic note on ώδε in ff. lb, 14 and the use of ώδε in the sense of οΰτωε ώε εχουειν is also discussed in Σ A II.2,271. Perhaps comparable are Od.1,182 νΰν δ’ ώδε . . . κατήλυθον (‘so, just as you see’ S.West ad loc.) and II. 18,392 πρόμολ’ ώδε (Charis addressing Hephaestus), where Edwards ad loc. translates ‘this way’, but ώδε could indicate that Hephaestus must come as he is, all covered in sweat from his work (as described in 372 ff.). For the metrical position of ώδε see Massimilla ad loc. μελιχρ[ό]τεραι: the notion of the sweetness of short poems relates this line to the reference to the sweetness of Mimnermus in lOf. and again draws the reader’s attention to the connection between brevity and quality. The adjective is well attested in post-Homeric poetry and prose from Alc.fr. 338,7 V (of wine) onwards. In literary criticism its use is comparable to that of γλυκύε (on which see comm, on 11 ) and to the metaphorical use of bees and honey to indicate poetic quality (on which see e.g. Wimmel 1960,271 n.2; J.H.Waszink, Biene und Honig als Symbol des Dichters und der Dichtung in der griechisch-römischen Antike, Opladen 1974; Williams on h.2,110; Asper 1997,115 n.21); it is used of poets in e.g. Hermesian. 7,51 Powell & μελιχρόε . .. Άνακρείων; Simias AP 7,22,5 (= HE 3290) ό μελιχρόε (about Sophocles); Hedyl.HE 1859 f. (about Socles surpassing Asclepiades; see Gow-Page ad loc.). In Ep. 27,2 f. το μελιχρότατον I των επεων Callimachus uses the adjective to describe the work of Hesiod imitated by Aratus and in ff. 118,6 he seems to use it in a context of building, but the interpretation of that passage is very uncertain (see comm, ad loc.). See further on μελιχρόε Frisk 2,200 f. s.v. μελι\ Schmitt 1970,129. 1,17-20 Callimachus concludes his speech to the Telchines with an emphatic dismissal of his opponents and a final rejection of their views and demands. This passage parallels h.2,105 ff., where, as here, the quantitative criterion is clearly at odds with the more important demands for poetic quality. As Kerkhecker 1999,268 observes, as soon as this point has been made the critics, who are ‘set up to be shot down’, can be forgotten. See on this passage also Pfeiffer 1928,316 ff. (= 1960,110 ff.); Wimmel 1960,100 f. 1,17 «ΆΑετε: this dismissal of the Telchines is phrased in terms which suggest that they are literally sent packing and may be compared to the dismissal of Momus in h.2,113 ό δε Μώμοε, ίν’ ό Φθόνοε, ένθα νέοι το and perhaps to Euph.(?) SH 429,23 χάεε]αεθε δε βαεκαντήρεε (see Lloyd-Jones-Parsons ad loc.). An early example of this kind of dismissal is II.24,239 (Priamus to the Trojans:) ερρετε, λω βητηρεε ελεγχεεε.

49

50

51

Commentary 1,17

Commentary 1,17

The impact of the phrase on later authors is clear from (1) imitations like Nicarch.AP 6,285,5 f. (= HE 2741 f.) ερρετε . . . κακών λιμηρά γυναικών I έργα, νεον τή κ εiv ανθοε επιετάμενα; (2) the occurrence of similar dismissals of ‘critics like Callimachus’ in e.g. Antiphanes AP 11,322,6 (= GP 776) eppoi t , εύφώνων λαθροδάκναι κόριεε; Philipp.AP 11,347,1 (= GP 3041) χαίροιθ’; Antip .AP 11,20,1 (= GP 185) φ εύγεθ’; Herod.Babyl. SH 494,1 φ εν γετ Άριετάρχειοι; (3) the imitations in Latin authors, as in e.g. Cat. 14,21 ff.; Verg.Caial.5,1; Prop. 3,1,7; Ov.Am. 1,1,28; 2,1,3; 35 f.; for more Latin examples see Wimmel 1960,100 n.3. The passages mentioned above suggest that the emendation ελλετε ‘be off should be preferred to eAAare transmitted in ff. Id, 15 and in Eustathius (see app.), who explains it as eppere. The spelling eAAare seems to be mistaken, because this form should mean t'Aare as in fr. 7,13, which is probably not what Callimachus wants to say. Although Massimilla ad loc. only considers the option of an ironic eAAare here, but does not admit it into his text, Massimilla 2006i;,40 ff. defends the form as a kind of apotropaic prayer; Pretagostini 2006,25 regards it as sarcastic. However, in other instances of similar forms there is usually a request for the divinity addressed to bestow some kind of favour which he/she is able to give (see the examples listed on fr. 7,13 f.), so they do not seem suitable for apotropaic prayers. One possibility might be an ironic request ‘to be gracious’ and not judge poetry by length again in the future (it is not quite clear how the scholia in fr. Id, 15 ff. interpreted the word). The plural form of the verb after the singular yevoc can be explained as a constructio ad sententiam, as is often found with collective singulars indicating groups of people; see KG 1,53. For similar constructions in Callimachus cf. e.g. fr. 43,58 ff; li.5,45 f.; 6,42 f.; see further Lapp 1965,135. BacKavityc όλοόν γένοε: the scurrilous address of the Telchines recalls the critical tone of their first description in 1 f. and the opening words of Callimachus’ answer in 7 f. and forms the climax of these three increasingly devastating descriptions. That the Telchines are related to Bascania associates them with the ‘evil eye’ and suggests their capacity to bewitch the victims of their envy. Because of γενοε it is generally thought that Βαεκανίημ is a personifica­ tion and may be related to the goddess who is known from magical papyri, like e.g. PMagGr. 1,4,1451 f. (p. 120 Preisendanz) /cat Βαεκανία I χθονία; so already Pfeiffer 1928,317 (= 1960,111). Even so a less specific personifica­ tion of βαεκανία (like those of Momus and Phthonus in fi.2,105 ff.) would also make sense, as the noun would convey notions of witchery and jealous malignity which could contribute to the characterization of the Telchines;

cf. e.g. P\.Phd.95b,5 f. μη μεγα λεγε, μή t i c ήμΐν ßacKavia περιτρεφηι τον λόγον τον μέλλοντα eccedaι; D. 18,252 and the use of βαεκαίνω in fr. 43,63; for associations of the noun with death see also Fraser 1972, 2,869 n.466. On the ‘evil eye’ see further P.Walcot, Envy and the Greeks, Warminster 1978,77 ff. The reference to Bascania recalls the way in which Callimachus describes himself in Ep. 21,4 ö δ’ ηειεεν κρεεεονa βαεκανίηε, which, if the epigram were later than the prologue to the Aetia, could be read as an allusion to the successful dismissal of the Telchines here; see also Pfeiffer 1928,330 f. (= 1960,123 f.); Giangrande 1968,716 ff. (= 1975,328 ff.) (who, however, argues that Ep. 21 preceded the Aetia). As Pfeiffer 1928,330 (= 1960,122 f.) observes, the notion of the ‘evil eye’ may also be contrasted with the benevolent glances with which the Muses favoured the young Callimachus in 37 f. These glances suggest a lifelong protection against βαεκανία and may thus account for the successful rejection of the Telchines (for the notion that βαεκανία particularly hits young people see Giangrande Le). The adjective όλοόν draws attention to the destructive character of the Telchines and recurs in 36 about the Giant Enceladus, caught under Mt. Aetna. 1,17-18 Following upon the dismissal of the Telchines comes an injunction to judge poetry by quality and not by quantity, which resumes the notion of the superiority and sweetness of short poems in the preceding lines. The idea of measuring poetry recalls Ai.Ra.799 ff, where among the instruments testing the quality of the tragedies of Aeschylus and Euripides are κανόναε . .. και ττήχειε επών (799). αΰθι δε: in Homer αΰθι is used in the sense of αυτόθι, which may be used of time in the sense o f ‘forthwith’ (e.g. II.5,296; see LSJ s.v. 2), but later poets also employ it in the sense of αυθιε ‘again’, as in e.g. 35 (where see comm.); Ia.fr. 197,49 (with Pfeiffer ad loc.); fi.3,241 πρώ τα μεν . . . , αΰθι δε . .. ; Lyc.732 (with Schade ad loc.) and 1127. Here too interpretation as αυθιε with future reference in the sense ‘hereafter’, i.e. ‘when you concern yourself with poetry again’, would be attractive (cf. e.g. II. 1,140 άλλ’ ήτοι μεν τα ΰτα μεταφραεόμεεθα και auric; see LSJ s.v. II 3). As to the word-order, Homer prefers δ’ αΰθι to αΰθι δε (e.g. II.8,315; 11,701; Od.4,416; 13,44 etc.), but Callimachus has only αΰθι δε; cf. h.3,241 (with Bornmann ad loc.); Ia.fr. 197,49; Hec.fr. 260,10 (= 69,10 Hollis). τεχνηι I . . . εοφίην: Callimachus places these words emphatically at the end of two consecutive lines. The arrangement underlines the importance of poetic skills as a criterion for quality in poetry and of the idea that poetry is a craft, which relies on technical as well as intellectual abilities.

Commentary 1,17-18

Commentary 1,18

The related notion that writing good poetry is hard work recurs in 27 f„ where the ‘narrowness’ of the untrodden paths suggests a great effort, and in Ep. 27,3 f., where the quality of Aratus’ poetry results in his lack of sleep. The use of οοφίο. of poetry and poetic skill is already attested well before Callimachus, in e.g. PiJ.7,18 co(f>iac αωτον άκρον, 0.1,116; P.4,248; Pae.7b,20 (cf. also 0.11,10 coaic . . . πραπίδεοοιν with Wilcock ad loc.); Solon fir. 13,51 f. W; Ar.Pa.1519. In Callimachus we find it also in Ep. 46,4 and Ia.fr. 202,56, where Apollo speaks about his own poetic skills as οοφήο . . . τέχνηο. For further discussion see e.g. B.Snell, Die Aus­ drücke für den Begriff des Wissens, Berlin 1924, 11 nn.3-4; Maehler 1963,67 and 94 ff.; B.Gladigow, Sophia und Kosmos, Hildesheim 1965,39 ff.; Harriott 1969,92 ff.; F.Maier, Der CO: the text is uncertain, but ]τατελε[.......... ]ou might overlap with the line quoted in the lower margin of PSI 1217 B ]τατεΑο[. ,.']Ao’ ΰφουε μεν καμένη, κληθεΐεα δέ ούτωε άπό τινοε Μ άλλον κτίεαντοε αυτήν, η από μαλλών, ηγουν ετεμμάτω ν, α κόρακοε άρπάεαντόε ποθεν καί καταθέντοε ενταύθα έκτίεθη ή πόλιε κατά χρηεμόν υπό Μόφου καί Ά μφιλόχου των ύμνουμένων μάντεων, of καί Μάλλον εκάλεεαν την πάλιν εκ των τοιούτων μαλλών. This story is not attested elsewhere, but is of a familiar type; on animals as a guide in foundation-stories see e.g. Ehlers 1933, 43 n.109; Harder 1985,174 f. Other sources tell about a quarrel between Mopsus and Amphilochus, who, when they had founded Mallus after their return from the Trojan War, killed each other because they could not agree about the kingship, and were buried with a wall or a hill between their graves, out of each other’s sight; cf. Lyc.439 ff.; Euph.fr. 98 Powell; Str.14,5,16, 675-6C; Σ Lyc.440 and 444 (according to which also Eratosthenes mentioned the Magarsus, the hill between the graves); and for a less elaborate version Ps.-Apoliod.£pif.6,19 (where see Fraser); for Mopsus alone cf. also la.ft. 200a-b with Dieg.VIII 41 ff. After their death these two heroes had a famous oracle; cf. e.g. Plu.De defecto orac. 45,434d,2 ff.; Paus. 1,34,3; Luc.Philops.38-, D.C.72,7,1; Cic.De div. 1,88. See further Preller-Robert 1894-1926,2.3.2.2,1473; Prinz 1979,23 ff.; T.S.Scheer, Mythische Vorväter. Zur Bedeutung griechischer Heroenmythen im Selbstverständnis kleinasiatischer Städte, München 1993,230 ff.; Bremmer 2008,136 ff. Similar themes are treated in fr. 43,72 ff. (the quarrel of the founders of Zancle) and fr. 105 (the quarrel of Eteocles and Polyneices, which also went on after their death). Besides, as Mopsus and Amphilochus founded Mallus after their return from the Trojan War, the story may also count as a nostos-story, like that in fr. 35. So, if the frill story was told, it could have stood in the same part of Aetia 1 as the story of Ajax and the Locrian maidens (as is tentatively suggested by Pfeiffer ad loc.; the fact that Ps.Apollod.Ep/f.6,19-20 also has the sequence Mallus-Locrian maidens may

Commentary 38

295

offer some support for this idea). In this respect it is worth noticing that fr. 178 about Peleus at Icus also contains a story about the aftermath of the Trojan War and may be from the beginning of Aetia 2 (see intr. to fr. 178). 39 Apparently Aetia 1 contained the epithet Μ εεοπόντιοε, which was given to Poseidon in Eresus, a town on the west coast of Lesbos (see H. Sonnabend in Der Neue Pauly 4,58 f. s.v. Eresos). The town is also mentioned in Archestr. SH 135,9 εν Λέεβω ι, κλεινήε Έ ρέεου περικύμονι μαετώ ι and in geographical authors (e.g. Str.13,2,4, 618C), but nothing is known about a cult of Poseidon there. Lesbian stories about a girl sacrificed to Poseidon or Amphitrite and the Nereids and about the attempt to save her by a certain Enalus are recorded in Myrsil.Lesb.FGrH 477 F 14; Anticlid.FGrH 140 F 4; and Plu.Sept.sap.conv.20,l63a,10 ff.; see further R.Bloch in Der Neue Pauly 3,1025 s.v. Enalos. We have no means of knowing whether these stories are relevant for our fragment. 40 The context of this fragment is uncertain. One could think of the return of the Argonauts (mentioned as a possibility by Pfeiffer on fr. 21), but, as Pfeiffer rightly remarks, the Trinacrian Sea could also be mentioned in an entirely different context, e.g. as part of a simile, like the Ausonian Sea in Hec.fr. 238,28 (= 18,14 Hollis) or the Icarian Sea in fr. 23,2 f. Τρινάκριον πόντον: this expression recurs in other Hellenistic and Latin poets; cf. e.g. AR 4,291 πάντου Τρινακρίου (with Livrea ad loc.) and Ov.Fasf.4,287 mare Trinacrium (for more Latin examples see Massimilla ad loc.). Trinacria as the old name of Sicily is first attested in Th.6,2,2 καί απ’ αυτών (i.e. the Sicani) G /cavia τό τε ή νήεοε εκαλείτο, πρότερον Τρινακρία καλουμένη. It is explained by Sicily’s three capes (Pelorus, Pachynus, and Lilybaeum) also in Timae.FGrH 566 F 37 and Ov.Fast. 4,419 f. terra tribus scopulis uastum procurrit in aequor I Trinacris, a positu nomen adepta loci (where see Fantham), but Plin.NH 3,86 a triangula specie seems to relate it primarily to the island’s shape (cf. for this notion also fr. I, 36 with comm.). Hellenistic and later poets generally use the form Τρινακρία or Τρινακία (the manuscripts are not always consistent on the spelling); cf. e.g. h. 3,57 ανε δε Τρινακρίη Ci κανών έδοε (with Bornmann ad loc.); fr. 43,60; Theoc.28,18; D.P.434 Τρινακίηε επί πόντου (where Τρινακρίηε and Θρινακίηε are variants) and 467. The Homeric Θρινακίη, where the companions of Odysseus killed the cattle of the Sun (mentioned in e.g. Od. 11,107), was also identified with Sicily, and this name recurs in AR 4,994 Θρινακίηε ■. . εζ άλόε and 965 Θρινακίηε λειμώνα. See further Mayer 1986,52.

297

Commentary 41

Commentary 41

41 This fragment consists of three lines about being loved by boys as one of the conditions for a comfortable old age. These lines may be a comment by the narrator (as in e.g. ff. 43,10 if.; 75,44 ff.; 178,1 ff.) or they may have been spoken by another fictional character. The context is unknown and the contents of the fragment do not suggest any aition in particular, but the location of this fragment in Aetia 1 is certain because of the attribution in Stobaeus (see app.; the marginal note in Voss., though lacking in authority according to Hense ad loc., may be compared to the attri­ bution of ff. 714 in EtGen. B s.v. δυο'·. . . ΚαΧΧίμαχοε εν role [tolc om. V] iXeyeioic). The phrasing and the Latin reminiscences of this passage suggest a back­ ground of homoerotic love (though for some doubts see Magnelli 1997,455). The subject of homoerotic love occurs frequently in Calli­ machus: (1) in dactylic fragments (ff. 549 and 571); (2) often in the Epigrams {Ep. 1-13 Gow-Page); (3) in Ia.fr. 193,194,195, and 199; (4) in a brief allusion in the Aetia (ff. 23,4). Puelma 1982,288 claims for Aetia 1 an ars amandi puerilis including ff. 41 and 571, because he thinks that the Aetia, being didactic poetry, would include erotic instruction when it dealt with the subject of love. However, this idea of a digression from aetiology into another kind of didactic is not supported by the evidence of the love-stories of Acontius and Cydippe (ff. 67-75e) and Phrygius and Pieria (fr. 80-83b) in Aetia 3, which in fact show that love-stories could well be fitted into the aetiological framework. It is also rather speculative, because the connection with ft. 571 is not certain (see below) and the context of ff. 41 is unknown. The fact that in ff. 23,4 an example from the area of homoerotic love is used to illustrate Heracles’ deafness to the imprecations of the Lindian farmer should also prevent rash conclusions. A fragment that has been connected with this one is ff. 571 affle γάρ ώ KoópoLCLV èrr οθματα λίχνα φεροντεε, I Έ ρχίοε dic ύμΐν topice παιδοφιλείν, I ώδε νέων èpóαητέ· πάλιν κ ευανδρον εχοιτε. Both fr. 571 and 41 seem to be alluded to in Tib.l,4,75ff. uos me celebrate magistrum, I quos male habet multa callidus arte puer. I gloria cuique sua est: me, qui spernentur, amantes I consultent; cunctis ianua nostra patet. I tempus erit, cum me Ueneris praecepta ferentem deducat iuuenum sedula turba senem (see A.W.Bulloch, ‘Tibullus and the Alexandrians’, PCPhS 19,1973,71-89, esp. 76). Therefore some scholars regard these fragments as part of the same elegy (so e.g. Meineke 1843,404; Puelma 1982,288 n.85), but others are more hesitant (so e.g. Pfeiffer on ff. 571; Fraser 1972,2,1102 n.543; Massimilla ad loc.). In Tibullus the speaker is someone who looks forward to a career as an erotodidaskalos and to being escorted by young men in his

old age. This passage recalls ff. 41, but the verbal reminiscences are not very strong and it could also just refer to the Roman habit of escorting old men (mentioned in e.g. Gell.2,15,2); the idea of teaching recalls ff. 571, where the teaching of Erchius is recommended to those who are involved in love for boys, but again the link with Tibullus, though possible, is not very close. Therefore it is by no means necessary that Tibullus is alluding to both ff. 571 and 41, and, even if he was, one cannot be certain that the fragments were not drawn from different parts of Callimachus’ work (the same objection can be applied to the argument that [Lucian.] Aw.48-9 quotes both fragments in the same passage about love for boys). For the attempt of Borgonovo 1996,49 ff. to connect ff. 571 with ff. 137a in Aetia 2 (which would rule out the connection with ff. 41) see intr. to fr. 137a. The fragment’s pattern recalls fr. 714 κουφοτερωε τότε φώτα διαθλίβονοιν àvfcu, I εκ δε τριηκόντω ν μοίραν άφεΐλε μίαν, I η φίλον η οτ ec άνδρα ευνεμπορον η ore κωφαΐε I άλγεα μαφαύραιε εεχατον εξερΰγ-ηι. This fragment was thought to be from the Aetia by Pfeiffer ad loc. and d’Alessio 1996, 2,786 f. n.170. It is conceivable that together with fr. 41 it formed part of a passage about the mitigation of various kinds of sorrow and discomfort. 41,1 γηράεκει: on the presentation of old age in Hellenistic poetry see Huber 1926,69 ff. ελαφρότερου: on the one hand this may be taken as ‘more easily’, i.e. so that old age is lighter to bear; cf. for this use of the adjective e.g. II.22,287 καί Kcv iXaφpότepoc πόXeμoc Tptoecci γενοιτο; Pi.P.2,93 f. φάρειν δ’ iXaφpώc επαύχενιον Χαβόντα ζυγόν I άρήγει; h. 1,29 real δ’ ώδΐνεε ελαφραί; and for the heaviness of old age fr. 1,35 ff. Apart from the meaning ‘more easily’, however, there may also be an allusion to ελαφρόε in the sense ‘light in moving, nimble’ (LSJ s.v. II), as the old man also moves more easily because of the assistance of his young lovers. In this sense too the adjective is well attested in Homer and other Greek poetry; cf. e.g. II.5,122 γυία δ’ εθηκεν ελαφρά (sc. Athena helping Diomedes); 16,745; 23,749; Od. 1,164; Pi.N.5,20; A.Pr.278 f.; and in Callimachus Hec.fr. 260,37 (= 73,8 Hollis). 41,2 On the position of τον see comm, on fr. 1,2. Here the word-order seems to draw attention to the fact that the old man is loved by boys. φιλεοναν: it is not quite clear what the love of the boys implies. The fact that they treat the old man like a parent may suggest love and respect for a lover who is well past his prime. For a similar comparison, of an older lover treating his beloved like a son, cf. Theoc.13,8. εάν . . . γονηα: Apollonius Dyscolus (quoted in app.) criticizes the use of

296

Commentary 41,2

Commentary 42

eòe with plural reference, where it should be εφέτερον, but there are several examples of this use of eoe and oc in the early Greek epic as well as in Hellenistic poetry (cf. e.g. Hes.Op.57 f. κακόν, cot κεν άπαντεε I τέρηω ντα ι κατά θυμόν εον κακόν άμφαγαηώ ντεε with West ad loc.; the use of ον in 772.71; Zenodotus’ reading in 71.3,244 and in Callimachus also fr. 471). See further Schwyzer 2,204f.; Reinsch-Werner 1976,196 n.l; and for this use in Apollonius Rhodius G.Marxer, Die Sprache des Apollonius Rho­ dius in ihren Beziehungen zu Homer, Diss. Zurich 1935,62; Rengakos 1993,116. The substantive yoveuc is attested from Hesiod onwards, in e.g. Hes.Op.235 γονεΰα (‘parents’; v.l. τοκεϋα) and 331 ff. (in a list of sins) oc re γονήα (v.l. τοκήα) γέροντα κακά)i in i γήραοε ούδώι I νεικείηι χαλεπό ία καθαητόμενοε in ie c cr I τώ ι δ’ η τοι Ζ εύε a vtoc άγαιεται (of which fr. 41,2 may be reminiscent according to Reinsch-Werner 1976,194 ff., who points to the threefold alliteration of y in both passages); l2.Cer.240. On the whole poets tend to favour the plural (as in h.6,73), while the singular is more frequent in prose, where it is first attested in Hdt.1,91,1 (‘ancestor’); in the sense of ‘father’, however, the singular is also attested elsewhere in Callimachus (cf. ff. 43,70; /2.3 ,5 ). The word is avoided by Apollonius (see also Hopkinson on h.6,73). The variant reading τοκήα cannot be ruled out (on the frequency of this variant see West on Hes.Op.235). This substantive occurs from Homer onwards, mostly in the plural (as also in e.g. h.6,47), but in the singular in e.g. Hes.772.138 θαλερόν δ’ ηχθηρε (sc. Cronus) τοκήα. However, because the idea that fr. 41 is reminiscent of Hes.Op.331 ff. and repeats the threefold alliteration is attractive, it seems more likely that Callimachus wrote γονήα. 41,3 yetpóc . . . α γονα : this expression is attested in both poetry and prose; cf. e.g. Od.3,439 βουν δ’ άγετην κεράων Οτρατίοε και Stoc Έχέφρων; 7724,515 γέροντα Si χειpòc avieri? (Achilles helping Priam) and X.Eq.6,9 ά γα ν τήc ήνίαε τον i'nnov. On this use of the genitive see KG 1,348 Anm.5. επ οίκενην a y p ic . . . θύρην: in Homer aypic is used as an adverb on its own, but later it is found in combination with prepositions in prose as well as in Hellenistic and later poetry; see LSJ s.v. dypi(c) 12. In Callimachus we find this use of aypic and similar words in /2.6,129 ττοτί τάν θεόν aypic όμαρτεΐν (with Hopkinson ad loc.); 3,11 ic γόνυ μέypι χιτώ να (with Bornmann ad loc.); 4,47 μέεφ ’ i c . .. Coóviov άκρον (with Mineur ad loc.); in other authors in e.g. AR 4,1402 f. από κρατόε S i κελαινήν I aypic in aKVTjCTiv κεΐτ anvooc (with Livrea ad loc.); QS 2,617 ic tÌÀoc aypic; QS 6,177; Nonn.D.5,153 ic όμφαλόν aypic; for more examples see Massimilla ad loc.

42 Theon, in his commentary on Aetia 1 , told the story of the fountain BooKepaic in Boeotian Plataeae. This fountain acquired its name because Polybus from Argos, after the flood in the time of Deucalion, founded Plataeae on the spot where, according to an oracle, a cow, which he had to follow, lay down and cut a spring with her horn. According to the Etymologicum Genuinum, which is the source of this fragment (see app.), the same story was told about Polyidus by Serenus in his epitome of Philo’s Π ερί πόλεων (Herennius Philo Byblius FgrH 790 F 18). A Polyidus is also mentioned among the leaders of Boeotian Plataeae in Phi.Aristid.11,3, so that, as Pfeiffer ad loc. remarked, the story must have concerned Plataeae in Boeotia (and not the Sicyonian δήμοε Plataeae). The material in the Etymologicum Genuinum may have come from Orus’ Π ερί Εθνικών (see Pfeiffer ad loc.). We do not know whether this story was told by Callimachus in Aetia 1. Theon may have mentioned the story only as a parallel for the creation of the fountain Hippocrene in fr. 2,1 ff. or for the guidance of an animal in the story of the foundation of Mallus (if that story was told in Aetia 1; see on fr. 38). In that case the story of the Βουκεραic may derive from another work of Callimachus or from a different author; for examples of Theon’s practice of adducing parallels from elsewhere cf. e.g. Hec.fr. 261,1 f. (-71,1 f. Hollis), which he probably quoted in his commentary on fr. 43,76; see further Pfeiffer and Massimilla ad loc.; and on Theon in general intr. 8.1.3.

298

299

43-43a SICILIAN TOWNS Barigazzi 1975α; Ehlers 1933; M assim illa 1990α; R accuia 2002; De Sanctis 1928 (= 1966)

Contents

Fr. 43 is part of ROxy.2080, which contains remains of three aitia and two transitory passages: lines 1-17 (= fr. 43,1-17) contain the conclusion of an aition of which the subject cannot be established with certainty and a transitory passage in which the speaker rejects the physical pleasures of the symposium in favour of the pleasure of hearing a good story, which remains with him for a long time. It is not entirely clear whether this is the conclusion of the preceding aition or

Fr. 43-43a Introduction

Fr. 43-43a Introduction

the introduction of the next one or even the introduction of a new book. In the papyrus lines 8-9 begin with letters which are bigger than those of the following lines, which may suggest a new beginning of some kind (on the way in which the layout may indicate the beginning of a new book see S.West, The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer, Cologne etc. 1967,21, who observes that the indications are often slight). Below 17 there is a paragraphus, which suggests a separation between two passages, like the coronis at the end of if. 2 g. This layout would fit the beginning of a new book (marked by bigger letters) with a brief prooemium (followed by a paragraphus) or of a new section within a book with a brief transitory passage. The contents of 12-17 would fit the conclusion of an aition heard at a symposium as well as an introduction to a new book or to a specific part of the dialogue with the Muses, following perhaps a general statement about information acquired at a symposium in the preceding lines (see also comm, on 12 ff. and 17);

Transfer in the Hellenistic World’, in E.van ’t Dack-P.van Dessel-W.van Gucht, Egypt and the Hellenistic World, Leuven 1983,63-74, esp. 69 ff.; G.M.Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor, Berkeley etc. 1995 and The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin and North Africa, Berkeley etc. 2005. For further references on ktiseis in literature see N.Krevans, O n the Margins of Epic: The Foundation-Poems of Apollonius’, in M.A.Harder-R.F.Regtuit-G.C.Wakker, Apollonius Rhodius {Hellenistica Groningana 4), Leuven 2000,69-84, esp. 69 ff.; Brown 2002,16 ff. The interest in Sicily could also have had a topical aspect because of the good relations between the Ptolemies and Hieran II of Syracuse and the importance of the Sicilian corn (see Beyer-Rotthoff 1993,201 £; Huss 2001,368). An interest in Italy and the Western Greeks is also manifest at several other places in the Aetia (cf. ff. 45-7; 64; 93-93b; 98-99b and 106107a). See further E.van’t Dack, ‘Les relations entre l’Égypte Ptolémai'que et l’Italie’, in E.van’t Dack-P.van Dessel-W.van Gucht, Egypt and the Hellenistic World, Leuven 1983,383-406; Fabian 1992; Rossi 1997,69 ff.

300

lines 18-83 (=ff. 43,18-83) must have contained a question to the Muses about the cult of the founder of Zancle, followed by a catalogue of founders of Sicilian cities by Callimachus and by Clio’s answer in 56-84. Clio explains that after the foundation of Zancle by Perieres and Crataemenes the founders quarrelled and consulted Apollo, who ordained that neither of them should be honoured as the city’s founder and that there would be an anonymous founder-cult; lines 84-123 (=fr. 43b) contain part of the next question by Callimachus, who, after a brief transitory passage, inquires why the Cretan Theodaesia are celebrated in Haliartus in Boeotia; from line 92 onwards only the beginnings of the lines are preserved and practically nothing is known about their contents. The contents of the part about the Sicilian cities recall the popular ktisisliterature, of which Hellenistic prose and poetry offer many examples. In the Hellenistic period these stories about colonization and the foundation of new towns could become a poetic subject in its own right rather than just an episode embedded in other literary genres, like epic and lyric poetry or tragedy (from the stories of Rhodos in II.2,653 ff. and the Phaeacians in Od.6,3 ff. onwards; see Fabian 1992,165; Dougherty 1993,83 f.). In the Aetia we find foundation-stories also embedded in other aitia, like the stories of the Colchian foundations in ff. 11-12 and the foundations of Asine (ff. 25) and Tripodiscus (ff. 29-3 lb), as well as the brief catalogue of founders of Cean cities in ff. 75,70 ff. The popularity of the theme may be related to the founda­ tion of Alexandria and the many other Hellenistic settlements, particularly under Philadelphus, who played an active role in colonization in Egypt as well as abroad; see Schmid 1947,53 ff.; G.Cohen, ‘Colonization and Population

301

Presentation

This fragment is of great interest because it offers some insight into the way in which Callimachus could present the stories in the Aetia and P.Oxy. 2080 also shows how he could connect two aitia, since we have the transitional passages between Sicilian Towns and Haliartus in ff. 43b, 1 ff. A few points should be noticed: (1) Lines 12-17 indicate that a certain amount of information (pres­ umably about the aition preceding that on the Sicilian Towns; see comm, on fr. 43,12-17) was acquired within the framework of a symposium, just like the story of Peleus at Icus in fr. 178, where the symposium setting is described at some length. It is not clear whether here too the symposium was presented directly as in fr. 178 or whether Callimachus merely referred to it in his dialogue with the Muses. The symposium setting for a story is a device which is as old as the questions to the Muses, the most famous example being Odysseus’ stories told to the Phaeacians (Od.8,57ff.; cf. also e.g. Od.3,102 ff.; 4,265 ff.; Xenophanes fr. 1 West; AR 2,468 ff.; 759 ff.). On the other hand, the preference for stories, just like the insistence on moderate drinking in fr. 178,11 ff., also recalls a m otif from the philosophical Symposia of Plato (Pl.Smp.l76a,l f.) and Xenophon (X.Smp.2,24—7); see further Burton 1992,233. On the symposium as a literary form and framework see further J.Martin, Symposion. Die Geschichte einer literarischen Form, Paderborn 1931;

Fr. 43-43a Introduction Gieseking 1964,67 ff.; Barigazzi 1975fl, 23 ff.; Harder 1988,10; R.Kannicht, ‘Thalia’, in W.Haug-R.Warning, Das Fest, München 1989, 29-52 (esp. 36 ff.); D.LGera, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, Oxford 1993,132 ff.; for a survey of litera­ ture on the symposium see also Käppel 1992,51 f. n.57.; on the generic aspects of the symposium setting see Harder 1998,102 f. and Introd. 4.5. On a nonliterary level the references to symposia in the Aetia may recall the fashion for symposia at the Hellenistic courts, following the example of the Macedonian längs (see Burton 1992,234). (2) The relation between the banquet-scene and the dialogue with the Muses is not entirely clear. As the overall scheme of the first two books of the Aetia seems to be the dialogue with the Muses, it is not immediately clear how the presentation of a story in a symposium setting would fit into this framework. Several solutions may be considered; (a) the references to the symposium were an interruption of the dialogue with the Muses, in which the narrator reminisced about other occasions at which he heard aitia (the frequent changes of presentation in Ovid’s Fasti might favour this idea, although there the variation is easier because there is no overall narrative framework; for the notion that Callimachus’ technique here foreshadows Ovid’s technique in the Fasti see also Ehlers 1933,30 ff.); {b) in the course of the dialogue on Mt.Helicon Callimachus told the Muses about information he had acquired at a symposium (this idea is favoured by e.g. Weber 1993,299; Massimilla 1996,320 f.; d’Alessio 1996, 2,422 n.4; Hunter 1996,21 f.; see also comm, on ff. 43,18); (c) the Muses also took part in the symposium; so e.g. Körte 1932,38 (an epiphany of the Muses at a sym­ posium in their honour); Barigazzi 1975α,21 ff. (a symposium on Mt.Heli­ con). The first two solutions are both plausible and fit in with the use of Trjpoc in 12 (where see comm.). The third solution, however, would make it less easy to account for the realistic descriptions of withering wreaths and digested food in 14 ff., which would be hard to reconcile with the dream and rather suggest a symposium in real life. Therefore it seems less likely (for a rejection of this idea see also Magnelli 1994,475 f.). See further Harder 1988,8 ff. (3) The catalogue of Sicilian foundation-stories offered by Callimachus in 28 ff. indicates that Callimachus did not present himself as a passive listener, but rather as a well-informed young scholar, who in fact offers the Muses the kind of catalogue information for which the narrator in the Iliad applied emphatically for their help {II2,484 ff.), and thus to a certain extent takes over their role (see also Krevans 1984,234 f.; Harder 1988,11 f.). This fits in with the evidence from ff. 7a about his well-informed questions about the descent of the Charites. For somewhat similar notions about the poet as well as the

Fr. 43—43a Introduction

303

Muses contributing to his song cf. Theoc.22,222 f. (with Sens ad loc.) and AR 1,20 ff. (with Hunter 1993a,125). (4) Fr. 43 and 43b contain some information on the structure of the dialogue. There is a brief description of a gesture of Clio, who puts her hand on the shoulder of one of her sisters before she begins her story in fr. 43,56 f. This suggests that some kind of cooperation between the Muses was hinted at (see comm.). In fr. 43b, 1 ff., where the story of the theodosia in Haliartus begins, we find the only complete transition between two aitia and can see how Callimachus pretended that amazement and curiosity were the impulses that accounted for his choice of subjects.

P osition in the Aetia

The position of fr. 43—43c is guaranteed by Stobaeus’ attribution of fr. 43,12-17 to the second book of the Aetia (see app.).

O ther fragm ents connected w ith this aition

Fr. 178, whose position in the Aetia is unknown, deals with the cult of Peleus at Icus (in which Thetis might be mentioned, as perhaps in fr. 43,6), is from a symposium context in which the narrator hears the story from a fellowguest, and has, with some plausibility, been attributed to the beginning of book 2 of the Aetia. A connection with fr. 43 therefore seems possible, and if this is right it would imply that we must place fr. 178 before ff. 43, where it could have been the beginning of the second book. It is tempting to accept the connection, but the evidence is not strong enough to regard it as a fact. For further discussion see intr. to ff. 178 on Position in the Aetia. Fr. 35 from Aetia 1 deals with Ajax, who was buried by Thetis after his death (see on fr. 43,6). However, if fr. 43,12-17, which must be from Aetia 2 because of the attribution in Stobaeus, was the conclusion of an aition, the preceding story cannot have been a story from Aetia 1.

Com m entary

43,1-11 The contents of these lines are uncertain. There are a few not very helpful clues: 2 perhaps mentions a sacrifice; 4 a tomb; 5 a rock; in 6 we may have a reference to Thetis, but the division of the letters is uncertain; 8 ff. may be about a meal (cf. 8 από [8 ]atr[ijc) and careful listening ( 10 ), which fits in with the contents of 12-17. It is conceivable that the first 7

Commentary 43,1-11

Commentary 43,8

lines were the end of an aition, telling about a burial (see comm, on 6 ), and that they were followed by a passage on the hearing of aitia in a symposium context concluding this section or beginning a new section. The bigger letters at the beginning of 8-9 may in fact point to a new paragraph. 43,2 κουρειανυπ, [: Pfeiffer suggests κούρνια about sacrifices of hair at a tomb, although this use of the word is not acknowledged by LSJ. Such sacrifices were sometimes brought in mourning at somebody’s tomb, as in e.g. h.4,296 ff. (hair-sacrifices at the tombs of the Hyperboreans) and E.Hzpp.l424ff. (at the tomb of Hippolytus); see further e.g. Nilsson 1955-61, 1,136 f.; Burkert 1983,63 n.20; Williams on /z.2,14; Mineur on h.4,296 ff. However, one should also consider κουρεία as ‘victims offered for boys’ (see Glare-Thompson 1996 s.v. κούρειον), as in e.g. S.F 126; Is.6,22; Poll.8,107 and EM 533,35 ff., and bear in mind the possibility that the letters must be divided differently. 4 3 .4 ] .. 8 cc: if one syllable was lost at the end of the line this must be part of one word because of Hermann’s Bridge, which allows no word-end after the ‘fourth trochee’ (Introd. 7.3), but it is not easy to think of possibilities with -εδεε. If four syllables were lost one might consider ]e δ’ ic ήρίον. ηρίον: this noun is a Homeric hapax in II.23,125 f. Ά χιλλεύ ε I φράεεατο Π ατρόκλω ι μ εγα ηρίον ηδε of αυτών, subsequently it is well attested in prose and inscriptions as well as in Hellenistic poetry; cf. e.g. ff. 54,7; Hec.fr. 262 (= 79 Hollis) with Hollis ad loc.; AR 1,1165; Theoc.2,13; 16,75; Lyc.444; 1208. There are no indications whose tomb is meant here (but see comm, on 6 ). 43.5 c K o ir e \o [ : εκόπελοε is well attested in Greek poetry from Homer onwards; for a possible interpretation of the word in this context see on 6 . 4 3 .6 ] eiöertc: one could think of ]et Θ ετιε and then two possibilities may be considered: ( 1 ) the passage is about the tomb of Peleus at Icus (cf. ff. 178; so e.g. Coppola 1935,166; Herter 1937,125); (2) it is about the tomb of Ajax at Delos or Myconus, where he is buried by Thetis (cf. ff. 35, adduced by Pfeiffer ad loc.; Lyc.398ff.). The mention of a rock in 5 would fit both options, but if 12-17 (from Aetia 2) are the conclusion of the story in 1-11 these lines cannot be from the story of Ajax, because ff. 35 is from Aetia 1. For other possible divisions of the letters see the app. 4 3 ,8 ].ω δ’ ]cu [: for the supplement άττο [δ]αιτ[ηε cf. ff. 102 άλλ’ άπο δαίτηε (end of a hexameter). It recalls ff. 178,5 εε δαίτην εκάλεεεεν and fits in with the symposium context in 12 ff. The words would accord with the notion of taking home something useful from the symposium as in Thgn.563 ff. κεκληεθαι δ’ εε δαΐτα, παρεζεεθαι δε παρ’ εεθλον I άνδρα χρεών εοφίην πάεαν irπετάμενον. I τοΰ ευνιεΐν, οττόταν τι λεγηι εοφον.

οφρα, διδαχθηιε, I και το ύτ etc οΐκον κερδοε εχων άπίηιε. On δαίτη see further comm, on ff. 1 0 2 . Because of Hermann’s Bridge (see on 4) Hunt’s ε]γώ δ’ is only possible if από [öjat T^c was not the end of the hexameter. This, however, would imply a versus spondiacus in which the monosyllabic biceps would not be part of the last word of the line, which would be very unusual (see Maas 1962,59). If άπο [δ ]α ιτ [^ was the end of the line, one could think of on]τω δ’ (so Barigazzi 1975fl,llf., who suggests οΰ\τω δ’ άπο[ν]αίμ[ην, comparing Ar.Th.469 οϋτωε άναίμην τών τέκνων), or of ώδ’ (cf. ff. 106 for ώδε in the same metrical position in the first line of an aition), perhaps corresponding with ώ[ε at the beginning of the line. 43,9 πε]ριεεοτερο, [: this adjective occurs in the same metrical position in h.5,121 f. μάντιν . . . l i ) μ εγα τώ ν άλλων δή τι περιεεότερον (‘a prophet . . . much more eminent than the rest’; see Bulloch ad loc.). Lack of context prevents conclusions about the word’s use here (Barigazzi’s καί τι πε]ριεεότερον[ may be a possibility). 43,10-11 The words ά\τρηκεε (if rightly supplied), οϋατα (cf. ff. 178,30 οϋατα . . . άνεχων), and φυλακή, [ suggest a remark about the oral trans­ mission and the guarding of accurate knowledge. In 12 ff. the truth of this remark seems to be confirmed by the narrator’s personal experiences at a specific symposium (cf. 12 και γάρ εγώ and τήμοε, which indicate that 12 ff. referred back to a specific occasion mentioned in the preceding lines). Barigazzi 1975α,12 suggests in 10 ά]τρεκεε οϋατα [ δΰνεν, because of Ep.25,4 ορκουε μ η δύνειν ούατ εε αθανάτων, and in 11 ε]ν φυλακηι, sc. εχειν. Although other supplements are conceivable, these suggestions seem to fit the train of thought in this passage. 43,12-17 This passage is a priamel as defined by Race 1982,13 ff. The scent and wreaths and the food and drink are foils for the stories the narrator has heard, which are the only things that remain with him. Stylistically the passage shows great refinement: the three items are each introduced by deca, but apart from this the phrasing in the three descriptions is carefully varied {π ά ντ, και τών ούδεν, μοΰνα; παρά χρεοε, ούδεν . . . εε αϋριον, ετι; άπνοα . . . εγενοντο, ούδεν εμεινεν, πάρεετι); each item is allowed less space; the opposition between the last two items is emphasized by the similar introductions at the end of two lines (14 deca τ ’ ιόδόντων and 16 deca δ’ άικουαΐε); the whole passage is neady ffamed between τά in 12 and τάδε in 17. See further on the style Fabian 1992,152 f. and about the priamel Race 1982,104 n.167; comm, on ff. 1,13-16 and ff. 75,44-9. Although it may be tempting to connect this passage with the aition of the Sicilian Towns, because in Verg.A.3,688 ff. the Sicilian episode is also

304

305

306

Commentary 43,12-17

related in a banquet setting (see Nappa 2004,641), it is probably better to regard these lines as a conclusion of the statement in 8 ff. or of the preceding aition: ( 1 ) the papyrus shows traces of a paragraphus between 17 and 18, so there seems to be a caesura between this passage and the aition of the Sicilian cities; (2) in 12 τήμοε must refer back to a specific symposium where the narrator acquired information; (3) τάδε in 17 does not refer to what follows, but to the information received at the past occasion of the symposium. The contrast between culture and knowledge and the pleasures of eating and drinking is also found in fr. 178,11 if., where it is related to large and small quantitites of drink, and was the subject of much philosophical discussion; fr. 476 μύθου Se παεαίμην I ηδιον may be from a similar context. See further above on Presentation and on fr. 178. The passage may have inspired the famous funerary inscription of Chrysippus in SH 338 ev elScoc o n θνητοί εφυε còv θυμόν άεξε, I τερπόμενοε μύθοιεν φαγόντι c o i oline δνηαο. I καί γάρ εγώ ράκοε είμί, φαγώ ν cue π Xeter a και ηεθείε. I τα ΰ τ’ εχω o c c εμαθον και εφρόνT ic a καί μ ετά τούτω ν I εεθλ’ επαθον τα Se λοιπά καί ηδεα πάντα λελειπται (parodied in Choerilus Iasius SH 335; see Lloyd-JonesParsons ad loc. and for similar passages also Barigazzi 1975α,9 fi; Livrea 1997,41). 43,12 καρ γάρ εγώ: the truth of a preceding statement was probably con­ firmed by the narrator’s personal experience (see comm, on 10 fi); cf. e.g. [E.] Rhes.266 f. η πόλλ’ άγρώ ταic εκαιά πρόεκειται φρενι I και γάρ εύ .. . and in Callimachus e.g. fr. 100,3; 178,11; fi. 1,8; Ia.fr. 194,58. See further Denniston 19542,108. The syntax is suited to give και γάρ εγώ extra emphasis. After καί γάρ εγώ one expects the verb in the main clause to be in the first-person singular with τα μεν occa etc. as its object, whereas in fact in 14 τα μεν occa etc. turns out to be the subject, leaving εγώ as an extra-clausal con­ stituent or as subject of the relative clause placed before the relative pronoun. By this arrangement the personal experience seems to be high­ lighted: ‘for in my case to o ,. . . ’. See on this kind of ‘theme-construction’ in Plato, S.R.Slings, ‘Help, een anakoloet’, Lampas 29,1996,426-45; for the terminology see Wakker 1994,53 f. For other instances of complex syntax with a similar effect in the Aetia cf. e.g. fr. 1,33 ffi; 75,70; 178,9 f. occa: the thrice-repeated occ a (in 12 , 14, and 16) recalls the use of this word in similar contexts in Chrysippus SH 338,4 f. (quoted on 12-17); Crates SH 355 τα ΰ τ εχω occ εμαθον και εφρόντιεα και μ ετά Μουεών I εεμν εδάην τά Si πολλά καί δλβια τΰφοε εμαρφεν; Choerilus Iasius SH 335,4 fi; see further Barigazzi 1975α, 10 fi

Commentary 43,12

307

For occa . . . 17 τάδε cf. fr. 178,21 fi, where the similarity of phrasing might be an additional argument for connecting fr. 43 and 178. For the sequence τα μεν occa cf. also fr. 98. καρτρατι: here we find the Homeric neuter (cf. e.g. II. 19,405) as in fi.2,60; 3,40; 4,134 and 236; but elsewhere Callimachus uses the feminine ή κόρη·, see comm, on fr. 110,40. τημοε: ‘on that occasion’, i.e. at the symposium where Callimachus heard certain stories and which took place at a specific moment in the past, contrasted with the present moment which is referred to with e n . . . πάρεετι in 17. This distinction fits in with the idea that the narrator is digressing about a past experience either as an interruption of the dialogue with the Muses or because he is telling the Muses about it; see also above on Presentation. eiδωκα: in Homer εδωκα etc. frequently occurs at the end of a hex­ ameter, and Callimachus follows the same practice here as well as in fi.3,93 and 206; Hec.fr. 298,2 (= 115,2 Hollis); similarly AR 3,329; Theoc.5,133; 6,43; 9,22; see further Bornmann on fi.3,93. 43,13 Both wreaths and scent applied to the hair are here rejected as transient luxuries. Scenting the hair, which is here clearly regarded in an unfavour­ able light, is mentioned several times as a sign of despicable luxury else­ where too, as in e.g. Xenoph. fr. 3,1 ff. W (about the Colophonians) άβροεύναε S i μαθόντεε άνωφελεac παρά Λυδώ ν I . .. (5) χαίτηιειν t άγαλλομεν εύπρεπεεεειν, I άεκητοΐε άδμήν χρίμαει δευόμενοι and Ε.Βα.235 (the stranger Dionysus) ξανθοΐε βοετρύχοιειν εύοεμών κόμην (with Dodds ad loc.). The combination with wreaths is found also in e.g. Sapph.fr. 94,12 fifi; Antiph.AP 9,409,3 (= GP 755); adesp.AP 11,3,6. For scent at meals see further Lilja 1972,66 and 74 ffi; and for scenting the hair in general also comm, on fr. 7,12. For wreaths at meals cf. e.g. Ar.Acfi.1091; Ep. 43,3 f. (more examples in Massimilla ad loc.); and see Blech 1982,63 flf. ξαρ/θά: this adjective, which in epic is mostly applied to hair, is used of oil or ointments also in F.IT 633 ξανθώι τ ’ ελαίων, Anaxil.PCG 18,1 ξανθοΐε . . . μύρο ic and perhaps A.Pers.617 f. ξανθηε iXaiac καρπάε εύώδηε πάρα, I άνθη π επ λεκτά (where according to Groeneboom ad loc. the adjective that fits the oil is given to the tree). The evidence suggests that Callimachus was inspired by Attic drama here (see Magnelli 1994,476; differently Fabian 1992,145). For the asyndeton ξανθά . . . αβρά see comm, on fr. 24,5. εύόδμοιε: fragrance was one of the most striking aspects of a wreath and fragrant wreaths are attested also in e.g. Cypr. EGF 5,2 c t εφάνουε εύώδεαε and E.Med.841 ευώδη ροδεων πλόκον άνθεων (see further Blech 1982,323). The adjective ευοδμοε is not attested in Homer, who uses

Commentary 43,13

Commentary 43,15

εύώδηε (e.g. in Od.2,339 εύώδεε εΧαιον), but occurs in poetry and prose from Pindar onwards; cf. e.g. Pi.Pae.fr. 52b,97 Μ AàXo]v άν’ εΰοδμον and Dith.fr. 75,15 Μ; Ε.ΰα.235 (v.l. for ευοεμοε; cf. Achae. TrGF 20 F 17,3 μύρωι . . . εύόεμωι); Theoc.3,23 εύόδμοιει εεΧίνοιε (also as part of a wreath); Pallad.AP 11,54,5 εύόδμoic δε μύροιει καί εύπετάΧοιε ετεφάνοιει; for more examples see Massimilla ad loc.; see also Schmitt 1970,98. αβρά λίπ^η: the noun Χίποε is first attested in the 5th-cent. b c tragedy (see Schmitt 1970,122) and can be used of oil applied to the head (see Williams on h.2,38). The adjective, which is post-Homeric, suggests delicate luxury, as in e.g. Sol.fr. 24,3 f. W (a wealthy man is just as rich as the man) an μόνα τα ΰτα πάρεετι I γα ετρ ί re καί πΧενραΐε καί ποε'ιν αβρά παθείν and Thgn.474 αβρό, παθείν. 43.14 amvoa: this adjective is well suited to both the loss of the scent’s fragrance and the death of the wreaths’ leaves. For the notion of ‘death’ cf. e.g. Ep.5,9 είμι yap άπνουε and Diosc.AP 7,229,1 (= HE 1651) ΘραεύβουΧοε . .. am ove (and on the word’s use as a medical term see Fabian 1992,147); for πνέω and related words suggesting fragrance cf. e.g. Od.4,445 f. άμβροείην . . . I ηδύ μάΧα πνείουεαν; Poll.2,75; E.Hipp. 1391 ώ θειον όεμήε πνεύμα; Verg.A. 1,403 f. ambrosiaeque comae diuinum uertice odorem I spirauere. èyévovro: on the plural verb with the neuter plural see comm, on fr. 75,16. παρά Xiρεοε: this is the reading of the papyrus. The reading παραχρήμ’ in the manuscripts of Stobaeus may be due to the incorporation of a marginal gloss, as παραχρήμα was the usual word in Greek prose from the 5th cent, b c onwards; cf. Nic.A/614 παρά χρεοε, which is paraphrased as παραχρήμα in Σ 613b. 43,14—15 οδόντων I ενδοθιt . . . ε,δι/: with food as opposed to words as its subject and a verb of entering instead of leaving this looks like a variation of such expressions as II.4,350 ποιόν εε εποε φύγεν ερκοε όδόντων. The prepositional use of ενδοθι with a genitive is first attested in //.18,287 ενδοθι πύργω ν; Hes.Op.523, 601, and 733; fr. 205,4; h.Cer.355; and then recurs in e.g. h.4,42 Οαρωνικοΰ ενδοθι κάΧπου; 222; AR 1,936 Π ροποντίδοε ενδοθι; 2,346; 1262; on the frequent use of ενδοθι in Hellenistic and later Greek poetry see further Livrea on AR 4,1235. 43.15 velaipav . . . αχάριετον: perhaps this expression was intended as a variant of phrases like Od. 17,228 and 18,364 γα ετερ ’ άναΧτον (‘insatiable’) and, as Fabian 1992,149 observes, there might also be an allusion to Hes.T7j.26 γαετερεε οιον where the Muses thus address the shepherds from whom Hesiod will be selected to serve them. For νείαιραν cf. //.16,465 τον βάΧε νείαιραν κατά γαετερα, where

νείαιραν is used as an adjective, as in //.5,539,616 and 17,519; Arat.206 and 576 and often in Hippocrates (e.g. Nat.Mul.27,6; 46,5 την νείαιραν γαετερα). The use of the word as a substantive is attested in e.g. Hp.Coa praesagia 579,2 βάροε εν νεαίρηι and perhaps in Nic.A/.20 (where see Gow-Schofield). For a similar use of adjectives as substantives in Callimachus cf. 53 κεετ[ο\ύ with comm. Etymologically νείαιρα, indi­ cating the lower part of the belly, has been related to νειόε; see Frisk 2,297 f. s.v. νειόε. The adjective άχάριετοε occurs twice in Homer, with the meaning ‘unpleasant’, in Od.8,236 (Alcinous to Odysseus) ζείν’, επε'ι ούκ άχάριετα μεθ’ ήμΐν τα ν τ αγόρευειε and 20,392 ff. After Homer it is quite frequent in both prose and poetry and we find it in the sense ‘ungrateful’, which seems more appropriate here than the Homeric sense as it underlines the futility of eating; cf. e.g. Hdt. 1,90,4; E.Hec.137; Ion 880; for more examples see Massimilla ad loc. The idea of an ungrateful and greedy belly is also found in Chares ff. 2,2 f. Powell μόνη γάρ ών πεπονθεν (sc. the γαετήρ) ούκ εχει χάριν, I αεί δε τον δεοντοε ενδεϊται πΧεον; for similar notions cf. also e.g. /j.6,90 άχάριετα (‘unappreciated’) κατερρεεν εΐδατα πάντα (with Hopkinson ad loc.); Od.7,216ff. (where the belly demands food and drink all the time); 17,286 if. (the belly as cause of much misery). For further references see Herter 1954,79; Magnelli 1994,476. 43,16 pLi3Sev εμεινεν ic avpqov: the expression recalls Od. 11,350 f. ξεΐνοε δε τΧητω . .. I . .. επιμείναι εε ανριον and [E.] Rhes.96 οι) μενεΐν εε ανριον. For εε ανριον cf. also II.8,538; Od.7,318; E.Alc.320; Rhes.600. For the idea cf. Martial.l2,48,5f. lauta tamen cena est: fateor, lautissima, sed cras I nil erit, immo hodie, protinus immo nihil; see further Massimilla ad loc. δε: the adversative δε marks the transition from the foil to the climax in the priamel, as in e.g. ff. 1,16 and Pi.O.11,4; /.1,50; see further Race 1982,14. 43,16-17 καλί\ Sec: when Daedalus had fled to the court of Cocalus in Camicus in Sicily, Minos came after him and was killed by Cocalus’ daughters in his bath by means of boiling water. This story, in which the details of the killing may vary, is well attested and often referred to; cf. e.g. Σ D //.2,145 (quoted in app.); Ps.-Apollod.£pzi.l,15 ό δε (sc. Minos) λουεαμενοε υπό τω ν Κω κάλου θυγατέρων έκλυτοε εγενετο■ώε δε ενιοί φάει, ζεετώ ι καταχυθειε (ύ'δατι) μετήλλαξεν; Σ Pi.M4,95b; Str.6,2,6, 273C; D.S.4,79,1-5 (esp. 2); Paus.7,4,6 (where Cocalus’ court is at Inycus); Ath.l,10d-e; Ov.Ib.287 f. with Σ ad loc.; Sil.lt. 14,39 ff.; Hyg.Pflb.44; see fur­ ther Frazer on Ps.-Apollod. Epfr. 1,15; Ehlers 1933,16 ff.; F.Frontisi-Ducroux, Dèdale, Paris 1975,171 ff.; Prinz 1979,139 ff.; S.P.Morris, Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art, Princeton 1992,195 ff.; Massimilla on 48 f. The briefness of the reference in 48 f. suggests that the story was known to Callimachus’ readers, and in fact there is some evidence before Calli­ machus about Minos’ search for Daedalus and his violent death in Sicily in S.Kamikioi F 323-7 (where see Radt) and Hdt.7,170,1; about his founda­ tion of Minoa in Arist.fr. 611,59 Rose and about Daedalus’ flight to Cocalus in Ephorus FGrH 70 F 57. ζείο]ντα . . . λοετ[ρά: this is an attractive supplement, well suited to the story of Minos’ death. For the expression cf. e.g. //.14,6 θερμά λοετρά; Od.8,451; Hec.SH 287,5 (= 48,5 Hollis) τινθαλεοιει. . . λοετροΐε; AR 3,300; SH 967,5. Homer uses the form ζέω, whereas Apollonius uses both ζέω and ζείω; for the intransitive use cf. also e.g. II.21,362; Pi.O.l,48; h.3,60 χαλκόν ζείοντα; see further on this verb Bornmann on h.3,60; Campbell on AR 3,273. The idea of pouring boiling water on a guest looks like a deadly con­ version of civilized epic practice, as Homeric hospitality scenes often

Commentary 43,48-9

Commentary 43,50

involve a bath (as in e.g. Od.3,464 ff.; 4,48 ff.; 8,433 ff; 10,358 ff.; see further S.West on Od.3,464 ff.; Hainsworth on Od.6,217-22; Reece 1993,33 f.), and the phrasing may draw the reader’s attention to this. In epic boiling water is obviously a common preparation for a bath (cf. e.g. II. 18,349 ζέεεεν ύδωρ ivi ήνοπι χαλκών. Od. 10,360; AR 3,273 τ ol 8è λοετρά πυρί ζέον, where see Campbell), but the epic scenes sometimes also contain references to the pleasantly warm temperature of the water (e.g. Od.8,450 f. 6 8’ ap’ άεπαείωε ί'δε θυμώι I θερμά λοέτρα; AR 3,300 λι,αροΐειν . .. λοετροϊε), which may be said to result from the mixing of hot and cold water, as in e.g. Od. 10,360 ff. αΰτάρ επε'ι δή ζέεεεν ΰδωρ ivi ήνοπι χαλκώι, I εε ρ άεάμινθον έεαεα λό’ εκ τρίποδον μεγαλοιο, I θυμήρεε κεραεαεα and 19,387 f. On the motif of death in the bath, which was obviously easy to achieve because the victim would be at his most vulnerable, see B.Lavagnini, ‘Sul motivo mitico della morte nella vasca da bagno’, Atti Accad. Palermo IV 2.2,1941; J.N.Bremmer, ‘Agamemnon’s Death in the Bath: Some parallels’, Mnem.39,1986,418. Ευρώττηε υίέϊ: this must be Minos, who is well attested as the son of Europa; cf. also e.g. II. 14,321 (with Janko ad loc.); Hes.fr. 140 and 141,5 ff.; B.1,124; A. F 99,10 f.; E.Cret. F 472,1 and in Callimachus also ff. 622; see further Biihler on Mosch.Eur.160. fC[wKaAt]Sec: this form is not attested elsewhere in Greek, but derives support from Sil.lt. 14,43 Cocalidum insidiis; see further Schmitt 1970,24. The Sicanian king Cocalus was the starting-point for the Sicilian history of Antiochus (FGrH 555 T 3, on which see also Gomme-Andrewes-Dover 1970,201). 43,50 Leontini, in the east of Sicily, was founded c.729 b c by Theocles from Naxus; cf. Th.6,3,3 Θουκλήε δε καί oi Χ αλκιδήε εκ Νάξου ορμηθεντεε . . . Λεοντίνονε . .. πολέμαη τουε Οικελουε εξελαεαντεε οικιζουει; Hellan.FGrH 4 F 82; Str.6,2,6, 272C; [Scymn.] 283; for the date see Gomme-Andrewes-Dover 1970,204; for the history of Leontini, which still existed in Callimachus’ time, see S.D.Spina in Der Neue Pauly 7,62 ff. s.v. Leontinoi. Ehlers 1933,20 suggests that Callimachus spoke about Theocles here too, as in 36, but the contents of the second part of the line are very uncertain and, as Leschhorn 1984,11 ff. observes, there seems to have been a foundercult for Theocles only at Naxus (cf. also 29, where the Catanians prefer to regard Euarchus, not Theocles, as their founder). Because of the loss of the second part of 50 it is equally unclear whether only this line referred to Leontini or the references to Megara and Euboea must be connected with it, as Pfeiffer on 52 suggests (for possible connections see comm, on 51 and 52).

[.]δβδρα[: the text poses two problems: (1) the first letter(s) are hard to establish; (2) as e is placed between dots and a is written above it, we have a variant reading δαδρα[ . As to (1), Maas 1928,130 suggests [η]δ’, which is rejected by Pfeiffer because Callimachus does not use this particle in his elegiac poetry, or [οι]δ’, which is more attractive as it would repeat οΐδα at the beginning of the line (so also Massimilla ad loc.), although it does not quite fit the space in the papyrus. As to (2), if one assumes that both variants must have made sense they can perhaps be reconstructed. For αδρα[ Pfeiffer 1938,65, following earlier suggestions, considers a reference to Hadranum, a small town in the east of Sicily, or its much-honoured eponymous hero Hadranus (mentioned in Plu.Tim.12,1), but in his commentary he objects that Hadranum was not founded before 400 b c by Dionysius (as told in D.S. 14,37,5; see further Jacoby on Apollod.FGrH 244 F 290; G.Manganaro in Der Neue Pauly 1,129 s.v. Adranon), and therefore would not fit the series of ancient colonies. Perhaps this objection is not fatal, because the catalogue does not seem to confine itself to one period: it also refers to Hieron (cf. 38 with comm.) and to foundations of a much earlier date, like those of Minoa (see comm, on 48 f.) and Eryx (see comm, on 53). On the other hand, one could interpret the reference to Hieron as a prolepsis, whereas Hadranum would here be mentioned on a par with the much earlier Leontini. With εδρα[ one may think of εδρανον, which could be followed by the name of the town’s inhabitants, like e.g. Hes.fr. 319 Π ελαεγώ ν εδρανον (so also Magnelli 1995a,102 f.). Fabian 1992,236 f. suggests a verb beginning with 8p- , but that would make it very hard to account for the variant readings. Both οιδ’ εδρα[νον and Maas’s οΐδ’ Άδρα[νον (with short second syllable, although Sil.lt. 14,250 Hadranum suggests that the second syllable is long; on the spelling with/without aspiration see K.Ziegler, RE 7,2164 s.v.) would fit the metrical rules of Callimachus, according to which, if a hexameter has a masculine caesura, there is, in the Aetia, always a second caesura after the eighth element, which must then be disyllabic because of Naeke’s Law (see Introd. 7.3). It is conceivable that at some stage Άδρα[νόν (possibly with a wrongly short second syllable) appeared as a variant for εδρα[νον, perhaps because the original έδρα[νον followed by an ethnic genitive was thus explained in the margin. Alternative suggestions like Ehlers 1933,20 f. Άδρα[νού πτολίεθρον and Pfeiffer 1938,65 Άδρα[νοΐο πολίχνην (with long second syllable) are also conceivable as variants for a phrase like εδρα[ vov + an ethnic genitive, but are less likely to have been written by Callimachus, because they do not fit the metrical rules mentioned above. All things considered εδρα[ seems the more attractive reading.

328

329

Commentary 43,51 43,51-2 This intricate sentence refers to the foundation of Megara Hyblaea on the east coast of Sicily from Megara Nisaea on the Greek mainland. According to the tradition followed by Thucydides this foundation took place c.728 b c (see Gomme-Andrewes-Dover 1970,204 and 207). Archaeo­ logical finds, however, indicate that Megara existed already before that, perhaps even in the first half of the 8th cent, b c (see G.Falco-K.Ziegler in Der Neue Pauly 7,1142 f. s.v. Megara [3]), and this fits in with passages like [Scymn.] 276 f. and Str.6,2,4,269C, which suggest that Megara was founded at the same time as Syracuse and Naxus, i.e. in the late 730s. For the foundation-story, of which the details vary, cf. Th.6,4,1 (Lamis brought colonists from Megara to Sicily, founded Trotilon, spent some time in Leontini, founded Thapsus, and died; the other Megarians left Thapsus and led by Hyblon, a king of the Siculi, founded Hyblaean Megara); Ephor.FGr.fi 70 F 137 (Theocles also took Dorians from Megara Nisaea with him to Sicily, who founded Μ έγαρα την 'Ύβλαν πρότερον καλουμένην; for the change of name see also Str.6,2,2, 267C); Polyaen.5,5,1 (on which see Fabian 1992,196 ff.). The town was destroyed by Gelon in 484/481 b c (cf. Hdt.7,156,2; Th.6,4,2) and restored c.340 b c by Timoleon; see further Hanell 1934,116 ff.; Falco-Ziegler l.c. 43,51 Meyapeic. Pfeiffer took Μ εγαρεfc as the name of the town, like Λεοντίνουε (cf. Plu.Marc.18,2 ειλε μέν Μ εγαρέαε, πάλιν . . . ; 20,2; D.S. 20.32.3 etc τούε Μ εγαρεΐε; 23,4,1 τών πόλεων. Άκρων, Λεοντίνων, Μ εγαρέων), but ετερο[ι] τούς ά[πέ]ναεεαν rather seems to distinguish two groups of people (similarly Hunt and Massimilla ad loc.). The repetition Μ εγαρεΐε . . . I . . . Μ εγαρηεc (52) is a device which is well attested in Callimachus (for various examples see Lapp 1965,63 ff.). Here it may be functional because it draws attention to the close relation between colony and mother-city. For the idea of calling a colony after the mother-city see also on 51 (about Euboea) and cf. e.g. Conon FGrH 26 F 1.37.3 Θηβαε από τηε οίκεiac επωνόμαεε (sc. Cadmus) πατρίδοε. τούς·, for the position of the relative pronoun see comm, on ff. 1,2. ά[ττέ\ναεεαν: άποναίω is attested thrice in Homer (once active in 7/. 16,85 f. κούρην I άφ άπονάεεωειν, twice in the middle voice in II.2,629 oc . . . Δ ουλίχιόνδ’ άπενάεεατο; Od. 15,254); cf. also AR 4,1491 f. (Acacallis) ην πο τέ Μίνωε I εε Λ ιβύην άπέναεεε (with Livrea ad loc.); E.IT 175 and 1260; Med. 166. In all these cases the verb refers to the movement of people and this suggests that that is the case here too. εκεΐι i.e. to Sicily or, more specifically, to the spot where Megara Hyblaea was founded. Instances of εκεί thus used in the sense of εκεfee are also found in e.g. Hdt.7,147,3 εκεί πλέομεν and S.OC 1019 όδοΰ . . . τή ε εκεί (where see Jebb); see further LSJ s.v. εκεΐΙΙ. As S.L.Radt observes, this usage

331

increases in koine Greek and is also found in e.g. Str.14,1,32, 644C ποΰ πλέοιεν (instead of 7rot); 14,5,3, 669C (οπού); 16,1,5, 738C (ενταύθα) and criticized by Atheists like Phryn.£d.28 Fischer ποΐ άπει- οϋτω ευντάεεεται διά τού ι· ποΰ δε άπει, διά τού υ, αμάρτημα, εί δε εν τώ υ, πού διατρίβειε. 43.52 Ν ιεαΐοι Μ εγαρηεε: Nisaea was the harbour of Megara on the Saronian Gulf and the adjective was used to distinguish the Megarians in Greece from the Hyblaean Megarians on Sicily (see further Gow on Theoc.12,27). For the expression cf. AR 2,747 f. Νιεαΐοι Μ εγαρηεε, δτε νάεεεεθαι έμελλον I γην Μαριανδυνών; Theoc.12,27; for similar expres­ sions cf. also e.g. Nic.fr. 74,14 Ν ιεαίηε Μεγαρηίδοε; Nonn.D.25,155. The epithet recurs in fr. 495 (= fiec.fr. 156 Hollis). Εύβοιαν; Euboea was destroyed by Gelo in 484/481 b c and little else is known about this town. It was apparently called after the mother-city of Leontini, Chalcis, which in earlier times was called Euboea (cf. Hecat.FGrH 1 F 129). The inhabitants are mentioned in Hdt.7,156,3 Εύβοέαε τούε εν Οικελίηι; the foundation from Leontini and the destruction by Gelo in Str.10,1,15, 449C ήν δε καί εν Οικελίαι Εύβοια Χαλκιδέω ν τών εκεί κτίεμα, ην Γελώ ν έζανέετηεε, καί εγένετο φρούριον Ουρακουείων; 6 ,2 ,6 , 272C and the foundation only in [Scymn.] 287 f. See further Ehlers 1933,22 n.40; G.Falco in Der Neue Pauly 4,210 s.v. Euboia [2]. 43.53 The word-order is complex and hard to explain: (1) καί, which con­ nects the two objects of ενιεπε[ίν, is postponed; cf. fr. 1,15 with comm.; (2) the relative pronoun is preceded by the clause’s verb and subject; cf. for more examples of subordinate clauses in which the relative pronoun is preceded by (part of) the subject fr. 1,2 with comm.; (3) the antecedent, Eryx, is inserted in the relative clause; for more examples cf. e.g. fr. 85,8 f. ην S’ άπο[ I είκόν]a εην αύτη Λ οκρίε έθηκε [πόλ\ιε; Hec.248,1 f. (= 36,4 f. Hollis); 519; 580; fi.2,111 f.; 4,156. Thus the line contains a complete inversion of the expected position of the words. The effect may be a build­ ing up of tension, particularly when the line was heard instead of read and the elements ‘love— of the mistress of the strap, i.e. Aphrodite—for Eryx’ were gradually transmitted to the listener, who thus received a number of initially ‘unframed’ bits of information which he had to organize himself. On word-order in the Aetia see further Introd. 6.1.1. φ ίλ α το . . .’Έρυκα: Eryx was a settlement on Mt.Eryx on north-west Sicily, the summit of which housed a famous sanctuary of Aphrodite (mentioned already in Th.6,46,3). According to Th.6,2,3 Eryx and Egesta were towns of the Elymi, a mixed population of Trojan fugitives and Sicanians, which means that Thucydides regarded Eryx as an early, non-Greek settle­ ment (cf. also Str.13,1,53,608C). On the other hand, Callimachus’ phrasing

332

Commentary 43,53

suggests that he related the foundation of Eryx to Greek myth, where the eponymous hero was Eryx, the son of Aphrodite and a local king called Butes (for a similar early settlement see comm, on 48 f. about Minoa). Cf. for mythical stories about Eryx e.g. D.S.4,83,1 Έ ρυκά φαειν vlòv μεν γενεεθαι Ά φροδίτηε καί Β ούτα . . . κ τ icai Se καί πάλιν άξιόλογον ομώνυμον αΰτώι, κειμενην επ ί τινοε ύφηλοΰ τό π ο ν κατά δε την άκραν την εν τήι πόλει τή ε μητρόε ιερόν ιδρνεαεθαι και κοεμηεαι τηι τε καταεκευήι τού νεώ και τώ ι πλήθει τών αναθημάτων, την δε θεόν δια τε την άπό τών εγχωρίω ν ευεεβειαν καί διά την άπό τού τεκνωθεντοε υιού τιμήν άγαπήεαι περιττότερον την π ά λιν διόπερ αυτήν Αφροδιτην Έρυκίνην όνομαεθήναι; D.S.4,23,2; Paus.8,24,2 (about Heracles and Eryx daughter Psophis); Hyg.Fab.260; Serv. on Verg.A. 1,570; fr. 43a on 53-55; see further Wendel on Σ Theoc.15,100/101 and Ehlers 1933,23 n.46. In stories which tell how Eryx’s death was caused by Heracles he is sometimes called a son of Poseidon; cf. e.g. Ps.-Apollod.2,5,10; see further Ehlers 1933,23 n.46 and Massimilla ad loc.; G.Falco in Der Neue Pauly 4,109 i. s.v. Eryx. The love of Aphrodite for Eryx is also mentioned in Theoc.l5,100f. δεεποιν, a Γολγώ ε τε κα'ι Ίδάλιον εφίληεαε I αίπεινάν τ ’ Έ ρυκα, . .. Ά φροδίτα and D.S. 4,83,1 (for Latin references see Massimilla ad loc.). In AR 4,913 ff. it is told how Aphrodite as θεαΈ ρυκοε μεδεουεα (917) res­ cues Butes from the sea, when he has dived from the ship to hear the Sirens’ song, and settles him on Sicily Λ ιλυβηίδα ναιεμεν άκρην (919), i.e. on the west coast a little south of MtEryx. As Belage 1930,247 observes, Apol­ lonius may well derive his information from Timaeus. The same may apply to Callimachus, whose brief reference here seems to refer the reader to more extensive treatments elsewhere. The epic form of the aorist is used by Homer and Hesiod particularly of the love of gods for mortals and is taken up again by the Hellenistic poets; see Chantraine 1948-53,1,172 f.; Lloyd-Jones 19631;,87; Bulloch on h.5,58. For some examples cf. II.5,61 εξοχα γάρ μιν εφίλατο Π αλλάε Άθηνη; 20,304; A3,184 f. τίνα δ’ εξοχα νυμφεων I φίλαο (sc. Artemis) and 189; AR 3,1001 f. On the use of the aorist of verbs expressing affection see further comm, on fr. 1,30. rjv. feminine Eryx is not attested apart from our passage and Theoc. 15,101 αίπεινάν τ ’Έρυκα; see Ehlers 1933,23 n.43. Here it serves to distinguish the town from the eponymous hero. # c 6 c t [ o ] ü [δ]εεπότιε: i.e. Aphrodite. The word κεετόε is originally an adjective (‘colourful’, ‘embroidered’), but is used by Callimachus as a substantive, to indicate Aphrodite’s colourful and seductive strap; cf. LZ.14,214 f. κεετον ιμάντα I ποικίλον with Σ AbT ad loc. and Σ A II.3,371

Commentary 43,53

333

(quoted in app.). Formerly the scholiast’s statement about the substantival use of the word was related to the story of Acontius and Cydippe (see comm, on fr. 67,18 ff.), but it may equally well refer to this passage or to Callimachus’ use of κεετόε in general. After Callimachus the substantival use of κεετόε recurs in e.g. Bion Adonis 60; Philodem.AP 5,121,3 (=GP 3208); Nonn.D.47,277 ου κεετον εχει εημάντορα Κυπρογενείηε; for more examples, also of the Latin cestus, see Massimilla ad loc. On the substantival use of adjectives in Callimachus and other Hellenistic poets see further McLennan on A l,14 λεχώιον (examples and lit.); and comm, on 15 above. On the nature of the κεετόε as a strap, which was worn as a kind of breast-ornament, see C.Bonner, ‘κεετόε ίμάε and the Saltire of Aphrodite’, AJPh 70,1949,1-6 (who compares the saltire of ancient fertility goddesses); Janko on //.14,214-17; Reed on Bion Adonis 60. 43,54-5 This conclusion of the catalogue, combined with the fact that it is followed by the story about the anonymous ritual at Zancle, suggests that the train of thought in 18 ff. was something like: T should like to know why the founder of Zancle is not invited to his ritual feast by his name, because this is unusual and unlike the founder-cults of many other Sicilian cities which I know of. In order to prove my point I shall tell you about . . . , for in none of these towns is there an anonymous foundercult.’ 43.54 τάων ονδεμιήι γά[ρ: the particle is placed later than usual and pre­ ceded by the essential point of the message: ‘for in none of these towns is there an anonymous cult’; cf. also fr. 67,11 with comm, ad loc. With γάρ the speaker seems to explain his reason for giving the long list of Sicilian cities. On τάων in this position as a Homeric element see Kidd on Arat.722. o r]tc 7ro[re] τειχο ε εδειμε; these words indicate the founder, who is described by his first, important action of building the walls of the new settlement. There is a similar emphasis on the building of the walls in e.g. Od.6,9 άμφί δε τειχοε ελαεεε πόλει, καί εδείματο οϊκουε (sc. Nausithous, settling the Phaeacians on Scheria); Conon FGrH 26 F 1,37,3 εύν τηι δυνάμει περιτειχίεαε το χωρίον (Cadmus founding Thebes); Conon (?) in P.Oxy. 3648, fr. 2 col.II 8; see further Schmid 1947,176 ff. For the expression cf. e.g. //.7,436 τειχοε εδειμαν and 9,349; see further Massimilla ad loc. πρ[τε\·. the papyrus has πο τέ here and κοτε in 67, but there is no reason to change the text in one of these places; see further comm, on fr. 75,4. 43.55 As observed by Ferguson 1980,39, this line shows a striking pattern of assonance and alliteration.

Commentary 43,55

Commentary 43,56

νωνυμνί: this adverb is regarded as a poetic alternative for άνωνύμωε by Blomqvist 1993,31. It is not attested elsewhere in Greek literature, but its use is mentioned in Etym.Symeon. 1,362,3 ff. s.v. άμοθεί (see app.) and the adjective νώνυμ(ν)οε is attested in Greek poetry from //.12,70 νωνύμνονε άποΧεεθαι onwards. See further Pfeiffer ad loc. and on the ancient grammarians’ preference for spelling this kind of adverb with -i (not -et) Pfeiffer and Hollis on Hec.it. 298,2 (= 115,2 Hollis) άκλαυτί; Bornmann on h.3,65 άφρικτί. νομίμην . . . εϊλαττίνην: here είΧαπίνη is used of a sacrificial meal, as in e.g. AR 1,13 f. εΙΧαπίνηε, ην ττατρί Ποεειδάωνι και äXXoic I ρεζε θεοΐε (se. Pelias) and 4,1421 εΙΧαπίναε (promised by Orpheus to the Hesperides) (where see Livrea) and in accordance with the description in Ath.8,862e rà c θυείαε καί ràc λαμ.7τροτεραε παραεκευάε εκάΧουν οι παλαιοί είΧαπίναε. In the early Greek epic, however, είλαπίνη is used of banquets (in e.g. //.10,217; Od. 1,226), without the connotation of a sacrificial meal (see LfrgrE s.v.), and in this sense Callimachus uses the word in h.6,64 and 84 (where see Hopkinson). The expression νομίμην .. . είΧαπίνην recalls e.g. A.C/i.483 f. (Orestes to his dead father) οΰτω yàp av coi δαΐτεε εννομοι βροτών I κτιζοίατ (where see Garvie). €ρχ[ε]τ: elision of the middle and passive ending -at is well attested in epic and lyric poetry and comedy (see Maas 1962,74). In Callimachus we find it in e.g. fir . 24,12 (?); Hec.it. 260,55 (= 74,14 Hollis); A4,152; 5,64 (with Bulloch ad loc.); and fr. 535 (with Pfeiffer ad loc.). 43,56 ci»c εφ ά μ η ν Κ λείω δε . . . : on speech conclusions and transitional phrases in the Aetia see comm, on fr. 31b. For a possible imitation cf. Ov.Fflst.6,801 sic ego, sic Clio, which is followed by a tale by Clio concluded in 811 sic cecinit Clio (cf. fr. 43b, 1). Κ λείω δε το [δ]ειιτερον ηρχ[ετο μ]ύθ[ον: Clio spoke first in the aition of the Charites at Paros (fr. 3-7b) and το δεύτερον has been regarded either in relation to that (so e.g. Pfeiffer) or to something she might have said in fr. 43 before Callimachus began his monologue, i.e. between 18 and 28 (so Ehlers 1933,9; Cahen 1935/;,295; Fabian 1992,240). The first idea presupposes that she told no other aitia between fr. 7 and 43, which is possible, but completely uncertain; the second idea would presuppose a brief dialogue before Callimachus began his cata­ logue, which, given the uncertainties about 18 ff., cannot be excluded either. The phrasing is traditional, as, perhaps, in fr. 7c,4. For ηρχ[ετο μ\ύθ[ου ci. e.g. 11.2,433 rote apa μύθον ήρχε . . . Νεετωρ; Od. 1,367; 3,68 etc. and in prose e.g. X.An.3,2,7 τού Χόγου δε ηρχετο ώδε. For το

[δ]εύτερον cf. Hes.fr. 76,19 αι)τά[ρ ο] χειρι το δεύτερον [ηκε χαμάζε (for later examples see Massimilla ad loc.). It is not entirely clear why it is Clio who is telling the story of Zancle. In the literary tradition she is (1) the Muse of history, but although there is early evidence of the differentiation of the Muses (cf. Hes.T7i.77 ff, who lists the names; Pl.P/idr.259c-d, who distinguishes the domains of Terpsichore, Erato, Calliope, and Urania and adds that in a similar way the other Muses also have their own domains), the evidence for Clio as the Muse of history is Roman or later Greek; see e.g. Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor.C.1,12,2; Häussler 1976-8, 2,181 f.; Maehler on B.13,1-12 (who dates the invention of Clio as the Muse of history in the Hellenistic period, but offers only later evidence). On the difference between Clio and Calliope, who is the Muse of warlike epic, see C.Walde in Der Neue Pauly 6,568 f. s.v. Kleio; (2) etymologically related to the verb κΧείω, so that she is responsible for the ‘celebration’ of glorious deeds. This notion may already be present in Hes.77i.77, where West ad loc. suggests that the name ΚΧειώ is inspired by one of the things Hesiod has said about the Muses and refers to 67 κΧείουειν. It is also implicit in her role in epinician poetry, like e.g. P.W.3,1 ff and 83 £; B.3,1 ff. (for more examples see Maehler on B.13,1-12), and in Latin poetry, like e.g. Hor.C.1,12,1 ff. quem uirum aut heroa lyra uel acri I tibia sumis celebrare, Clio? I quem deum? and Ov.Fast.6,797 ff, where Clio’s answer to an aetiological question consists of praise. It is conceivable that Callimachus let Clio tell about the history of Zancle because he already regarded her as the Muse of history and wanted to draw attention to the historical aspects of this aition. Another aspect of choosing Clio here may be that the founding heroes of Zancle, whose cult is anonymous, by means of Clio’s tale receive a certain amount of ‘celebra­ tion’, because in the text they are, after all, relieved from their anonymity. 43,57 χειρ’ . . . ερειεαμενη: the notion of supporting oneself when beginning a speech recalls //.2,109 τώ ι o y ’ ερειεάμενοε εττε Ά ργείοιει μετηύδα (sc. Agamemnon leaning on his ancestral sceptre, which could be regarded as a symbol of his authority) and 8,496 τώ ι o y ερειεάμενοε εττεα Τρώεεει μετηύδα (sc. Hector leaning on his spear). For a late imitation of these scenes cf. QS 3,164 ff. and for various gestures at the beginning of a speech also e.g. Ar.Vfe.l236f.; Ia.it. 191,69 ff. (with Pfeiffer ad loc.); Ov.Fast.1,99; 177 deus incumbens baculo, quem dextra gerebat (about Janus); 259; 3,171; 6,655. For the expression cf. also Nonn.D.39,254 f. Θετιε . . . I χεΐραε ερειεαμενη κα'ι Δω ρίδι και Πανοττείηι. It is not made clear why Clio leans on her sister’s shoulder here and who this sister is, but it seems likely that it is more than just a picturesque detail. The gesture may be thought to symbolize the idea that the Muses

334

335

336

Commentary 43,57

supplemented each other and found support in their colleagues in the same way as the epic heroes, with whom they are subtly contrasted by means of the reminiscences of the Iliadic passages quoted above, found support in the symbols of their power and strength. See also Cahen 1935b,295, who thinks that Clio leant on Calliope, an idea which wins some support from the evocation of the world of epic by the allusions to the Iliad. The idea of cooperation between the Muses may also be supported by (1) the more elaborate and explicit description of cooperation among the Muses in Ov.Fast.5,9 ff. (Polymnia begins to explain the name Maius), 53 if. (Clio and Thalia praise her; Urania continues), 79 if. (Calliope takes over), 107 (the Muses praise Calliope); (2) evidence from visual art, where, generally, touching someone’s shoulder may underline the connection between two people who are talking or looking at something together (see H.Speier, ‘Zweifiguren-Gruppen im fünften und vierten Jahrhundert vor Christus’, MDAI Röm.AbtA7,1932,1-94) and, more specifically, the gesture of placing a hand on a sister’s shoulder is well attested for the Charites in the GraecoRoman period and may be thought to convey a similar notion of co­ operation (seeDeonna 1930,275; 292 ff.; and 304; H. Sichtermann, LIMClll 1, 203 s.v. Gratiae). As to the Muses L1MCVI 2 s.v. Mousa/Mousai plate 90 (4th cent, b c ) shows Orpheus with two warriors and two Muses, one of whom has laid her hand on her sister’s shoulder. Another aspect of touch­ ing somebody’s shoulder, discussed by G.Neumann, Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst, Berlin 1965,90 about Athena, who transmits something of her divine strength to heroes like Perseus, Heracles, and Theseus by touching their shoulders, does not seem relevant here. On a verbal level the sequence ώμον έρζιαιμένη recalls AR 1,1198 iv Se 7τλατύν ώμον epeicev (sc. Heracles uprooting a tree) and 4,957 erri creXerp τυπίδοο βαρνν ώμον ipeicac (sc. Hephaestus). If Apollonius deliberately referred to our passage (or vice versa) the reminiscences may have a touch of humour similar to that of Callimachus’ allusions to //.2,109 and 8,496. aSeXeii}c: for this form see comm, on fr. 17,6. 43,58-83 In this story the founders of Zancle, Perieres and Crataemenes, quarrel about the right to claim the foundership of the new town. When they consult Apollo’s oracle it states that neither of them shall be called the founder and that they should found an anonymous cult, at which ‘whosoever built the town’ (cf. 81) is invited to a sacrificial meal. According to Th.6,4,5 Zancle was first founded by pirates from Cumae (which was founded by people from Chalcis); later it was founded again by Perieres and Crataemenes with colonists from Chalcis and the rest of Euboea, Perieres coming from Cumae and Crataemenes from Chalcis, as

Commentary 43,58-83

337

here (καί oiKicraì Περιηρηο καί Κραταιμΐνηο eyévovro avrrjc, ό μέν από Κύμηο, ό Si άπο Χ α Α /c tS o c); for other versions see GommeAndrewes-Dover on Th.6,4,5. A precise date for the foundation is not offered by Thucydides, but the foundation is generally regarded as part of the colonization of Sicily in the second half of the 8th cent, b c (Leschhorn 1984,16 f. observes that it should be after Naxus and before the foundation of Mylae in c.717/16, which took place from Zancle). In 396 b c Zancle (then called Messene; see Th.6,4,6) was first destroyed by the Carthagin­ ians, but soon rebuilt, and in the eighties of the 3rd cent, b c it was occupied by the Mamertines. The anonymous cult and its explanation may have been part of the tradition from early on, but it is also conceivable that the town’s turbulent history led to a breach in the tradition, due to which information about the founders was lost to the local population and an anonymous cult was established, and that later scholars who knew the founders’ names sub­ sequently invented an explanation for the anonymous cult (for similar views see De Sanctis 1928,115 f.; Ehlers 1933,55 ff.; Fraser 1972,2,1012 n.54; Leschhorn 1984,18 ff.; Malkin 1987,199). We do not know whether this cult was still practised in Callimachus’ time. See further on Zancle e.g. Ehlers 1933,33 ff.; Schmid 1947,55 ff.; G.Vallet, Rhégion et Zancle, Paris 1958,59 ff.; Leschhorn 1984,16 ff.; Massimilla 1996,339 ff.; Raccuia 2002,477 ff.; H.Sonnabend in Der Neue Pauly 8,42 ff. s.v. Messana/Messene [1]. The story seems to be of a familiar pattern, as we find similar stories in: (1) D.S. 12,35,1 ff. about the founders of Thurii, who disagree as to who is the real founder and consult the oracle in Delphi, where they hear that the founder is Apollo. Ehlers 1933,59 ff. thinks that Callimachus based his story of Zancle on this story, which he could have known from Timaeus, but this is both speculative and unnecessary; see Pfeiffer on fr. 43,76 f.; Fraser 1972,2,1012 n.54; (2) Enn.Ami. 1,77 ff. and D.H. All 1,85,6 ff. with the story of the quarrel between the two founders of Rome; (3) Str.5,4,4,243C, where the disagreement of Hippocles from Cumae and Megasthenes from Chalcis leads to a situation where the new founda­ tion is called Cumae, but said to be founded by the people from Chalcis. On the problem of a plurality of founders see further Malkin 1987,254 ff. 43,58—9 Π ΐριήρηο I . . . Κραταιμένεοα. this pattern, in which the second person of a pair is described more elaborately than the first, is well attested in Greek poetry; cf. e.g. II. 10,536 OSvcevc re κal ό Kparepòc Αωμήδηο; Hes.fr. 197,3; AR 1,151 Α υγκζυο καί ύπέρβιοο'Ίδαο', Theoc.22,140.

Commentary 43,60 ον . . . I ή γ α γ ε : for the expression cf. e.g. II.2,580 aye Aaooc; 10,79 λαόν άγων; and in contexts of colonization also Arist.fr. 611,25 Rose; Str.14,1,3, 633C Φ ιλώ ταε εκ Θηβών λαόν ayaycnv; 17,3,15,832C and the supple­ ment in 67 below. 43.59 μεγάλου λήμα Κ ραταιμενεοα this kind of periphrasis is well attested in Greek poetry; cf. e.g. Pi.P.3,25 καλλιπεπλου λήμα Κορών [hoc (‘wilful Coronis’ Gildersleeve); 0.1,88; 6,22; S.E/.1427 μητρώ ω ν . . . λήμα (of Clytaemnestra); see further KG 1,280 f. The substantive λήμα is not found in Homer, but is well attested in poetry and prose from the 5th cent, b c onwards (see W.Aly, ‘Herodots Sprache’, Glotta 15,1927,84-117, esp. 116) and used by Callimachus also in Hec.fr. 345 (= 13 Hollis). As in the examples quoted above λήμα may here have a negative connotation, pointing forward to the quarrel between the founders, and the elaborate periphrasis may have been somewhat ironic (so Pfeiffer and Massimilla ad loc.; Magnelli 1994,477). Alternatively, λήμα may have served to emphasize, in combination with μεγάλου, the heroic qualities of Crataemenes (so Fabian 1992,242); cf. Sud. λ 441 s.v. λήμαάζία καί ανδρεία, φρόνημα, κερδοε. See further Schmitt 1970,102 and on μεγαε used with proper names Bissinger 1966,13 ff. 43,60-5 In these lines Callimachus describes the usual proceedings of founding a city. It was usual, when building a town, to build the walls first (see also on 54) and to mark off the streets and alleys within the walls after that (cf. 63 ff.). Both activities were essential elements in the foundation of a city. Cf. D.S. 12,10,6-7; Vitruv. 1,6,1 moenibus circumdatis secantur intra murum arearum diuisiones platearumque et angiportuum; Plu.A/ex26; and see in general G.Busolt-H.Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde 2, München 1926,1268; Schmid 1947,176 ff.; Dougherty 1993,22 f. 43.60 For the chiastic arrangement of this line see comm, on ff. 18,10. Τρινακρίηα this refers to Sicily; see comm, on ff. 40. On the short second syllable see comm, on ff. 1,44 πατρίοιε. είτεβηεα[ν: on the plural after Xaóc in 58 as a constructio ad sententiam see comm, on ff. 1,17. The verb επιβαίνω + genitive is already well attested in early Greek epic; cf. e.g. Od.22,424 άναιδείηε επεβηεαν; 23,13; Hes.Op.659; h.Cer. 127 ηπείρου επεβηεαν. ετείχιςεαν δε πόληα: ετείχιςεαν is a better reading than ετείχιζον (see also Massimilla 1990α,18 f.) and the aorist fits in with the aorists in 60 and 72; for the double sigma cf. also ff. 75,70 τείχιεεε and h.4,50 εξείνιεεαν. In Homer τειχίζομ αι is hapax in 11.7,449 τεΐχοε ετειχίεεαντο νεών ΰπερ, but after Homer the active τειχίζω is well attested, particularly in prose; for the transitive use ‘to wall (a city)’ see LSJ s.v. τειχίζω II. For the

339

expression used here cf. e.g. Th. 1,93,1 τήν πόλιν ετείχιεαν; Str.14,1,6,635C τειχίεαι πόλιν; 17,1,6,792C. πόληα: this form of the accusative singular of πόλιε is not found in Homer, but other forms with πόλη- are attested in II.3,50; 4,45; 16,395; and Od. 17,486. The form πόληα is also found in [Hes.] Sc. 105 ρύεταί re πόληα; SH 946,10 φιλίην ρύεεθε πόληα and Callimachus uses the plural in ff. 75,70. On Callimachus’ use of forms of πόλιε which are not attested in Homer see also McLennan on h. 1, 82. 43.61- 7 This passage about the role of bird omens at the foundation of towns is a learned digression, put into the Muse’s mouth and concluded with some good advice in case her addressee were ever to found a colony. As observed by Schmid 1947,61 f., the emphasis on these bird-signs may help to underline the hazards of founding a city, an enterprise in which many things could easily go wrong. Bird omens are already attested in various contexts in Homer, e.g. in ff.l0,274ff. (a heron); 13,821 ff. (an eagle); 24,315fif.; (an eagle); Od.24,311 f. (birds), and are well attested in post-Homeric poetry too, as in e.g. Pi.P.4,189ff. (birds); N.9,18f. (birds); AR 1,1084 ff. (a halcyon); 3,545 ff. (dove and hawk). They are sometimes connected with the founda­ tions of cities, as here; cf. Plu.A/ex26 (a large group of various birds at the foundation of Alexandria); Curt.Ruf.4,8,6 (about auium greges); and for a comparable omen of snakes at the foundation of Troy Pi.O.8,37 ff. See further H.Stockinger, Die Vorzeichen im homerischen Epos, St.Ottilien 1959,129 ff; Pollard 1977,116ff; Malkin 1987,108 f. The passage may also reflect Callimachus’ own scholarship, as he wrote a work Π ερί όρνεων (ff. 414-28), which also dealt with birds of omen (ft. 428), and it seems to have fitted in with a general interest in ornithomantia in the Hellenistic period (see also Ehlers 1933,44 ff). For bird omens elsewhere in Callimachus’ poetic works cf. Hec.fr. 327 (= f. 47,9-10 Hollis) and ff. 528; and see comm, on ff. 137a,6. 43.61- 2 άρπαεον οιωνών . . . I εχθιετον κτίετηιειν: ‘the harpasos, which of the ominous birds is the one most hateful for colonists’. The άρπαεοε is a bird of prey related to the άρπη, the ‘Lämmergeier’, which may be a bad omen; cf. ff. 43a on 61 (which may be no more than a guess based on the text of Callimachus; see Ehlers 1933,36 n.93) and for the story of the bird’s origin Ant.Lib.20,5. See further Keller 1909-13,2,29; Thompson 1936,55 f.; Pollard 1977,79 f. The word is here attested for the first time; see Schmitt 1970,125. The word οίωνόε is used of ominous birds already in Homer, e.g. in II. 12,237 and Od. 1,202. Callimachus also uses it in this sense in A. 1,68 (where see McLennan). For εχθιετον of a bird cf. Euphorion fr. 4 Powell ον

Commentary 43,61-2

Commentary 43,62

S’ η εice κακόν γάμον εχθομενη κρεζ; Ant.Lib.21,5 γϋπα, . . . πάντων ορνίθων εχθιετον θεοίε τε καί άνθρώποιε. With κτίετηιειν Callimachus seems to make use of a technical term (used again in 69), which he may have found in his historical sources, as the noun is attested mainly in prose from the 4th cent, b c onwards and sometimes also found in inscriptions; see G.Pasquali, ΟΙκιετήρ, Gioita 5,1914,197-202, esp. 201 f.; Schmitt 1970,68; Casevitz 1985,69 ff. (who on p. 70 observes that strictly speaking ‘les κτίετα ι sont fondateurs effectifs, maitres d’oeuvre et bàtisseurs’). The words generally used in poetry are κτίετω ρ (e.g. Pi.fr. 105(a),3; E.Ion 74) or οίκιετηρ (e.g. Pi.O.7,30; h.2,67), but sometimes we also find κτίετηε in poetry, as in Lyc.964 and Antip. Thess.AP 9,557,2 (= GP 510). See also comm, on 79. ούχ'ι φυλά[εεάμενοι: for another description of the ignoring of a bird omen cf. fr. 528 ό δ’ ηλεοε οϋτ in i είττην I βλεφαε. 43,62 ερωώιό[ε: the heron is a good omen, which apparently could neutral­ ize the bad effects of the άρπαεοε. He appears as a good sign also in //.10,274 ff. and Hippon.fr. 16 West and in Σ bT //.10,274 ff. and the com­ mentary in Hippon.fr. 118B West he is said to be a good omen for Odysseus and Diomedes because he is άρπακτικόε (see also Slings in Bremer et al. 1987,79 f.). Callimachus himself spoke about three kinds of herons in fr. 427; for further references see Ehlers 1933,38 f. n.97; Thompson 1936,102 ff.; Pollard 1977,68 f.; Massimilla ad loc. and Kidd on Arat.913 and 972. Reports on the neutralizing effects of omens on each other are not found in Greek literature, but there are some instances in Latin literature; see Ehlers 1933,38 f. et μ ή έφε]ρπει: the supplement is attractive because the simplex is also used of a bird in A.Pr.1024 (of Zeus’ eagle), and, although often έρπω means little more than simply ‘to come’ (see LSJ s.v. έρπω 2), the verb is well suited to describe the slow and steady flight of a heron (see also A.Brehm, Brehms Tierleben 6.1. Die Vögel, Leipzig-Wien 19204,150 ‘ihr Flug . .. einförmig und schlaff’; Ehlers 1933,37 n.96). Besides, compounds of έρπω are attested several times in this position, in e.g. h.2,111 άνερπει (where see Williams) and 4,92 καθερπον, and εφερπω is attested also in Theoc.22,15 νυκτόε εφερπούεηε (where see Sens). According to Pfeiffer the supplement cannot be regarded as certain because it implies correption in the first short syllable of a dactyl, i.e. in a position where Callimachus does not normally allow correption in elegiacs (see Introd. 7.4). However, this objection does not seem fatal because (1) there are some exceptions in elegiacs; cf. h.5,71 ΐππω in i κράναi; Ep.62,2 Kefrat iv Ό ρτυγίηι; and see further Bulloch on h.5,71 and Pfeiffer on

Hec.fr. 284 (= 48,7 Hollis), who list some examples from the Hecale, where it is more common, and from the Anthologia Palatina, where it is also rare; (2) as Pfeiffer himself observes, ei μη εφε]ρπει may be reminiscent of II. 18,454 et μη Α πόλλω ν and 23,792 et μη Ά χ ιλ λ ε ί in the same metrical position. 43.63- 5 It seems best to take—with Pfeiffer— ßacKa[i]veL first as transitive with πύργον as its object (‘he bewitches the walls when they are erected’) and then as intransitive (‘and casts a spell when the surveyors throw out the measuring ropes .. . ’) rather than again as transitive (‘and bewitches the measuring ropes, when the surveyors throw them out . . . ’). Thus the spell affects both essential activities as a whole, without laying undue emphasis on the ropes. For a somewhat similar juxtaposition of a noun and a temporal clause cf. fr. 178,1 f. 43,63 καί γα ρ ό: whereas in 12 καμ γάρ εγώ and fr. 178,11 similar words introduce the application of a general statement to a specific situation, here they introduce a general description of the spell cast by the harpasos (to whom o' must refer) to explain why the colonists ignored him to their cost. βαεκαίνει: the verb is well attested from the 5th cent, bc onwards, mainly in prose, but also several times in Hellenistic poetry, as in e.g. Theoc.5,13; 6,39; Euph.fr. 175,2 Powell; see further Massimilla ad loc. On the destruc­ tive glances of birds see S.Seligmann, Die Zauberkraft des Auges und das Berufen, Den Haag 1922(?),158 ff. πύργον . . . i[yeipójuev]ov: the supplement may be supported by h.2,64 θεμείλια .. . εγείρειν, where Williams ad loc. observes that the verb is not attested in the sense ‘to erect’ in poetry before Callimachus and gives examples of this use in prose (e.g. D.C.42,12,1 πύργουε . . . εγείραντοε) and later poetry, suggesting that it may have been a colloquial use of the verb. The noun πύργοε is used of city-walls already in Homer, e.g. in //.3,153; Od.6,262 f. πόλιοε .. ., ην περί πύργοε I ύφηλόε. 43.64- 5 The process of the division and measuring of the land, which is here described in some detail, is an essential part of the foundation of cities (see on 60 ff.). It is parodied in Ar.Av.992 ff., where Meton arrives as a townplanner in Cloudcuckootown (see Dunbar on 992-1020), and referred to more briefly in h.2,55 πόλιαε διεμετρηεαντο (where see Williams). The word-order in 64 is complex: (1) καί, which connects the objects of the verb in 63, is placed second in the clause (see comm, on fr. 1,15); (2) γεω δαΐται, the subject of the temporal clause is taken out of this clause and placed before καί; (3) the conjunction eure is preceded by the clause’s subject, object, and an adverb (see further comm, below). The effect seems to be similar to that in 53 (where see comm.).

340

341

Commentary 43,64-5

Commentary 43,65

γεωδαΐται: the noun indicates ‘the people who divide the land’ and is here attested for the first time (see Schmitt 1970,67) and may have been a technical term. The substantive γεωδαιεία is attested already in IG 9.1 (2), 609A, a ll (Naupactus, c.500 b c ) yaSatciac; Arist.Metaph.2,997b26; for later instances of γεω δαίτηε, -Saicryc, -Saucia, -δαιτεομαι see LSJ s.v. As the word is part of a general description of the effects of the harpasos there is no need to regard it as anachronistic (see Fabian 1992,246; Magnelli 1994,478). For the synizesis cf. Ep. 6,1 Κρεωφύλου (instead of τού €αμίου), which, however, may be a gloss (see Gow-Page on HE 1293). cirapra: these are here the ropes used for dividing the town. The word is hapax in II.2,135 επάρτα λέλυνται, where it is used of ships’ cables, and apart from this passage it is attested only in prose (e.g. Hdt.5,16,3; Th.4,48,3). For the use of ropes in a similar context cf. Hdt.1,66,2 καί καλόν πεδίον εχοίνωι διαμετρήεαεθαι (in an oracle). Stηνίεκέα i.e. the streets were marked off from beginning to end; cf. Aristid.Or.25,6 (about Rhodos) άγυιάε . . . εξ άρχηε eie τέλοε διηνεκείε, η /«era άξί'ac καλέ leda ι ετενοπούε· λαμπρόν S i λαμπρώ ε α ποτετα ­ μένων πανταχη την πόλιν; IG 7,3073, col.II 108; and also h.Ap.254 f. διέθηκε θεμείλια Φοΐβοε Α πόλλω ν I εύρέα καί μάλα διηνεκέε. On διηνεκήε in other contexts see also comm, on fr. 1,3. ευτει on eure as an epic conjunction, frequently used by Callimachus and Apollonius, see Bulloch on h.5,60. It is here placed very late in the clause (see above), but elsewhere too we often find it in the second position in a clause (e.g. in h.2,87; 5,60; fr. 324 and probably fr. 137a,11), like other conjunctions (cf. e.g. fr. 178,9 f.). This technique to place words to which the reader’s attention must be drawn before the conjunction is already attested in Homer (e.g. II. 16,762; 17,59 f.); see KG 2,598 (who give examples from Homer, Attic prose, and Aristophanes). 43,65 The mention of two kinds of streets recalls the opposition between wide roads and narrow paths in fr. 1,27 f., but here no programmatic notion seems to be present. On the other hand, there may well be a reference to the Hippodamic system of town-planning, which was based on a grid of wide and narrow streets (πλατεΐαι and ετενωποί); so e.g. Schmid 1947,62; Pfeiffer ad loc.; Leschhorn 1984,19. This system became common from the 5th/4th cent, b c onwards, but excavations have shown that it had its roots in the archaic period; see F.Castagnoli, ‘Recenti ricerche sull’ urbanistica Ippodamea’, Arch.Class. 15,1963,180-97 (who on 183 ff. gives a list of Hippodamean towns, which includes various Sicilian cities, but not Zancle); R.E.Wycherley, ‘Hippodamos et Rhodes’, Historia 12,1964,135-9 (esp. 139). In any case the description need not imply that Zancle was built

according to the Hippodamic system, as this passage is only part of a general description of the effects of the harpasos. creivea: these must be the narrow alleyways between the wider streets. This rare word is first attested of narrow or confined spaces in //.23,419 crefvoc οδού κοίληε; 12,66; Od.22,460; in Callimachus we find it also in fr. 384,10 of the Isthmus of Corinth. λευράε . . . ό]δουα these are the wide streets as opposed to the narrow alleyways. The adjective, which is found only in poetic texts, is attested as early as Od. 7,123 λευρώι iv i χώ ρωι, and like the more prosaic πλατύε (cf. fr. 1,27) can be used of surfaces which are wide or flat (cf. Σ V Od.7,123; Σ Lyc.159). It is more common in the latter sense, but for its use of width cf. e.g. A.Pr.394 λευ ρ ό ν. . . οΐμον aWépoc and Lyc.268 λευράε . . . δι ανλακοε (with Σ ad loc. λευρέ tc λίαν ενρείαε). τάμ[ωειν: for the use of this verb in similar contexts cf. e.g. PiJ.6,22 τέτμα νθ’ έκατόμπεδοι iv εχερώι κέλευθοι; Th.2,100,2 όδονε ενθείαε έτεμε (sc. Archelaus); Hdt.4,136,2; Vitruv. 1,6,1 secantur. 43,66-7 Theoretically these lines could be addressed to the reader, as in a rather similar passage in Musae.23 f. cv δ’, et πο τέ κεΐθι περηεειε, I δίζεό μοί τινα πύργον, but because this is part of a dialogue it is more likely that Clio addresses Callimachus. Apparently she concludes her digression about bird omens with some advice for him: if he should ever found a colony, he must go with the good omen of the buzzard and another bird (on which see below). The Muse’s advice may remind the readers of Callimachus’ ancestor Battus, who founded Cyrene (cf. h.2,65 ff. with Williams ad loc.), and if fr. 178 preceded this fragment the suggestion would be a slight joke on Clio’s account, because the reader would just have been informed that Callimachus had so far never even sailed the sea (cf. fr. 178,32 ff. with comm.). For a somewhat similar wish for good birdomens cf. h.1,68 fi; for some other birds of good omen in Callimachus see Massimilla on 66. Asyndeton is not uncommon in sentences which, like 66 fi, contain a kind of conclusion from a preceding statement; cf. e.g. Pi.0.3,44f. t o πόρεω δ’ e m ' coyote άβατον I κάεάφοιε. ου vtv δίώξω; see further KG 2,342 fi 43,66 μέρμν[ο]υ μοι π τερ νγεεει...... [........ ]ου τ ε νέοιο: after the lacuna ] ρ υ re suggests the genitive of another bird. Before the lacuna veirit [ with a small vertical trace after the t is a likely reading (for other possibilities see the apparatus). This excludes many of the supplements which have been suggested, but leaves Housman’s ίκτινοε as a very suitable option, because επικ[τείν]ου or επιι[κτιν]ου with scriptio plena would both suit the space and traces. According to Ehlers 1933,40 + n.102 fr. 43a on 66 f. could

342

343

344

Commentary 43,66

support αίγυπιον rather than Ικτίνου, but αι[ in the scholion may also be part of αι[ειοε vel sim. and in our line q[ cannot be read. If επ ’ Ικ[τίν]ρυ were right, one could interpret the whole line in two ways: (1) ‘may you go with the wings of the buzzard and the kite’, with both genitives dependent on πτερύγεεειν and επ ί indicating the circum­ stances under which the journey takes place; cf. for this use of the preposition e.g. //.4,175 άτελευτήτω ι επί εργcot; S.OC 1554 f. κάπ’ εύπραξίαι I μεμνηεθε μου (with Jebb ad loc.); see further LSJ s.v. επ ί Β 1 1 i; (2) ‘may you go with the wings of the buzzard and supported by the kite’, in which case μερμν[ο]υ . . . πτερύγεεειν must be taken as a dative of the accompanying circumstances, as in Hippon.fr. 16 W εγώ δε δεξιώι παρ’ Ά ρήτην I κνεφαΐοε ελθών ’ρωιδιώι κατηυλίεθην, S.OT 52 ορνίθι . . . αίείωι (see further KG 1,435,6), and επ ί + genitive in επ’ ίκ[τίν]ρυ may indicate some sort of support, as more often with verbs of motion; cf. e.g. S.OC 746f. επί προεπόλου μιάε I .. . χωροΰντα (see further KG 1,497). On the whole (1), with the preposition placed άπο κοινού with the second noun, is the most attractive and derives support from similar arrangements in e.g. h.2,8 μολπήν τε καί εε χορόν and fr. 714,3 (see further Wilamowitz on E.HF237). The iKTivoc (‘kite’, ‘Milvus Regalis’ LSJ s.v.), also called ίκτίν, is well attested in post-Homeric poetry and prose; cf. e.g. Semon.fr. 12 W; Thgn.1261; 1302; S. F 111; 767; Ar.Av.502, where the kite is greeted as the first sign of spring (see Dunbar ad loc., who also refers to other passages, where the kite’s thievish character is prominent). It is mentioned together with the ίερακεε, of which the μερμνοε is a subspecies, in Pl.P/id.82a,4 τα τω ν λύκων τε καί ίεράκων καί ίκτίνων γένη. See further Keller 1909—13, 2,16 ff.; Thompson 1936,119 ff.; Pollard 1977,39 f. μερμν[ο\υ·. this noun is here attested for the first time and is probably a non-Greek word; see Ehlers 1933,40 n.100; Schmitt 1970,105; Frisk 2,211 s.v. μερμνοε. The μερμνοε must have been a kind of hawk or buzzard, as can be derived from Hsch. μ 884 Latte s.v. μερμνηε- τρίορχοε. It was sacred to Cybele according to Ael.NA 12,4 and considered as an important omen in Plin.NH 10,21 triorchem a numero testium, cui principatum in auguriis Phemonoe dedit. Callimachus probably discussed the family of birds to which the μερμνοε belonged, the ίερακεε, in his Π ερί όρνεων (cf. fr. 420 with Pfeiffer ad loc.). See further Keller 1909-13,2,14 f.; Thompson 1936,201. μοι: the dative suggests that the Muse is concerned about her addressee’s fate. πτερύγεεει: the wings are mentioned in contexts of bird omens also in Hec.fr. 327 (= f . 47,9 f. Hollis) αίθυίηε .. . ώπό πτερύγεεειν ελυε- I

Commentary 43,66

345

π ε ίε ^ α τ α and /j.5,123 f. γνω εεΐται (sc. Teiresias) δ’ δρνιχαε, δε cuci oc οΐ τ ε πετονται I ήλιθα καί ποιων ούκ άγαθαί πτερυγεε. In the first example the emphasis is on the kind of bird involved, as here, in the second it seems to be rather on the wings’ position; see further Bulloch on /i.5,124 n.2. ve'oio: this is best regarded as an optative of νεομαι (see also Magnelli 1994,478). 43.67 κΓοτ6π|[,].,ι/ν: Hunt proposed reading κοτ’ ε(π)ί ξ[ε]ίνην (and was followed by e.g. d’Alessio 1996,2,428 n.25). His supplement ξ[ε]ίγην is palaeographically attractive and suits the sense and general Greek usage (for examples of ξένη sc. γ ή cf. e.g. S.P/i.135; Lyc.415; see further LSJ s.v. ξένη 2). The preposition, however, is not necessary, as Callimachus may well have used a simple accusative of direction with a verb of motion (similarly Barigazzi 1975α, 12 f. and Massimilla ad loc.; see also comm, on 36 above). For examples of this use with άγω cf. e.g. II.7,363; S.Ant.810ff; Ph. 1174 f.; AR 1,1316; see further KG 1,311 f. For a rejection of Fabian’s suggestions (see app.) see Magnelli 1994,478. We may therefore read κοτ’ ετι, in which ετι must refer to the future (‘hereafter’) as in e.g. A.Pr.907 f. ή μην ετι Ζ εύε . . . I εεται ταπεινόε (for more examples see LSJ s.v. ετι 13). λαόν εποικον a[yoic: strictly speaking εποικοε, which is first attested in Pi. 0.9,69, indicates people who arrive as new inhabitants in addition to people who are already there (as in e.g. Ar.Av.1307 with Dunbar ad loc.), but it is often found in a more general sense of colonists (as in e.g. Th.6,4,3); see Casevitz 1985,155 ff. The supplement may be supported with Ant.Lib.4,4 λαόν εποικον άγαγεΐν eie Ά μβρακίαν and 58 f. above with the passages quoted there. 43.68 On the versus spondiacus see comm, on fr. 1,31. As Fabian 1992,250 observes, here the weight of the building materials may be reflected in the metre. άλλ’ ore δή·. after offering a piece of advice to her addressee the Muse rather abruptly reverts to the main story. For the use of αλλά to mark such transitions cf. e.g. Hes.T7i.35 άλλα τίη μοι τα ϋτα περί δρΰν ή περί πετρην; S.Ph.ll; E.A/c.1034; £/.1123; see further Denniston 19542,8 about άλλά ‘sometimes . .. marking a break-off in the thought’. With δη ‘mind you’ the reader’s or listener’s special attention is drawn to the information which follows, i.e. to the fact that the bad omens were fulfilled as soon as the building activities were completed; see on this particle Wakker 1994,351 ff. μόεενναε: this word is an Iranian loan-word and is here best taken as ‘the wooden city-walls’ (i.e. the πύργοε mentioned in 63), as is also suggested by the explanations in the ancient lexicographers and grammarians; cf.

Commentary 43,68

Commentary 43,69

Hsch. μ 1702 Latte s.v. μόεευν ητύργοε: μ 1704 Latte s.v. μόεευνεεεπάλξειε. πύργοι; Sud. μ 1272 s.v. μόεευνεε· επάλξειε. πύργοι; EtGud.322,19 Sturz μόε(ε)υν . . . εημαίνει δε τον ξύλινον πύργον; Choer.in Theod., GrGr. IV 1,269,4 f. H /xócw (εημαίνει Si τον ξύλινον πύργον). See further Frisk 2,258 f. s.v. μόεευν; Schmitt 1970,107. The noun is first attested in X.An.5,4,26, where the μόεευνεε are the towers used by the Mossynoeci as a means of defence, in which, at the end of the battle, they are burned. The connection with these people is also prominent in AR 2,381 ff. δουρατεοιε πύργοιειν iv οικία τεκτήναντεε I κάλινα καί θαλάμουε εύπηγεαε, οΰε καλεουειν I μόεευναε· και 8’ αυτοί επώνυμοι ενθεν εαειν, where the name of the Mossynoeci is explained because of their houses (μόεευνεε) in towers (cf. also AR 2,1016 f.; Σ AR 2,377-80; and see Delage 1930,177f.; Frankel 1968,176 f.). In Lyc.433 μόεευναε Έ κ τη νω ν (the walls of Thebes; cf. Σ ad loc.) and 1432 μόεευνα φ ηγότευκτον (of the Athenian fleet as a τεΐχοε ξύλινον, see Mooney ad loc.), however, we find the word without a reference to the Mossynoeci, as in our passage. Callimachus’ text, like AR 2,381 ff., betrays some effort to make it clear what μόεευνεε means: according to him they are a πύργοε (as in 63), built around the town (69) and fortified with battlements (68). επάλξεει: this word is well attested in poetry and prose from II. 12,263 onwards. For its use of battlements which strengthen walls or other build­ ings cf. Hdt.9,7,1 αμα Si τό τεΐχόε εφι . . . καί ηδη επάλξιε ελαμβανε; Th.4,69,2 αί οίκίαι τού προαετείου επάλξειε λαμβάνουεαι αυται ύπηρχον ερυμα; and the explanations in Σ A II.22,3 επάλξειε γάρ ο i τών τειχώ ν λεγόμενοι προμαχώνεε; Sud. e 1946 s.v. επάλξειε· προμαχώνεε οι τών τειχεω ν καί τών πύργων. [καρτυνθε]νταε: Hunt’s supplement is attractive. Of the strengthening of fortifications this verb is found mainly in prose (in e.g. Th.3,18,1 τείχη κρατύναντεε; 1,69,1; Hdt.7,156,1), but for related uses in poetry cf. also 1/. 11,215 εκαρτύναντο φ άλαγγαε (= 12,415; 16,563; Hes.T7i.676); AR 2,1087 εκαρτύναντο μέλαθρον, Theoc.22,80 f. επείρηιειν εκαρτύναντο βοείαιε I χεΐραε (where see Sens). 43,69-71 Clio refers to the new town not by its name, but by an etymological explanation of it, in which, thanks to the intricate word-order, the crucial word ζάγκλον appears only towards the end. Besides, allusions and mytho­ logical discussion add to the complexity of the description. 43,69 κ τίετα ι: see comm, on ff. 43,62. δρεπανον . . . πε[ρί Κρόνιο]ν: as is clear from 70 f. this must refer to the sacred spot where the sickle was hidden with which Cronus castrated his father Uranus (for the story cf. Hes.T7i.l54ff), which could be used as a pars pro toto to indicate the new town (so also Ehlers 1933,46 f.). Elsewhere

too there is evidence of towns being built around or near a sacred spot, as in e.g. AR 2,848 f. άμφί S i τη νγε φ ά λα γγα παλαιγενεοε κοτίνοιο I άετυ βαλεΐν (i.e. around the memorial of Idmon) and ff. ll,4ff. (Polae founded near the tomb of Harmonia); for more examples see Ehlers 1933,49 n. 122-3. The supplement is certain because of εκ^ξίν^ε in 70, which must refer back to Cronus. The word δρεπανον, which is hapax in Od. 18,368 and the usual form in prose and comedy (as opposed to the more poetic δρεπάνη), is also used of the sickle of Cronus in Hes.T7i.162 τεύξε (sc. Gaia) μ εγα δρεπανον. On the use and shape of ancient sickles, which are often found in stories about the amputation of monsters, see West on Hes.T7i.175. 43,70-1 These lines, in which the castration of Uranus by Cronus is described, recall Hes.T7i.l80f. φίλου δ’ από μηδεα πατρόε I εεευμενωε ημηεε; Archil.fr. 222 W ΐναε δε μελεων (τών μεεων) άπεθριεε; Antim.fr. 51 Μ λε'χριε δε δρεπάνωι τεμνων άπο μηδεα πατρόε I Ουρανού Άκμονίδεω λάειοε Κρόνοε άντιτετυκτο; AR 4,982 ff. νηεοε, I fji υπο δη κείεθαι δρεπανον φ άτιε — ί'λατε Μ ούcat, I ούκ εθελων ενεπω προτερων έποε— ώι άπο πατρόε I μηδεα νηλειώε εταμεν Κρόνοε. Callimachus’ text contains elements from all his predecessors (see also below on άπεθριεε) and has the relative clause in common with Apollonius. In Apollonius, however, the description refers to the island of the Phaeacians instead of Zancle and the parenthetic disclaimer may under­ line the fact that he disagrees with Callimachus, where Clio relates the sickle to Zancle (see also Livrea ad loc.). In a similar way 70 f. with the emphatic κεΐθι may underline Callimachus’ disagreement with Apollonius’ version. For further discussion of these passages in relation to each other see e.g. Pfeiffer 1922,63 ff.; Reinsch-Werner 1976,339 ff.; Eichgrün 1961,137 ff.; MagneUi 1995a,103 f. κεΐθι: by beginning his parenthesis with this word Callimachus stresses the fact that the sickle with which Cronus castrated his father was buried in Zancle and not elsewhere as others thought. According to others the sickle was buried: (1) on Corcyra; cf. e.g. Timae. FGrH 566 F 79; (2) on the island of the Phaeacians; cf. AR 4,982 ff. (quoted above), where Apollonius records a dispute about the sickle at the island of the Phaeacians, which he does not call Corcyra (see on ff. 12,4), and states that legend attributes the sickle to Zeus, but others to Demeter; Lyc.761 f.; (3) in Drepanon in the west of Sicily; cf. e.g. Lyc.869; or (4) elsewhere; for further references see Ehlers 1933,48 f. n. 121. γονήοε: for γονεύε cf. ff. 41,2 with comm. The choice of this word instead of πατρόε, as in Hesiod, Antimachus, and Apollonius (quoted above), may be a deliberate variation (see Reinsch-Werner 1976, 340).

346

347

Commentary 43,70—1

Commentary 43,72

àirédpice: with this verb (well attested in post-Homeric poetry and later prose) Callimachus seems to imitate earlier variations of Hesiod, like Archil.fr. 222 W (quoted above), which varies Hes.77i.181 ημηεε, because θερίζω too is used of harvesting and mowing (there is a comparable vari­ ation of Hes.Th.181 ημηεε, πάλιν 8’ ερριφε in S.Aj.238 f. τον μεν κεφαλήν καί γλώ εεαν άκραν I ρ ίπ τει θερίεαε). For the aorist with -θρ- cf. also e.g. AR 2,601 παρεθριεαν; and see further Kannicht on E.He/.1188; for more poetic examples of the verb see Massimilla ad loc. γ ν π η ι . .. virò χβονίηι: for γν π η cf. Hsch. γ 1019 s.v. γνπη- κοίλωμα γήε. θαλάμη, γω νία; γ 1018 s.v. γύπαε. Apart from these lemmata the word is attested only here; see further Frisk 1,335 s.v. γνπη; Schmitt 1970,84. The adjective χθόνιoc is well attested in post-Homeric poetry and prose. ζάγκλον; this is a Sicilian word for sickle, from which the name Zancle was supposed to be derived (cf. ff. 43a on 71 and see Schmitt 1970,94; Frisk 1,606 s.v. ζάγκλη). In this respect there were two different explanations: (1) the name was derived from the sickle used by Cronus; cf. apart from our passage also e.g. St.Byz. s.v. Ζ ά γκ λη · .. . oi 8ε διά το εκεί Κρόνον το 8ρεπανον άποκρνφαι, ώι τά τον πατροε απεκοφεν αιδοία (which is reminiscent of Callimachus); Σ Lyc.869; (2) Zancle was thus called because its shape was like a sickle; cf. Th.6,4,5 όνομα 8ε το μεν πρώτον Ζ ά γκ λ η ην νπό τω ν Cικελών κληθείεα, ότι δρεπανοειδεε την ίδεαν το χωρίον εετί (το 8ε δρεπανον οΐ €ικελοι ζάγκλον καλονειν); Str.6,2,3, 268C; Nic.fr. 21 G-S καί t i c καί Ζ ά γκ λη ε εδάη δρεπανηίδοε άετν. Elsewhere we find yet other explanations of the name; cf. D.S. 4,85,1; St.Byz.s.v. Ζ ά γκλη. For some Latin references to the etymology see Massimilla ad loc. 43,72-4 The remains of the text suggest something like: ‘they disagreed about the town—one of them (6 μεν) wanted to be called its founder, but the other (ό δε) was against it— and then they had a quarrel’. The contents of the disagreement may be derived from the question to Apollo in 75: ‘they asked to whom the newly founded town should belong’, i.e. who should be regarded and honoured as its founder, to which Apollo answers in 76 f. that the town shall belong to neither of them. See for this interpret­ ation also Ehlers 1933,51 ff.; Leschhorn 1984,19 f. Hunt’s notion that the quarrel was about the town’s name is not supported by the context, although there are parallels for such quarrels (see on 58 ff.) and the habit of naming towns after their founders was popular in the Hellenistic period (see Schmid 1947,60 f. and on the naming of the new town as an important part of the colonization also Dougherty 1993,24). 43,72 ,[ l.icav άμφί πόλη oc: ά μφ ί is probably used in the sense ‘about’,

‘for the possession o f (LSJ s.v. άμφ ί A 1), as in e.g. II. 16,824 f. μάχεεθον I πίδακοε άμφί όλίγηε. The verb at the beginning of the line probably described the first stage of the disagreement (see also Körte 1932,39; Deubner 1942,27), while ελνηεαν in 74 described a more advanced and violent stage, where the disagreement had developed into a real quarrel. Of the proposals made so far ηριεαν, which is also defended by Körte 1932,39 and Magnelli 1994,478, fits these conditions best and seems to fit the traces (see app.). The verb ερίζω is well attested from Homer onwards and its construction with ά μφ ί is conceivable; cf. e.g. 71.12,423 ερίζητον περί ϊεηε; 23,88 άμφ ’ άετραγάλοιει χολωθείε (ν.1. άμφ’ άετραγάληιειν ipiccac) and for ηριεαν in the same metrical position Rufin.AP 5,36,1 ηριεαν άλληλαιε. On the verb’s use in Hellenistic poetry see Williams on h.2,25. Besides, the use of ερίζω here might add a touch of irony by reminding the readers of the first mention of the epic quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles in 71.1,6 εζ ον δη τά πρώ τα διαετητην ερίεάντε. Other proposals are less attractive: (1) Hunt’s c [i]t’ fray, which implies that the founders walked round the town, would introduce a non-Greek habit into the story (see Ehlers 1933,49ff.+ n.125); (2) Ehlers’ dv]r’ fray is not likely because άντα τινόε Ιεναi must refer to actual fighting (cf. e.g. 71.20,75; 355 etc.), a stage Perieres and Crataemenes have not yet reached; (3) Deubner 1942,27 f. argues for εεχιεαν to indicate the initial disagree­ ment, but, although he is right to expect this kind of content, the verb is attested in the required sense with certainty only in the middle voice (see the examples adduced by Deubner 1942,27 f.); (4) Barigazzi 1975α,14 suggests ε[ΐ\ειεαν, as a technical term for taking part in a public dispute in Athens (see LSJ s.v. εϊεειμι III 2). This is considered as attractive by Massimilla ad loc., but does not seem to be very well suited to a town under construction (similarly Magnelli 1994,478); (5) F.Ferrari apud d’Alessio 1996,2,429 n.27 suggests ε[λ]πκαν, but the construction with ά μφ ί is not attested elsewhere. 43,72-3 ό μεν 0c[............ ]ec0at θε[λε(ν) is a likely supplement; see comm, on ff. 75,28. At the end of the line and the beginning of 73 one may expect a concrete wish to be regarded and honoured as the town’s founder, which the other founder opposed (see also Ehlers 1933,52 f.; Kalinka 1934,1220; Barigazzi 1975α,13). Supplements should take into account that at the beginning of 73 γαΐαν would be a possible reading; for this noun indicating Zancle cf. also 79. The pattern with ό μεν . . . , ό δε explaining the preceding statement about a disagreement recalls passages like Hdt.7,219,2 εφεων εεχίζοντο at γνώμαι- oi μεν γάρ .. ., οί δε άντετεινον and X.Smp.4,59 (adduced by Deubner 1942,27 f.).

348

349

350

Commentary 43,72-3

άντίξουν: this is an Ionic word (related to the verb ξέω) first attested in Heraclit.fr. 8,1 DK and used in the sense ‘adverse’ several times by Herodo­ tus, in e.g. 8,119 iv μυρίηιει γνώ μηιει μίαν ούκ έχω άντίξοον; 1,174,4; 6,50,2; 7,218,2. In poetry one may compare e.g. Pi.0.13,34 Ν έμεά τ ’ ούκ αντίξοεΐ (where the verb is explained as a metaphor from wood-shaving in Σ Pi.0.13,46c) and AR 2,79 νήια δοΰρα θοοίε αντίξοα γόμφοιε (where the adjective has been interpreted as ‘adjoining’ or ‘opposite’; see Cuypers ad loc.). See further Schmitt 1970,145. διχο[φροεύνην. this substantive is not attested before Callimachus, but the adjective διχόφρων occurs in A.TTt.899 (ου) διχόφρονι πότμω ι, with reference to the tragic quarrel of Eteocles and Polynices, and the words recall such pairs as εώφρων and εωφροεύνη. The substantive recurs in later prose (e.g. Plu.T/ies.12,2 ταραχηε μεετά καί διχοφροεύνηε; Poll.8,153; D.Chr.44,10; see further LSJ s.v.). Hunt’s other suggestion διχο[εταείην seems less likely, as it would be less suited to describe one person’s state of mind in the stage before the actual quarrel in 74. It is, however, well attested in post-Homeric poetry; cf. e.g. Thgn.78; B.ll,64ff. (about the quarrel between Proetus and Acrisius); h.3,133 ούδε διχοεταείη τρώει γένοε (where see Bornmann); AR 4,500; for more examples see Massimilla ad loc.; Iannuci 1998,174 ff. (who defends διχο[εταείην as suited to the public character of the quarrel, which turns it into ετάειε). 43,74-8 The historicity of the oracle is hard to establish and has been dis­ puted. According to Ehlers 1933,58 ff. the whole story was invented by Callimachus, inspired by the story of Thurii (see on 58 ff), in order to relate the anonymous cult to the foundation-story, but this would seem unlike Callimachus’ practice elsewhere, where he draws attention to the fact that he is using sources. Ehlers’ idea is therefore rightly regarded as unlikely by Swiderek 1952-3,53, who suggests that Callimachus found some elements in the tradition, which he elaborated himself, and by Massimilla 1996,341, who suggests that Callimachus found the consultation of the oracle in a historical source. The element of the oracle definitely relates the aition to the historiographic rather than to the epic tradition, as there are no scenes of consultation of oracles in Homer, but only two brief references to this practice in Od. 19,296 ff. (Dodona); 8,79 ff. (Delphi) (see H.W.Parke, Greek Oracles, London 1967,16 ff.; Hainsworth on Od.8,79-82). On the role of Apollo’s oracle at Delphi in matters of colonization in general see Schmid 1947,154 ff; Graham 1964,26; Leschhorn 1984,105 ff For another consultation of Apollo in the Aetia cf. fr. 75,20 ff. with comm. 43,74 έλύηεαν: the verb is a hapax and derived from the Doric/Aeolic

Commentary 43,74

351

substantive λύα; cf. Choer.in Theod., GrGr. TV 2,162,28 λυώ δε εετι το εταειάζω and 424,22 Η; Hsch. λ 1322 s.v. λυάται· εταειάζει, διαφέρεται. The substantive λυα ‘quarrel’ is attested in Alc.fr. 36,11 ε]υνθέμενοι λύαιε (for evidence on λυα = ετάειε see Voigt on Alc.fr. 70,10; Iannuci 1998,178); Pi.N.9,13 f. φ εύγε (sc. Adrastus) . . . δείναν ετάειν I . . . · άρχοί δ’ ούκ έτ έεαν Ταλαοΰ τταίδεε, βιαεθέντεε λύαι. See further Schmitt 1970,17 and on the idea of the quarrel as a kind of stasis Iannuci 1998,177 ff δε ßav]jec. Pfeiffer’s δε ßctvjrec seems to fit the lacuna better than Hunt’s δ’ ίόν]τεε (which Hunt 1927,71 also regarded as ‘a trifle short for the space’) and the aorist participle, indicating anteriority, suits the context well. 43,75 όπποτέρου κτίεμ α λέγοιτ[ο νέον: for similar questions cf. D.H.1,86,1 (about the quarrel of Romulus and Remus in which the gods must decide) όποτέρου χρη την αποικίαν λέγεεθαι και την ηγεμονίαν είναι; D.S.12,35,1 εεταείαζον πράε άλληλουε, ποίαε πόλεωε άποίκουε δει καλεΐεθαι τόνε Θουρίουε καί τίνα κτίετην δίκαιον όνομάζεεθαι and 3 τέλοε δε τω ν Θούριων πεμφάντω ν etc Δελφούε τουε επερωτήεονταε τίνα χρη τή ε πόλεωε οίκιετην αγόρευε tv, δ θεοε έχρηεεν αυτόν δεΐν κτίετην νομίζεεθαι; Εηη.Αηη.1,82 ff. (— 77 ff. Skutsch) certabant urbem Romam Remoramque uocarent, I omnibus cura uiris uter esset induperator. For the genitive cf. h.3,35 Ά ρτέμιδοε καλέεεθαι (sc. towns). κτίεμα: the noun, which here must indicate ‘the newly founded town’, is first attested here (see Casevitz 1985,58 f., who suggests that the form may be Ionic) and recurs in Lyc.78 ερυμνον κτίεμα Κυρβάντων Càov; adesp.SH 978,5. Although there are some later poetic examples as well (see Massimilla ad loc.), the word is mainly attested in later prose, where it often means simply ‘town’ (e.g. Str. 1,3,20, 60C; 5,2,6, 223C; 5,3,6, 282C; D.H.AR 1,32,3; 45,3 etc.), and Callimachus might have taken it from a historical source; see also comm, on 62 and Schmitt 1970,102. At the end of the line Hunt’s νέον is generally accepted, but Casevitz 1985,58 rightly remarks that it may be redundant. 43,76-8 Apollo’s oracle here seems to be given in indirect speech, like Jason’s prayer in fr. 18,6 ff, but while there the addresses of Apollo in Du-Stil create a certain ambiguity, here too the answer contains elements which would be more at home in a direct quotation (like fr. 75,22 ff, where the oracle of Apollo is quoted at length); see comm, on 76 f. α[ετυ]ρ[ον . . . I κείνο; on the treatment of the caesura after ουν in 76; and on 78 φη θεόε. On the other hand the particle ουν in itself would not be suitable for a direct quotation of Apollo’s words (see comm, on 76). Therefore it seems best to treat the lines as indirect speech rather than as an infinitivus pro imperativo (which, in itself, would be conceivable; see KG 2,22 ff).

Commentary 43,76 43,76 μ η τ οΰν: the particle οΰν seems to be part of the narrator’s voice rather than of Apollo’s words, because it points out to the reader that the contents of the oracle are the logical conclusion of the preceding quarrel. On οΰν connecting units of speech and marking a new step see Denniston 19542,425 ff.; Wakker 1994,305 f. The caesura after οΰν divides the syntactical unit μ η τ οΰν II Περιήρεοε. Bulloch on h.5,103 + n.2 gives some parallels of this kind of ‘caesura separating introductory phrases from their accompanying clause’. The relevant passages in Callimachus are h.4,163; 5,103; 6,53; Ep. 44,3, all of which are from direct speech (also Ep. 44,3 addressed to Menexenus maybe considered as such). There is always punctuation after the third element and the caesura after the fifth element in all cases follows a combination of a negation and a particle, as here; cf. h.4,162ff. μη εύ ye, μητηρ, I τη ι με τεκοιε. οΰτ’ οΰν II όπιμεμφομαι ούδε μεγαίρω 1νηεον, 5,103 f. δία γΰναι, το μεν ού II παλινάγρετον αΰθι γενοιτο I εργον; 6,53 χάζεν, έ'φα, μη τοι II ττελεκυν εν χροι ττάξω; Ερ.44,3 ού θαρεεω. μη δη II με ·περίττ\εκε; for a similar passage in Apollonius cf. AR 2,444 (in 2,1203; 3,115; 4,1554 the treatment is somewhat different). The evidence suggests that the handling of the caesura in these passages can be explained from the communicative situation: the speaker thus draws his addressee’s attention to the fact that something is or should not be the case. Here this element from direct speech seems to be transferred to indirect speech. 43,76—7 a[cTv]/}[ov . . . I κείνοι on άετυρον see comm, on ff. 11,5. With κείνο Callimachus seems to have inserted another element from direct speech, because Zancle is ‘that town’ for Apollo, but it is unlikely that the narrator would refer to it in this way (cf. 60, 72, 75, and 79, where no demonstrative pronouns are used). πολιεεούχου: this word, which is less common than ττολιοΰχοε, is here used as an honorary title of the founder, which is rather unusual, because it is normally used of the gods (see Malkin 1987,75 f.). For other examples of this word of heroes cf. AR 2,846 f. τόνδε ττολιεεοΰχον διεπεφραδε Βοιω τοΐειν I . . . Φοΐβοε εττιρρηδην ίλάεεθαι (of Agamestor/Idmon in Heraclea); M.L.West, Oracles of Apollo Karneios. A Revised Text’, ZPE 1,1967,183—7, esp. II b,17 πολιεεοΰχοιό τε Μόφου (adduced by Magnelli 1997,455). The plural is attested several times in Aeschylus; cf. Th.69 ττολιεεοΰχοι θεοί (with Groeneboom ad loc.); 185, 271; Ag.338. For more references for the word as a cult-tide see Ehlers 1933,53 + n.136; see further Frisk 2,576 f. s.v. ττόλιε; Schmitt 1970,147. 43,78 φη θεόα there are some examples of this kind of speech-conclusion after indirect speech in Homer, where we find it only after indirect speech embedded in direct speech (e.g. II.23,149; Od.8,570), and other epic texts,

Commentary 43,78

353

like e.g. h.Cer.448 and Hes.Op.69 (see Richardson 1974,41). Even so, the speech-conclusion would fit direct speech rather than indirect speech and seems to contribute to the ambiguities created by Callimachus’ phrasing in 76 f. (see comm, above); cf. ff. 75,38 η θεόε, which concludes an oracle given in direct speech and for φή as a formula of conclusion also h.Cer. 145 φη pa θεά-, h.Merc.2\2\ 7121,361 (only here in Homer); Hes.Th.550; AR 3,382 etc. (see further Hopkinson on h.6,45). There are no very strong reasons to read rj θεόε as Lobel suggested. ol δ’ αίόντεε αττεδραμον: these words suggest that the colonists immedi­ ately rushed home and obeyed the oracle, like Ceyx in ff. 75,38. The phrase shows a familiar epic pattern, found also in e.g. Hec.fr. 260,9 f. (= 69,9 f. Hollis) \c: this is probably a reference to Crete. Pfeiffer suggested that this line might overlap with Hsch. κ 3166 s.v. Κνώεια κώλα· τα ορμητικά (άρχηματικά Headlam), but the explanation in Hesychius is problematic and not particularly suited to dancing, unless one accepts Headlam’s con­ jecture (for Crete associated with dance cf. e.g. also II. 18,590; h.l,52ff.; Athen.5,181b; 14,629c; Σ Pi.P.2,127; see further Jebb and Kamerbeek on S.Aj.699 Μ νεία Κνώ ει άρχήματα). As an alternative to Headlam’s solu­ tion Pfeiffer suggests reading Κνώεια κήλα in Hesychius. In that case the reference could be to Cretan archery, which was famous and mentioned several times by Callimachus, in Ep.37 (see Gow-Page on HE 1129) and 62; fr. 560; 786. The mention of Cretan archery might be related to Rhadaman­ thys, who according to Σ Lyc.50 taught Heracles to shoot with the bow. However, as the connection with Hesychius is not quite cogent, other con­ texts for Κνωε[ are conceivable. 43b,31 vacc[ : Massimilla ad loc. suggests an aorist of ναίω or some form of νάεεω. The latter is attested from Od.21,122 άμφί δε γαΐαν εναξε (where it is a Homeric hapax) onwards and in Hellenistic poetry is found in Theoc.9,9.

Commentary 43b,32

Fr. 44-47 Introduction

43b,32 K07Tjp[: the possibilities for supplementing these letters seem to be limited to something about manure (which could be mentioned in a variety of contexts; cf. e.g. h.3,178 κάπρον έπι προγένοιντο). 43b,34 This line may overlap with EtGen. AB s.v. Ζ α γρεύε (quoted in app.). The letter after υΐα is just visible in the papyrus and looks like the lower part of δ, so υΐα Δ[ιώ vvcov seems possible. Δ iióivvcov Ζ ayρέα: Dionysus Zagreus was originally a chthonic god on Crete. He was said to be a son of Zeus and Persephone and played a role in Orphic myth, which told how he was made ruler of the world by Zeus, killed by the Titans (cf. ft. 517 and 643 with Pfeiffer ad loc.), and reborn again. For his birth from Zeus and Persephone, to which our line seems to refer, cf. e.g. D.S.5,75,4 τούτον δε τον θεόν yeyovevai φαειν εκ Zltòc καί Φερεεφόνηε κατά την Κ ρήτην, Nonn.D.5,565 f.; 6,155 ff.; Hsch. ζ 9 s.v. Ζαγρεύε" Δ lóvvcoc {παρά ποιηταίε) .. . · δοκεί yd.ρ (δ Ζεύε) μιγήναι τή ι Περεεφόνηι, εξ ήε χθόνιοε Δ ιόνυεοε; Σ Lyc.355; Sud. ζ 4 s.v. Ζαγρεύε. For Zagreus as a cult epithet for Dionysus on Crete cf. E.Cret. F 472,11 νυκτιπόλου Ζαγρέω ε (with Collard ad loc.). See further e.g. Nilsson 1955-61, 1,686 n.l; R.F.Willetts, Cretan Cults and Festivals, London 1962,207 ff. and Ancient Crete, London-Toronto 1965,119 ff.; F.Graf, Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Berlin 1974,74; Burkert 1985,297 f.; R.L.Gordon in Der Neue Pauly 12.2,665 f. s.v. Zagreus; and on the reception of the myth of Dionysus Zagreus in Hellenistic Egypt A.Henrichs, Die Phoinikika des Lollianos, Bonn 1972,58 ff. For some epic examples of the spelling Διώνυεον cf. Ii.6,132; Od.24,74; Hes.Th.947. In Callimachus we find this spelling also in h.6,71; Ep.44,2; Ia.fr. 191,7; and perhaps ff. 113b,3. γειναμΑνη: probably sc. Persephone; cf. Nonn.D.6,165 Z aypea γειναμένη, κερόεν βρέφοε. 43b,40 έθρω[εκ: the verb suggests the jumping of Dionysus in ritual dance, for which cf. e.g. E.Hyps.fr. 752,3 πηδάι χορεύουν; Ba.307; Ion 717; on the topos of Dionysus’ dancing see further Bond’s introduction to E.Hyps.fr. 752. Pfeiffer also points to the repeated imperative θόρε in h.Cur.47 ff. and 57 ff. (p. 161 Powell), where Dionysus is invited to be born, and adduces other passages about the birth of gods with this verb. His list is supple­ mented by Magnelli 1995a,108 f., but, apart from an occasional present indicative or participle, the verb in these passages is always an aorist, as would befit such an action (cf. also the passages listed on ff. 37,3). The imperfect used here would be more suitable to describe continuous ritual dancing. If so, the line may be related to 23, but the remains are too small to be certain.

44-47 BUSIRIS AND PHALARIS

368

369

Contents

Fr. 44-7 deal with two bad hosts, Busiris and Phalaris, who killed strangers and were both punished for their behaviour. As ff. 45 shows these two characters were closely connected, so that both stories were probably part of one aition. Fr. 44 is from the story o f Busiris, an Egyptian king who killed strangers in order to put an end to a nine-year drought and was eventually killed by Heracles. As we have only this one line about the drought from the story and a brief reference in fr. 45, which indicates that Busiris’ behaviour towards strangers must have been mentioned, it is not clear how extensively Callimachus dealt with this story and whether or not he mentioned Busiris’ death by Heracles (some scholars, like e.g. Cahen 1929,138 and Ferguson 1980,39 f., think that the story was told at length, but the evidence allows no conclusions). The story of Busiris is told in some detail in Ps.-Apollod.2,5,ll μ ετά Λ ιβύην δε Α ίγυ π το ν διεξήιει (sc. Heracles), τα ύτηε εβαείλευεε Βούειριε Ποεειδώνοε παίε καί Λνειανάεεηε τή ε Έ πάφ ου. οΰτοε τούε ξένουε εθυεν επί βωμώ ι Δ ίδε κατά τι λ ό γιο ν εννέα γά ρ έτη αφορία την Α ίγυ π το ν κατέλαβε, Φραείοε δε ελθων εκ Κύπρου, μάντιε την έπιετήμην, έφη την αφορίαν παύεαεθαι εάν ξένον ανδρα τώ ι Δ ιΙ εφάξωει κ α τ’ έτοε. Βούειριε δε εκείνον πρώ τον εφάξαε τον μάντιν τούε κατιόνταε ξένουε έεφαζε. ευλληφθειε οΰν καί Ή ρακλήε τοΐε βωμοΐε προεεφέρετο τα δε δεεμά διαρρήξαε τον τε Βούειριν καί τον εκείνου παΐδα Ά μφιδάμαντα άπέκτεινε. The story of Busiris is well attested in the Greek and Latin tradition. He became part of the political discourse in Athens, where in the 5th cent, b c he was portrayed as the typical barbarian tyrant, but in the 4th cent, bc was regarded as a positive example and lawgiver by Isocrates (see Stephens 2003,26 ff.). Pre-Hellenistic Greek references are found in epic (like Panyassis EGF 23; see also Lloyd on Hdt.2,45, who thinks of an Ionic origin of the story), rhetoric (Polycrates’ Busiris and Isocrates’ Busiris), satyr-play and comedy (cf. E.Busiris F 312a-315 with Kannicht ad loc. for references to comic poets), and a reference to its fame is also Verg.G.3,4f. quis aut Eurysthea durum I aut inlaudati nescit Busiridis aras. Even so, this story is clearly an Egyptian element in the Aetia. In this respect Stephens 2002,253 f. points to D.S. 1,85,5, where it is told how Busiris is in fact the place where Isis buried the body of Osiris, who was killed by Typhon, after she had gathered it into a wooden cow (on the connection with the Osiris-myth see also Weber

Fr. 44-47 Introduction

Fr. 44-47 Introduction

1993,373 f.; on the town and its cult of Osiris see R.Grieshammer in Der Neue Pauly 2,857 f. s.v. Busiris [1]). According to Stephens this story, which might have been known to Callimachus and his readers through Hecataeus from Abdera, might be evoked by placing the story of the tyrant Busiris in proximity to the story of Phalaris and his bronze bull. On references to Egypt in Callimachus and other Hellenistic authors see further also Weber 1993,392 ff. Busiris’ death by Heracles was somewhat disputed in antiquity. According to Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 17 Heracles killed Busiris at the altar of Zeus, where he used to kill strangers, and most later sources accept the fact that Heracles killed Busiris; cf. e.g. D.S.4,18,1; 1,27,3; Ov.Met.9,182f.; Hyg.Pab.31,2; Serv.Verg.G.3,5 (see further Frazer on Ps.-Apollod.2,5,ll; Massimilla ad loc.). However, according to Isoc.Bws.36—37 (cf. Hes.fr.spur.378) Heracles could not have killed Busiris because he lived much later and according to Hdt.2,45,1-2 (where we find the story without the name of Busiris) the Egyptians did not perform human sacrifices at all. As to Callimachus, we cannot tell with cer­ tainty whether or not he included Busiris’ death by Heracles. Some scholars, like Weber 1993,373 f., think he did, but Pfeiffer and Massimilla ad loc. are doubtful, because this event is not mentioned in Ovid’s imitations of Cal­ limachus in Ov.AA 1,647 ff. and Ib.395 f. However, considering Heracles’ importance as an ancestor of the Ptolemies and his frequent appearance in a noble role in the Aetia it is quite conceivable that his defeat of Busiris was included and that Ovid’s imitations were selective. Fr. 45-7 are from the story of Phalaris, the evil tyrant of Acragas (c.570554 b c ) for whom a certain Perilaus or Perillus made a bull of bronze in which he could roast people. The animal (called a δάμαλιε in fr. 47) was constructed in such a way that it bellowed through flutes attached to its nose when the victims were screaming inside (see comm, on fr. 46,1 f.), and Phalaris first used it on its inventor. We have no clues as to how extensive Callimachus’ treatment of this story was. This story is attested in a number of sources and we have an indication of its popularity in D.S.9 fr. 19 Vogel γρά φ εi ττερί τού ταύρου 8e Λ ovKiavòc ό Cvpoc, Διόδωροε καί Πίνδαροε, εύν τούτοιε re μυρίοι. The earliest source is Pi.P.l,95ff. (where the friendly hospitality of Croesus is contrasted with Phalaris, who will never be celebrated in song) τον δε ταύρωι χαλκεω ι καυτήρα νηλεα νόον I εχθρό Φάλαριν κατεχει παντάι φάτιε, I ουδέ νιν φ ό ρμ ιγγεε ύττωρόφιαι κοινωνίαν I μαλθακόν τταιδων οαροιει δεκονται. Here nothing is said about Perilaus and no details about the bull are given. Later versions incorporate Perilaus and use the story in various ways: thus Ov.Jb.435 ff. uses it in a series of curses, whereas other passages elaborate the moral judgement:

(1) Some authors simply denounce Phalaris as a cruel tyrant, as Pindar did; thus Ov.Tnsf.3,11,39 ff. emphasizes that Busiris, Phalaris, and the inventor of the bull, whom Ovid does not mention by his name, are all saeuus, and then quotes a dialogue between Phalaris and the inventor, who explains about the bull and is rewarded by being roasted in it, and Cic.Verr.4,33,73 crudelissimus omnium tyrannorum is quite outspoken about Phalaris’ cruelty. (2) Others admit that one could see some sort of ‘justice’ in the fact that Phalaris first punished the inventor of the bull, without justifying Phalaris in other respects; so [Plu.] Par.min.39a, 315c (= f. 47) and Doroth.Athen.FGrH 145 F 3 τό τε μόνον γενόμενοε δίκαιοε; Plin.NH 34,89, who remarks that Phalaris and the inventor of the bull were equally saeuus, but Phalaris punished him iustiore saeuitia; Ov.AA 1,653 ff; Trist.5,12,47 utque dedit iustas tauri fabricator aeni. (3) yet others defend Phalaris as a tyrant who had to punish his citizens for the benefit of the state, but rejected the bull after using it once to roast its inventor; so Lucianus Phal. 1 and 2 (in Phal. 1 Phalaris sends the bull with a message to Delphi and explains how he suffered when he had to punish his people and was then offered the bull by the evil Perilaus; first he had wanted to dedicate the bull to the gods, but then Perilaus showed its use, at which Phalaris was disgusted, roasted the inventor, and threw him from the rocks to kill him off and sent the bull with the story inscribed on it to Delphi; in Phal.2 a Delphian pleads for the acceptance of the dedication); D.S. 9,fJ. 19 Vogel has a similar sequence of events and often similar phrasing; he too stresses the disgust of Phalaris at having to act against his own people, though without explicitly defending him and leaving out the dedication in Delphi; fr. 18 is briefer and less explicit, only emphasizing that Perilaus was an example of people falling into their own traps. For further discussion of the Phalaris legend see e.g. S.Bianchetti, Falaride e Pseudo-Falaride. Storia e leggenda, Firenze-Roma 1987; O.Murray, ‘Falaride tra mito e storia’, in L.Braccesi-E.de Miro, Agrigento e la Sicilia Greca, Roma 1992,47-60; V.Hinz, Nunc Phalaris doctum protulit ecce caput. Antike Phalarislegende und Nachleben der Phalarisbriefe, M ünchenLeipzig 2001. It is not clear how much of this discussion was already a topic in Callimachus’ time, but a few points may give some indication: (1) the decision to incorporate the story of Phalaris into the Aetia may be a reaction to the statement that Phalaris will never be a subject for song in Pi.P.1,95 ff; (2) if the subscription in fr. 47 is right and the summary closely followed Callimachus, as it well may have, this would suggest that the cynical view of Phalaris’ relative ‘justice’ goes back to Callimachus; (3) the connection

370

371

Fr. 44-47 Introduction

Fr. 44-47 Introduction

with Busiris and the context of fr. 45 suggest that in the Aetia Phalaris was cruel to strangers, which excludes the means of defence employed in Lucianus, Phal. 1 and makes the cruelty seem more arbitrary. Meillier 1976a,77 f. suggests that Callimachus’ treatment of the story of Phalaris had a topical aspect because Agathocles had applied a similar torture in 307 b c , but this is hard to prove, particularly because later sources may have invented the comparison between Phalaris and Agathocles in order to illustrate the latter’s cruelty. Again Callimachus’ source for the story may have well been Timaeus (so e.g. Fraser 1972,2,1068 n.334), perhaps modified in order to create a parallel with the story of Busiris (see Massimilla ad loc.); cf. the context of fr. 46 in Σ Pi.P.1,185 (= Timaeus FGrH 566 F 28c), which mentions a bull, but says nothing about Perilaus.

an attractive ring-composition which helped to turn Aetia 1-2 into a certain kind of unity (but obviously much is still uncertain here; see further intr. to fr. 137m). Within Aetia 2 there would also be an element of ring-composition, if Aetia 2 began with fr. 178: the stories of Busiris and Phalaris would then form a neat contrast with the hospitality of Pollis and with the modern Egypt of the 3rd cent, b c (see also Borgonovo 1996,52 n.21; Hutchinson 2003,57). Besides, the Sicilian element in the story of Phalaris recalls fr. 43 about the Sicilian cities and in a certain way seems to supplement it, because— as far as we can judge—Acragas is not included in the catalogue of Sicilian cities in fr. 43,28 ff. On the whole the emphasis on (the lack of) hospitality and the behaviour of hosts is a recurrent theme in the Aetia·, cf. e.g. fr. 22-23c and 24-25d (the Lindian farmer and Thiodamas); 54-60j (Molorcus); 64 (about another evil tyrant of Acragas and in 11 ff. about the Scopades); fr. 76b-77d (Augeas); 78-78b (the Isindian host).

372

The aition

It is hard to see what kind of aition these stories might have contained and there is no clue in the fragments or testimonia. Just speculating, one might think that the aition of the Phalaris story could be about the bronze bull, because (1) there are several other aitia about works of art in the Aetia (see intr. to fr. 31c—g on The aition); (2) the fate of the bull apparently was a matter of some dispute and may have been alluded to in fr. 46,10. As to Busiris it is hard to think of an aition, and, in fact, it may not even have been an aition in its own right, but merely have figured as a parallel for the story of Phalaris (like the parallel stories about Heracles and the Lindian farmer and Heracles and Thiodamas in fr. 22-23c and 24-25d).

Position in the A etia

As to the position of these stories in the Aetia, they were certainly part of Aetia 2 (for Busiris see comm, on fr. 44; for the Phalaris story the apparatus of fr. 45 and 47), but it is not clear from which part of the book they are. There are, however, a few slight clues: (1) the stories of Busiris and Phalaris both illustrate the idea that people may fall into their own traps (both are thus used in Ov.AA 1,647 ff.; ClaudianJn Eutrop.1,157 Ά; the Phalaris story is thus used in D.S.9 fr. 18 Vogel); (2) fr. 137m (= SH 253) which may have been from the same column as fr. 46 (= SH 252) is about a dream. Both these points recall the beginning of Aetia 1, where the dream must have been introduced and the idea of falling into one’s own trap is alluded to in fr. 2,5. Thus a position of these fragments towards the end of Aetia 2 would lead to

373

Other fragm ents connected w ith this aition

Attempts to restore a fragment of Callimachus in the anonymous proverb in Sud. T 843 s.v. τούτο ποιηεαε ev, κατά την παροιμίαν, των άδικων έργων δικαιότατον are not convincing; see Pfeiffer and Massimilla on fr. 46.

Com m entary

44 The fragment’s position in this part of the Aetia, just before fr. 45 about Phalaris, seems certain because: (1) the contents of the line fit the story of Busiris, which is told in some detail in Ps.-Apollod.2,5,ll (quoted in intr. on Contents); (2) Busiris is probably referred to by κείνου in fr. 45 (Phalaris imitated him in killing foreigners and in killing first of all his adviser), and a similar link between the stories of Busiris and Phalaris is found in Latin authors who may have imitated Callimachus, like Ον. AA 1,647 ff.; 7nsf.3,ll,39ff.; Claudian. In Eutrop.1,157 ff. In Ov.AA 1,647 ff. dicitur Aegyptos caruisse iuuantibus arua I imbribus atque annos sicca fuisse nouem, I cum Thrasius Busirin adit monstratque piari I hospitis adfuso sanguine posse Iouem. I illi Busiris ‘fies louis hostia primus’ I inquit ‘et Aegypto tu dabis hospes aquam’ the first two lines look like a reminiscence of fr. 44 and it is conceivable that the sequel also owed some­ thing to Callimachus. A passage like this could easily lead to fr. 45 την κείνου .. . πρήξιν.

374

Commentary 44

Α ϊγ υ π το ε προπάροιθεν; although here προπάροιθεν is used of time (as already in Homer; see LSJ s.v. II 2), these words formally recall Od.4,354 f. vrjcoc επειτά t i c εετι 7τολυκλύετωι evi ττόντωι I Α ίγυ π το υ προπαροιθε, Φάρον Sé é κικλήεκουει, which introduces the story of Menelaus’ stay at Pharos and his consultation of Proteus with the help of the friendly Eidothea. Hoekstra on Od. 13,96 observes that this kind of topo­ graphical introduction often begins a new episode in Homer: the allusion might therefore be an indication that Callimachus began the story of Busiris and Phalaris with this line (for a somewhat comparable beginning cf. ff. 7c,5 about Anaphe). At the same time the allusion may have reminded readers of a more favourable story of a stranger’s reception in Egypt. èrnia·, nine is an epic ‘round number’, also used of years in e.g. 17.2,134 èvvia δη βεβάαει Διοε μεγάλου ενιαυτοί; 18,400; Hes.77i.803. See further Roscher 1904,10 and 69 f.; J.W.S.Blom, De typische gefallen bij Homeros en Herodotos, Nijmegen 1936,255 ff.; M.P.Nilsson, Opuscula Selecta 1, Lund 1951,46 f.; H.Erbse, Beiträge zum Verständnis der Odyssee, Berlin-New York 1972,195 ff.; LfrgrE s.v. èvvia; Bornmann on h.3,192-3; Mineur on A4,93; Hopkinson on h.6,82; S.West on Od.3,7—8. A drought of nine years is also mentioned in some other versions of the story; cf. Ov.AA 1,647 ff. (quoted above); Hyg.Fab.56. Elsewhere we find a long drought, as in Ov.7h.395 f. and Claudian.ln Eutrop. 1,159 multos.. .per annos, or eight years, as in Serv.in Verg.G.3,5. κάρφετο: the verb κάρφω ‘dry up’, ‘wither’ is attested in early Greek epic (e.g. Od. 13,398 κάρφω . . . χρόα καλόν; Hes.Op.575 τjeXioc χροα κάρφει), and then recurs in Hellenistic poetry; cf. Euph.SH 429 I 2 καρφοίατο ποΐαι. Sen.NQ 4,2,16 (quoted in app.) indicates that here the drought must refer to the absence of the Nile floods. Troiae: although Fabian 1992,272 thinks of ‘summers’, the passages quoted in the apparatus suggest that the ancient grammarians thought that the word was here used in the sense of ‘years’ (cf. for this explanation also Σ Theoc.3,32; Σ E.7V.20 καί ποίαε τούε ενιαυτούε ελεγον άπό τή ε τών καρπών άναδοεεωε). The noun usually indicates all kinds of greenery and plants (see Braswell on Pi.P.4,240 [c]) and hence may also be used to indicate ‘summer’, as in Rhian.fr. 54,2 Powell χείμ α τά τε ποίαε τε 8ύω καί εείκοει πάεαε. From this use the sense of ‘year’ could easily be derived and we find the word thus used in e.g. Leonid.AP 7,731,4 (= HE 2462) πίευραε ποίαε (where see Gow-Page); Antiph.AP 6,252,1 (= GP 791) μήλον .. . άπό προτερηε .. . ποίιρε; Diod.AP 7,627,5 (= GP 2134) εικοει ποίαε. In our passage the notions of ‘summers’ and ‘years’ are probably both present, because summer was the time of the Nile floods, in which

Commentary 44

375

droughts and the resulting lack of vegetation would become manifest, and each flood-less summer stood for a year. On the accentuation see e.g. Arc.114,13 Schm.; EM 770,6 ff. and the discussion of these and similar passages in Pfeiffer ad loc. 45 κείνου ; the suggestion that this is Busiris was first made by D.Ruhnken, Homeri Hymnus in Cererem . . . ; accedunt duae epistolae criticae, ex editione altera, multis partibus locupletiores, Lugduni Batavorum 1782,182 and Porson 1814,308 f. This idea is very plausible because of the similarities in behaviour between Busiris and Phalaris (see intr. on Contents) and the connection of Busiris and Phalaris in e.g. Ov.AA 1,647 ff.; Trist.3,11,39 f.; Ex P.3,6,41 f.; Claudian.7« £wirop.l,157ff.; In Rufin.l,251 ff. (where both characters are mentioned in a list of villains). Φάλαριε: Phalaris is described in many sources as the example of an evil tyrant par excellence, cf. the passages mentioned above and see e.g. H.Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, München 1967, 1,129 ff. On his role in this aition see also above on Contents. The source of this fragment, Σ Lyc.717, confused Phaleros, the founder of Naples, with Phalaris, the tyrant of Acragas, but this was rightly corrected by Bentley; see Pfeiffer ad loc. άπεπλάεατο: this verb is not attested before Callimachus, but later we find it several times in epigrams, in the same metrical position, in e.g. Antip.Sid.AP 7,34,4 (= HE 285); Antip.(Thess.?) AP 9,238,6 (= GP 540); Rufin.AP 5,15,4; Paul.Sil.AP 5,255 (254),10; Agath.AP 5,222,4; for more examples see Massimilla ad loc. 46 We do not know whether ff. 46 followed ff. 45 immediately. Pfeiffer was rightly doubtful, because he found the change of subject rather harsh. In fact it is not only harsh, but also confusing, because, if fr. 46 followed fr. 45 immediately, there would be no clear indication that the subject changed unless one knew the story beforehand. It seems more likely that there were two or more lines in between (which might contain the information that for once Phalaris did something which was ‘just’, because the first victim of the bull was its inventor; cf. ff. 47). This fragment, in which an inventor is actually punished for his inven­ tion, may be related to the topos of cursing first inventors (see comm, on fr. 110,48 ff.). 46,1 π ρ ώ τ ο ε ... εκαίνιεεν: sc. Perilaus, the inventor of the bull. For the verb καινίζω in the sense ‘to use for the first time’ cf. e.g. A.Ag.1071 καίνιεον ζυγόν; Ch.492 (with Garvie ad loc.); S.Tr.867; E.fir. 598,1 f. 6 πρώ τοε είπών ουκ αγυμνάετω ι φρενί I ερριφεν οετιε τόνδ’ εκαίνιεεν λόγον; Lyc.530 πρώ τα καινιεει δόρυ; Hsch. κ 241 s.v. καινίεαι· καινώε χρηεαεθαι;

Commentary 46,1

Commentary 46,3

for the phrasing cf. also ClaudianJn Eutrop. 1,161 (the adviser of Busiris) inuentas primus Busiridis imbuit aras. The somewhat abundant πρώτο«:, in a marked position before ènei, helps to draw attention to the fact that Perilaus really was the first to be roasted in the bull. Other versions of the story also emphasize the fact that Perilaus, the inventor of the bull, was the first to use it; cf. D.S. 9, ff. 18 and 19 Vogel; Lucian.P/jfll.1,199; Ov.AA 1,653 ff. et Phalaris tauro uiolenti membra Perilli I torruit; infelix imbuit auctor opus. I iustus uterque fu it (sc. Busiris and Phalaris), neque enim lex aequior ulla est I quam necis artifex arte perire sua·, Trist.3,11,51 f. at Phalaris ‘poenae mirande repertor, I ipse tuum praesens imbue’ dixit ‘opus’; Sil.lt. 14,216 f. nam dirae conditor artis I ipse suo moriens immugit flebile tauro; ClaudianJ« Eutrop. 1,163 ff. sic opifex tauri tormento­ rumque repertor, I qui funesta nouo fabricauerat aera dolori, I primus inexpertum Siculo cogente tyranno I sensit opus docuitque suum mugire iuuencum. The fate of Perilaus, falling into his own trap, recalls the warning in ff. 2,5. ènei; because the conjunction follows πρώ τοε it is conceivable that ff. 46 explained a remark about the relative ‘justice’ of Phalaris who made the inventor of the bull its first victim (see intr. on Contents and cf. fr. 47). 46,1-2 τον όλεθρόν I evpe . . . γιγνόμενον: the technical aspects of the bull, which are here summarized, are described in detail in Lucian.Ρ/ίαΙ. 1,198 (Perilaus) άνοίζαε άμα τον ταύρον κατά τα νώτα, ην τινα, εφη, κόλαζαν εθεληιε, εμβιβάεαε èc το μηχάνημα τούτο καί κατακλείεαε προετιθεναι μεν τούε αύλούε τούεδε πράε τόνε μυζω τήραε τού βοόε, πύρ δε ύποκαίειν κελεύειν, καί 6 μεν οιμώ ζεται και βοηεεται αληκτοιε τα ΐε όδυναιε εχάμενοε, ή βοή δε διά τών αυλών μέλη coi αποτελεεει οία λιγυρώ τα τα και ετταυλήεει θρηνώδεε και μυκηεεται γοερωτατον, ώε τον μεν κολάζεεθαι, εε δε τερπεεθαι μετα ζυ καταυλούμενον and similarly, but briefer, in D.S.9,ff. 19 Vogel (where the opening is πράε τώ ι ττλευρώi); cf. also Ov.Tnst.3,11,45 ff.; Plin.NiT 34,89. The expression τον όλεθρόν I εΰρε recalls Hermesian.fr. 7,67 Powell δαίμων Εύριπίδηι εΰρε τ ’ όλεθρόν; see further Massimilla ad loc. 46,3 Lloyd-Jones-Parsons’ suggestion μυκη]θμόν is attractive, because the bellowing of the bull is an essential feature of the story and therefore is likely to be referred to here too. For references to the bellowing cf. e.g. fr. 47 εδόκει δε μυκηθμόν άναδιδόναι η δαμαλιε; Lucian.P/ia/. 1,198 (quoted above); D.S.9 fr. 19 Vogel; Ov.7nsi.3,ll,45ff.; Plin.NH 34,89; for more examples see Massimilla ad loc. Mette’s αν δ’ εδίδου derives some support from Dorotheus FGrH 145 F 3 μυκηθμόν δ’ η δάμαλιε άνεδίδου.

οτεφ[: the supplement δτ’ εφ[ραεε is attractive because of fr. 64,10 πρώ τοε . . . δε εφραεάμην and fr. 110,50 πρώ τοι κα'ι τυπίδω ν εφραεαν εργαείην, both in contexts of first inventors. As in these passages the verb could refer to the invention of the bull, viewed as the demonstration of the new mechanism, which is also prominent in D.S.9, fr. 19 Vogel ευ πρώ τοε δεΐζον τούτο . . . , τράνωεόν εου την τέχνην (spoken by Phalaris addressing Perilaos) and Lucian.P/ia/. 1,199 δεΐζον . . . την αλήθειαν τήε τεχνηε. Alternatively the verb could refer to the ‘teaching’ of the bull, as in Claudian.In Eutrop.1,166 docuitque suum mugire iuuencum. If this supplement is right it might relate Perilaus to the adviser of Busiris, who was called Phrasius according to E.J.Kenney, ‘A Prophet without Honour?’, CQ 81 ( n s 39), 1989,274—5, who restored this name in Ov.AA 1,649 cum Phrasius ( Thrasius codd.) Busirin adit monstratque piari (similarly Lehnus 1990a,16). 46,4 Perhaps this line is about the foreign victims, as suggested by LloydJones-Parsons ad loc.: ‘quisquis ab exteris gentibus advenerat, crematus est’. Cf. fr. 47 τούε παριόνταε ζενουε; Σ Lyc.717 (quoted in app. on fr. 45). If so, άπ[ό seems less attractive as a supplement as ‘from abroad’ would rather demand εζ (see KG 1,456 ff., esp. 459 on the difference between άπό and εζ). 46,6 κνην[; a form of κυεω, κύω, or κυαίνω (attested only in Hsch. κ 4336 s.v. κυαίνω ν εγκυοε ών) or of the rare substantive κύοε would fit the context, as the bull was designed to become ‘pregnant’ with people; for some suggestions see also Massimilla ad loc. 46,7-8 The verbs, τι[ε]ι and βάλλ', may be imperfects or imperatives, and Lloyd-Jones-Parsons suggest that these lines are about Phalaris throwing strangers into the bull. This is conceivable as Callimachus’ version does not seem to belong to the group of texts which defend Phalaris. Frequent use of the bull is indicated by Pi.P.1,95 ff. and Cic. Verr.4,33,73 and may be implied by fr. 47 and Plin.MH 34,89. In Ov.Trisf.3,ll,39ff. the story ends with the fate of the inventor of the bull and the rest is left to the reader’s imagination. 46,10 eiv αλί; these words may refer to the fate of the bull, which apparently was a matter of dispute. Bulloch apud Lloyd-Jones-Parsons suggests that Callimachus said that the people of Acragas threw the bull into the sea, as in Σ Pi.P.1,185 (= Timae.FGrH 566 F 28c) τον δε τού Φαλάριδοε ταύρον οί Ά κραγαντΐνοι κατεπόντωεαν, where Timaeus insists that the bull shown in Acragas in his time is not the bull of Phalaris, but a statue of the river-god Gela (see app. on 1-2). It cannot be derived from Timaeus that the throwing of the bull into the sea was also in Callimachus, but a discussion of the bull’s whereabouts would certainly fit in with

376

377

378

Commentary 46,10

Callimachus’ antiquarian interests and it is conceivable that a question about a bull’s statue in Acragas led to this aition. Later versions of the bull’s fate are recorded in: (1) Lucian.Pha/.l and 2: Phalaris uses the bull to punish Perilaos and then dedicates it in Delphi with an inscription containing the story; such a version, which defends Phalaris, is unlikely to have been used here; (2) Cic.Vferr.4,33,73 and D.S. 13,90 (the latter polemizing against Timaeus): the bull was stolen by the Carthaginians and restored to the people of Acragas by Scipio in 146 B e . For the expression cf. Hec.ff. 248,2 (= 36,5 Hollis) elv άλί νήχεεθat; ff. 388,9; fc.4,3; Ep.17,3. 47 The subscription indicates that this passage is a summary of Callimachus’ story of Phalaris. It is very similar to the story quoted in Stob.4,8,33 (4,318 Hense), which is attributed to Doroth. Athen. FGrH 145 F 3. Περιλλοε: apart from this passage and Doroth. Athen. FGrH 145 F 3 the inventor of the bull is called Perilaus in the Greek sources of the story, but Latin authors also use the diminutive form Perillus (so e.g. Ov.Ib.435; Tffst.5,1,53; see further Pfeiffer ad loc.). He is not mentioned before Callimachus, and it is conceivable that he has been invented by him.

OTHER FRAGMENTS OF BOOK 2 48 This is a fragment about the love-life of the young Zeus and Hera from an unknown context. It may be worth noticing that the brother-and-sister marriage of Zeus and Hera was sometimes used to legitimize the marriage of the θεοί αδελφοί Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus and Arsinoe (see Koenen 1993,61 f. and comm, on fr. 75,4 ff.). There seems to be no reason to connect ff. 599 about the river Parthen­ ius on Samos, deriving its name from the virgin Hera, with this fragment (see also Pfeiffer on fr. 599) or to relate it to fr. 119 with Fabian 1992,280. about your horses’) or an adjective going with επινίκιον (‘our < . .. > victory song about your horses’); both το επινίκιον and επινίκιοε as an adjective are attested (cf. e.g. A.Ag.174; Pi.N.4,78). Of the suggestions made so far none is entirely convincing. Griffiths’ δώρημα is too unspecific to stand in apposition with εδνον (and it would be unlike Callimachus to insert an explanation of the

Commentary 54,3

399

unusual εδνον in this way, as suggested by Führer 1992,130 n.483), and d’Alessio’s [ξννόν re] looks odd next to ήμ[ε\τερον[ . As to Parsons’ παιάνα, Meillier’s άειεμα, and Fuhrer’s δ’ άνθημα, semantically άειεμα is more attractive than παιάνα, as the latter was the name of a different kind of choral lyric, which the Alexandrians still distinguished from epinicians (see Käppel 1992,38 ff), but one needs a consonant after ήμ[ε]τερον[; Fuhrer’s [δ’ ανθημ]α εών would turn the gift syntactically into an addressee. (2) The first part of the line stands in apposition to νύμφα in 2 (‘young woman, holy offspring of the brother-and-sister gods, our < . . . > ’) and only the second part of 3 stands in apposition to χαρίειον εδνον in 1. The lacuna could then have contained an abstract noun (perhaps preceded by δε) indicating e.g. Berenice’s royal position and thus herself; cf. the use of the possessive pronoun in h. 1,86 ήμετερω ι μεδεοντι; 2,68 ημετεροιε βαειλεΰειν (both in the same metrical position as here); 2,26 f. εμώι βαειλήι; and for this kind of double definition e.g. A.Pers.151 f. μ ή τηρ βαειλεωε, βαείλεια δ’ εμη; Pi.P.4,1 f. παρ' άνδρί φίλωι I .. ., εύίππου βαειλήϊ Κυράναε; for a vocative extending into a second line cf. h.1,91 f.; 3,225 f. It is, however, hard to think of a suitable noun. (3) We have a combination of (1) and (2), so that another vocative is embedded in the phrase ημ[ε]τερον, [ . . . ], τεώ ν επινίκιον ϊππω[ν, like e.g. Sluiter’s βαείλεια or perhaps βαείλιεεα as in Posidipp. 79,1 AB παρθενοε ή β α είλιεεα . . . Βερενίκη (according to Austin-Bastianini about the same Nemean victory as the Victory of Berenice) and 116,5 AB βαειλίεεηε I . . . Άρεινόηc (cf. also fr. 60d,15; OGIS 60,2 f. (quoted above on 2) ). (4) The lost word in 3 is a verb, as suggested by Luppe 1978α, 36, who wants to read 1 ff. as άφειλω (ν). . . [προίημι]. However, the change of the text in 1 is not attractive and the verb does not seem particularly suitable. Of the proposals made so far (3) is the most attractive. l.ewv: probably ] τεών or ]. εών (i.e. εεαυτοΰ; cf. fr. 472 t τοι κηδεα λεξον εά and see for ióc of the second-person singular further Pfeiffer ad loc.). One of these forms is likely, because one expects an indication about the ownership of the horses. For the objective genitive indicating that a song vel sim. is about some­ thing cf. e.g. Od.4,317 κληηδόνa πατρόε; 23,362 fi; for more examples see KG 1,335. 54,4—6 These lines contain the motivation of the victory song, which consists of the arrival of the news in Alexandria. We find the m otif of the arrival of the news also in victors’ epigrams, like e.g. £p.59,ll Ebert φημα δ’ eie

400

Commentary 54,4-6

Φιλεταιρον άοίδιμοε ήλθε (where the news may be identical with the song; see Ebert on Ep.72,7 ff.) and Ep. 72,7 ff. Ebert θεεπεεί[α δ] è Ρ όδομ 7t o t i πατρίδα φάμα I ΐκ ετ’ άείμναετον χάρμα φερουεα πόνων, I εφ’ oie το καλλίνικον άείεθηι κλεοε; see also Führer 1992,103. Like Berenice also Argos and Alexandria are described in an allusive manner, which adds to the ideological impact of the poem’s opening: Argos is described in terms which recall the ancient connections between Egypt and Argos and the illustrious ancestors of the Ptolemies; Alexandria is described by means of allusions to characters from Greek mythology, who came or returned to it, so that it seems to be portrayed as very much part of the Greek world (on this tendency in Theocritus and Callimachus see Griffiths 1979,85 f.). Another effect of the highly allusive manner in which the arrival of the news is presented is described well by Schmitz 1999,165 ff., who suggests that the effort which has to be made to discover these allusions and their impact may have led the readers to a proud sense of sharing in the knowledge of the learned poet and hence to a readiness to accept his point of view. αρμοί: this word is attested as early as Pi.fr. 10 ελπίειν άθανάταιε αρμοί φέρονται and A.Pr.615 and then reappears in Alexandrian poetry; cf. also Hec.fr. 274,1 (= 45,1 Hollis) (with Hollis ad loc.) αρμοί που κάκείνωι επετρεχε λεπτόε ίουλοε; Theoc.4,51; Lyc.106; and perhaps AR 1,972. According to EtGen.AB 1198 L—L s.v. αρμοί Theon said that it must be written with a smooth breathing when it means ‘recently’, but the other evidence is almost unanimous in writing the word with a rough breathing (see Pfeiffer on Hec.fr. 274,1), and divided in our fragment, where P.Oxy. 2173,4 has a smooth breathing and P.Lille 82,4 a rough breathing. See further on this word Schmitt 1970,99; Führer 1992,130 f. (who suggests that Callimachus is here taking part in a philological discussion about the word’s meaning). The fiction of immediacy created by this word fits in with the present οφείλω in 1. L,Δ αναού yjijc από βουγενεοα it is now clear that the quotations of this line in Hesychius and EtGen. AB (see app.) are both corrupt and that the adjective goes with Δαναού, as was already suggested by Schneidewin. Danaus, the descendant of Io (for the genealogy see on fr. 66,1), could certainly be called βουγενηε and the emphasis on Danaus’ descent from Io recalls the fact that he was born in Egypt and that Zeus was one of his ancestors. A learned audience in Alexandria would remember that this Danaus also stood at the beginning of the line of Argive heroes from which the Macedonian royal family, and in connection with them the Ptolemies, claimed to be descended (cf. e.g. E.Archelaus fr. 1 and 2 Austin; Harder

Commentary 54,4-6

401

1985,129 ff.; Bulloch 1985,12 f.); see also comm, on 12 Άργει[. Danaus’ ideological importance for Ptolemaic Egypt may be underlined by the fact that he is also mentioned in fr. 54a,5 and 54e,4 and that the story of his daughters giving their names to the Argive springs seems to be referred to in fr. 54a,4 ff. and is the subject of the aition in fr. 65-6. The ‘land of Danaus’ is Argos, the town or in a wider sense Argolis. Compared to indications of the location of the games in Pindar and Bacchylides Callimachus’ description is fairly obscure. See also Führer 1992,88 n.332, who observes that in the early epinicians a straightforward mention of the place always precedes the more ambiguous periphrastic descriptions, as in e.g. Pi. 0.9,3 Κρόνιον παρ' δχθον, referring to Olympia, which was mentioned explicitly in 2 and P.10,8 ό Παρνάεειοε . . . μυχόε, about Pytho mentioned in 4. The adjective is first attested of bees in Philet.fr. 22 Powell β ο υγενεα ε. . . μελίεεαε and recurs in an Argive context in Plu. 7s. et Os. 35, 364f,2 Ά ργείοιε βουγενηε Διόνυεοε επίκλην εετίν (—Socr.Argiv. FGrH 310 F 2). The form of the adjective is already familiar from Homer, who has several adjectives in -γενήε apart from the well-attested διογενήε; cf. e.g. II.2,54 Π υλοιγενεοε βαειλήοε; 15,171 αίθρηγενεοε Βορεαο (cf. AR 4,765); Od.4,336 νεβρούε .. . νεηγενεαε. In Hellenistic poetry adjectives in -γενήε are also found in e.g. fr. 190c,9; AR 4,1641 μελιηγενεω ν ανθρώπων, Euph.SH 442,29. 54,5-6 The news of Berenice’s victory came to the harbours of Alexandria and by recounting this Callimachus is reworking the epinician ‘arrival m otif’ and the topos of the α γγελία (on which see Sevieri 1997,67 ff.). Like Argos the victor’s homeland is also indicated by an unexplained periphrastic description. Führer 1992,88 n.333 gives examples of such descriptions of the victor’s town in Pindar and Bacchylides, which are always coupled with a straightforward mention of the place before or soon afterwards, like e.g. Pi. O.l 3,61 εν aerei' Πειράναε, after mention of Corinth in 4, and N.4,11 f. Αίακιδάν I . . . εδοε, followed by the name of Aegina in 22. Έλάνη[ε νηεΐδ]α: this is an attractive supplement; cf. Hecat.FGrH 1 F 309 Έ λενειον τόποε προε τώ ι Κανώβωι; Eust. on D.P.11 την πόλιν . . . Κάνωβον ονομάζει· ένθα που καί νήεοε το Έλενιον τήι Έλενηι παρώνυ­ μου; ΡΙΐη.ΛΓΗ 21,59 in Helene (v.l. Helenae) insula. These descriptions sug­ gest that the ‘island of Helena’ was the small island, which later became part of the mainland and was the location of the harbour Canobus, on the coast east of Alexandria, connected with the city by a canal. With this island the Greeks connected a story about Menelaus’ helmsman Canobus, who was bitten by a snake and died in spite of Helen’s efforts to cure him;

402

Commentary 54,5-6

cf. Nie. Ther.309 ff. and for full references see Jacoby on HecatFGrH 1 F 307-9. The reference to Helen may have reminded readers of the cult of Helen, which was popular in Egypt (cf. e.g. Hdt.2,112,2; fir. 227 with Dieg.X 6ffi). It has also been thought to imply an allusion to Arsinoe, who is compared to Helen in Theoc. 15,110 fi; see E.Visser, Götter und Kulte im ptolemäischen Alexandrien, Amsterdam 1938,19 f. and 84 fi; Griffiths 1979,88 ff.; Führer 1992,65 n.224. Π αλληνεα μά[ντιν] I ποιμένα [ φωκά.ων] : this is Proteus, the prophetic sealherd. Apparently the news came to his island Pharos at the entrance to the harbour of Alexandria and hence to Alexandria itself, like the news of Arsinoe’s death in ff. 228,39 Π ρ ω τή ϊ μεν ώδ’ ετύμοι κατάγο[ντο φάμαι (to which Callimachus might be alluding here according to d’Alessio 1996,2,448 n.3). The connection between Proteus and Pharos is also evident in e.g. Posidipp.Ep.115,1 fi AB (= HE 3100 f.) Ελλήνων εωτήρα, Φάρου α see Bulloch on h.5,32 εμαεαμενα. Here the verb probably refers to the curing of Iphicles as described in Pherec. FGrH 3 F 33 (the instructions transmitted by Melampus to Iphicles) την μάχαιραν την iv ττμ άχερδωι κόμιζαν, καί άττοεμήξαντα τον ίον διδόναι απ’ αντήε πιεΐν iv οίνωι δέκα ημεραε Ίφίκλω ιγενήεεεθαι γάρ αύτώ ι παΐδαε Ì k τούτον, Ps.-Apollod.l,9,12 ζύων τον

Ιόν. For rust as a cure cf. also Plin.NH 34,152 f. and see Cropp on E. Telephus ff. 724. ά ν τ ι γ ε τη ε y e [ : for the position of ye in Lloyd-Jones-Parsons’ α ντί ye. τη c (y’ ετηε) γε[νεήε (‘in exchange for offspring’) see Denniston 19542,146. The supplement is attractive because of Pherec. FGrH 3 F 33 (quoted above). 54e,7 -ll In these lines Heracles seems to speak about the battle with the lion and its possible outcome. The weighing of possibilities fits in with ff. 60c, where he makes arrangements for a positive as well as for a negative outcome of the fight. 54e,7 πελάχαιμι: the verb can be either transitive (‘bring . . . ’) or intransitive (‘approach ’). Because of the lack of context the function of the optative cannot be established. In S.Tr.1093 the Nemean lion is described as an άπλατον θρύμμα κάπροεήγορον (which Jebb explains as άπελαετον), and the choice of the verb here might allude to this aspect of the lion. μόνον: there is not enough context to establish the function of μόνον here. However, it seems likely that is is used adverbially and it may be connected with eri μάλλον in 9 (where see comm.). περιβα[: two kinds of supplement deserve consideration, although neither is entirely convincing: (1) περί βά[κτρον, for which cf. [Theoc.] 25,207 βάκτρον I εύπαγεε, where Heracles takes his βάκτρον when he goes to fight the Nemean lion. If so, πελάεαιμι would be transitive. It is, how­ ever, not quite clear how one should interpret περί·, (2) some form of περιβαίνω (‘bestride’, e.g. of people riding a horse). This verb would fit in with the description of the killing of the Nemean lion in [Theoc.] 25,26271, where Heracles seems to sit on the lion’s back while he is strangling him. If so, πελάεαιμι would be intransitive. A drawback of this interpret­ ation is that the strangling happens only when other attempts have failed, which is something Heracles could not yet know when talking to Molorcus. 54e,8 e c e a ( i ) . . . βουκτεανο[α these words are probably addressed to Molorcus, who is promised that under certain circumstances, described in 7, he will soon possess cows (a notion which may derive support from Mart.4,64,30 facti modo diuitis Molorchi; see Fabbrini 2003,195 ff.). This could be an improvement for him, because ff. 54b,27 ff. mentions only goats and sheep. Besides, the offer would be in accordance with Heracles’ own interests and appetites as a guest (cf. his consumption of oxen in ff. 22-23c and 24—25d and his request to Artemis to hunt cows in /j.3,152ff.). Fr. 54i,20, however, tells us that Heracles later sent Molorcus only ‘the’ mule, which is the fulfilment of an earlier promise (cf. ff. 54i, 19). One might speculate that perhaps this promise was made after a request by Molorcus, who refused the offer of cows and asked for a mule instead (see

468

469

Commentary 54e,8

Commentary 54e,10

also comm, on 11 ff.). On the various ways in which a guest could reward his host see further Reece 1993,29 f. For the form of the adjective cf. II. 1,122 (Achilles to Agamemnon) φιλοκτεανώ τατε πάντων; h.2,35 πουλυκτεανοε (of Apollo) with Williams ad loc. 54e,9—10 Line 9 may overlap with Hec.fr. 333 (= 134 Hollis) επικλινεε ecri τάλαντον, which is quoted in the Suda-lexicon with the explanation επιρρεπεε eie κακόν. Because of Heckers Law this fragment had been attrib­ uted to the Hecale, but this need not mean that the phrase could not also have figured in the Aetia (see comm, on fr. 17,9 and Hollis on Hec.fr. 134). The explanation of the Suda-lexicon, as well as phrases like I I I 9,223 f. επήν κλίνηιει τάλαντα 1Zeile (to which our passage perhaps alludes), may suggest that Heracles begins to consider the possibility that he will not be immediately successful in killing the lion and Parsons 1977,33 interpreted 9-10 as ‘Even if the odds are more heavily against me I shall prove myself a true son of Zeus.’ A drawback of his explanation is that it does not account very well for èri μάλλον, because the words ‘still more’ suggest that the situation referred to is similar to the one mentioned before, only more so, i.e. one would expect that after the moderate success indicated in 7 (with μόνον ‘if I only . . . ’) an even bigger achievement will be mentioned here. One should therefore consider the possibility that the scales are said to go down not for Heracles, but for the lion, and that the train of thought in 7 ff. was something like: ‘if I only chase the lion away, you will soon be rich in cattle, but if the scales go down still more for him , I shall convince people that Zeus really is my father’. For the short i see Pfeiffer on fr. 333. 54e,10 πψ[ί]ςω Zevc o n παιδογό[νοε: Lloyd-Jones-Parsons ad loc. suggest that the general sense might be: ‘fortitudine demonstrabo, re vera me Iovis filium esse’, but, as suggested on 9, a slightly different interpretation might be preferable: if Heracles is successful this may be convincing evidence of Zeus’ parenthood, because as Heracles’ father Zeus would have fulfilled a special obligation to help him (so also Parsons apud Meillier 1976 b, 345; Magnelli 2003,37). We find similar ideas in prayers to gods-as-parents in e.g. Od.9,528 ff. (Polyphemus:) κλΰθι, Ποεείδαον, . . . · I et ετεον ye εόε e q u i , πατήρ δ’ εμοε εΰχεαι εΐναι, I 8òc μη Ό δυεεήα πτολίπορθον οίκαδ’ lκεεθαι; E.Su.628ff. ίώ Ζεϋ, τάε παλαιομάτοροε I παιδογόν€ iτόριοε ’Ινάχου, I 7τόλει μοι ξύμμαχοε ! γενοΰ τά ιδ’ εύμενήε (for more examples see Collard ad loc.); h.6,98 ff. (Triopas praying to Poseidon, whom he calls φευδοπάτωρ for not helping his grandson Erysichthon) and in S. Tr. 1103 ff Heracles reproachfully contrasts his unhappy fate with his status as son of Zeus, ό τού κ α τ’ άετρα Ζηνόε αύδηθείε yóvoc (1106).

As suggested by Magnelli 2003,37 f. Callimachus might also allude to E.A/c.837 ff., where Heracles says to himself in a conversation with a servant of Admetus νύν δείήον οΐον παΐδά c η Ί\ρυνθία I εγείνατ Ή λεκτρύωνοε Α λκμήνη Α ιί (838 f.) before he begins his fight with Θάνατοε. For the expression cf. also Nonn.D.31,278 παιδοτόκοε Ζεύε; 46,45 f. φεύδεϊ . .. κεράεαε .. . Πειθώ, I o t t i c e παιδοτόκω ι Κρονίδηε τεκεν ήθάδι κόρεηι (which might be an allusion to our passage; see F.Tissoni, ‘Nonno imitatore di Callimaco’, Sileno 21,1995,233-5). The adjective is also attested in Theoc.fp.4,3 f. φ άλητι I παιδιγόνωι; Dioscorid.AP 5,54,2 (= HE 1498) 7ταιδογόνωι . .. κνπριδι; Nonn.P. 14,200 παιδογόνων . . . αρότρων. 54e,11-21 In 11 Heracles mentions the alternative that he might be killed by the lion. The sequel might refer to the sacrifice of the ram which is mentioned in fr. 60c and Ps.-Apollod.2,5,l or to a discussion about Molorcus’ reward when Heracles is successful (see also comm, on 8). The references to an animal in 16 βοτόν and to hospitality in 17 ξ]εινοεύνηε would fit either context. In 12 ff. it is hard to see what belongs to the poem and what to the scholia. 54e,18 If ](?eóc8oToc may be read one might compare e.g. Hes.Op.320 χρήμ α τα δ ’ ούχ άρπακτά, θεόεδοτα πολλον άμείνω; Pi.P.5,13.

470

471

54g This fragment is not mentioned by Parsons 1977. It contains the end of lines at the foot of a column, and according to Lloyd-Jones-Parsons line 5 is from the scholia and the rest may be either scholia or poem. 54g,4 7τ]ενιχρόν. perhaps this is a lemma; cf. fr. 23,4; 54c,25. 54h The contents of this fragment suggest that it followed the killing of the Nemean lion and Heracles’ return to Molorcus, presumably with the celery wreath as in fr. 60c, and that Molorcus has just asked Heracles about his adventures: (1) 3 όίττα γέρον must be an address to the old farmer; (2) 4 Π αλλά[ε is best explained as referring to the scene of the killing, where Athena could have figured as helper of Heracles and given instructions about the wreaths at the Nemean Games. Technically the passage consists of a so-called Abbruchsformel and according to several scholars (e.g. Reinsch-Werner 1976,313; Führer 1992,71 ff; Seiler 1997,29 ff) the part which is skipped here is the story of Heracles killing the Nemean lion, because Callimachus did not want to bore his readers with such a well-known story and had, in fact, replaced it by the story of Molorcus’ battle with the mice. This kind of Abbruchsformel is well known from Pindar, where e.g. Jason’s killing of the snake in Pythian 4 is treated in this manner: Pi.P.4,232 ff. is about Jason’s ploughing, 241 ff. about the golden fleece and

472

Commentary 54h

the snake, then the narrator cuts himself short in 247 f. μακρά μοι νείεθαι κατ’ α μ α ξιτό ν ώρα γαρ ευνάτττει καί riva I οΐμον ϊεαμι β ρα χύν πολλοΐει 8’ αγημαι cocj>lac ετεροιε and tells of the killing of the snake in one line in 249 κτεϊνε μεν γλαυκώ πα τεχναιε ποικιλόνωταν όφιν (see further Braswell on Pi.P.4,247-8). In a similar way Theseus refers Oedipus to his daughters, whom he has just rescued from Creon, in S.OC 1148 f. χώττωε μεν άγών τμρεθτμ, τ ί Sei μάτην I κομττεΐν, α γ ’ eleeι καυτόε εκ τούτοIV ξυνών. For other breaking-off formulas in Callimachus cf. ff. 24,20 f. and 75,4 ff. (with comm.) and for another instance of narrative control cf. ff. 75,39. Here, however, we have a rather sophisticated play with the Abbruchs­ formel, as it is not the narrator who breaks off, but in fact the cutting short takes place on several levels. In 1 the reader is invited to find out certain parts of the story for himself and thus to shorten the song (even so, it is of course the narrator who leaves the reader no choice to do anything else). Then in 2 the narrator announces that he shall at least tell all that Heracles told Molorcus in answer to his questions, and Heracles cooperates with the narrator and tells Molorcus that he will now hear only what Athena and that the rest will follow when they are eating. This meal was probably mentioned briefly in 16 f. and whatever Heracles told Molorcus on that occasion is never revealed to the reader. The effect of this treatment of the Abbruchsformel may on the one hand be encomiastic, because it suggests that the story of Heracles’ first labour was famous, while on the other hand it may have a metapoetic aspect, because it shows that Calli­ machus does not follow the ‘well-trodden paths’ in telling a well-known story and draws attention to the fact that he had offered his readers the small-scale story of the mouse-traps instead. See further Harder 1998,100. Tueller 2000,374 f. suggests that Verg.A.8,260 angit (sc. Heracles strangling Cacus) and Ps,-Apollod.2,5,l αγχώ ν εωε h τνιξε (sc. Heracles strangling the Nemean lion) may go back to a common source, i.e. the Molorcus episode in Aetia 3, and that the verb αγχω occurred in Callimachus’ description. This is hard to prove, but even if it were right it would be compatible with a brief mention of the killing and not presuppose a lengthy treatment. 54h,l αντόα this is probably the reader or listener (see also Pfeiffer ad loc.). επιφράεεαιτο: for the sense ‘find out’, ‘acquaint oneself with’ see LSJ s.v. εττιφράζω 3 and cf. e.g. II.2,281 f. clic .. . υΐεε Α χαιώ ν I μύθον άκούεειαν καί εττιφραεαίατο βουλήν; Hdt.5,9,3 okojc 8è οΰτοι Μηδων άττοικοι γεγό ν aci, εγώ μεν ούκ εχω εττιφράεαεθαι; see also comm, on fr. 80,14. The verb could indicate that the reader is invited to consult other sources for certain parts of the story.

Commentary 54h,l

473

μήκοε: the notion of cutting short the story’s length recalls the emphasis on brevity in fr. 1,9 ff., where the scholia in ff. la,9 indicate that lack of μήκοε was part of the criticism of the Telchines. The sophisticated way in which the lenghty tale of a well-known story seems to be avoided here is a good illustration of the principles of fr. 1. 54h,2 άνειρομενωι φη[ε]ει sc. Heracles to Molorcus, as is clear from the address in 3. There is no reason to assume with Führer 1992,76 that Molorcus’ questions focused on the wreath of celery, because 3 τα μεν αλλα suggests that Molorcus wanted to know other things as well. The insistence on Molorcus’ questions recalls fr. 178,22, where [àveiρομεν]ωι is a likely supplement, and the dialogue format of Aetia 1-2 and, like the references to ff. 1 in the Victory of Berenice, may help to knit the Aefia together. τά δ’ εξερεω: this is a self-conscious variation on a Homeric speech introduction. Instead o f a simple ‘and then Heracles said . . . ’ this is a phrase which reminds the reader that it is the narrator who is going to tell him what Heracles said. Besides, because the form is used only in character-text in Homer, the reader’s attention may be drawn to the narra­ tor as a ‘person’. In Homer the verb (of which only the future εξερεω is attested) is always used without a direct object (although in Od.9,364 f. αντάρ εγώ τοι I εξερεω one may assume όνομα as an object), but we find the construction with a direct object in e.g. S.OX800 τάληθεε εξερεω. 54h,3 a rra γέρον: these words are addressed to the old Molorcus; cf. ff. 54d,9 and 54i,10 γερ[ον. For the expression cf. Ep. 1,3 α ττα γέρον; II.9,607 α ττα γεραιε (Achilles to Phoenix); Od. 16,31 α ττα (Telemachus to Eumaeus); Apollon.Lex.46,33 προεφώνηειε νεωτερου πράε πρεεβύτερον η τροφεα. According to Pfeiffer Heracles is speaking to Molorcus until fr. 54i,15. This seems plausible, but it cannot be entirely excluded that Heracles’ words were interrupted somewhere in the lost part of the poem, because c.14-16 lines were lost between fr. 54h,5 and fr. 54i,l. 54h,4 Heracles seems to announce the prophecy of Athena, which was probably related at some length in fr. 54i, where Athena is mentioned again in fr. 54i,13 towards the end of Heracles’ speech; see further intr. to fr. 54i. For the hyperbaton cf. fr. 6 with comm. Παλλά[ε: Athena as a helper of Heracles in his labours is well attested, so it is very well conceivable that Callimachus too portrayed her as present or assisting at the killing of the Nemean lion. We find this notion already in general in II.8,362 f. (Athena about Zeus) ούδε τι των μεμνηται, ο οι μάλα ττολλάκιε υιόν I τειρόμενον εώεεκον ΰττ’ Εύρυεθήοε αεθλων and it is

Commentary 54h,4

Commentary 54i

found in relation to specific exploits in /1.8,364 ff. and Od. 11,623 ff. (Cerberus); Hes.77i.318 (hydra of Lerna); fr. 33a,22 ff. (Periclymenus); Sc.325 ff. (Cycnus). In II.20,144 ff. Athena and the Trojans help Heracles to build the walls of Troy and in [Hes.] Sc. 126 f. she gives him a golden thorax when he begins his labours. See further Gruppe in RE Suppl.3,1096f. s.v. Herakles; P.Demargue in LIM C II 1,1005 s.v. Athena; West on Hes.Th.318; Parsons 1977,41. 54i Between fr. 54h and fr. 54i 14-16 lines must have been lost according to Pfeiffer on fr. 54i. P.Berol 11629, which contains fr. 54h (A recto) and fr. 54i, 18-22 (A verso), is from the same codex as P.Berol. 13417 (= fr. 228), of which ff.A recto contains 38 lines and ff,A verso 37 lines (see Pfeiffer 2, XX no.32). This means that in P.Berol. 11629 the columns probably con­ tained a similar number of lines, so that between fr. 54h,5 and fr. 54i, 18 c.32-3 lines were lost. Of these lines, 17 are preserved in P.Oxy.2212 fr. 18 (fr. 54i,l—11) and 2169 (fr. 54i,8-25); this leaves us with 15-16 lines lost, and, as the number must be even, 14-16 is a likely number. Part of these lost lines was probably preserved in fr. 58. The text as we have it contains part of Athena’s prophecy, as told by Heracles to Molorcus, and shows that the aition of the wreath at the Nemean Games was presented as a prophecy from the past referring to the narrator’s present. It seems to follow a passage in which the goddess has told Heracles that in future the wreath at the Nemean Games will consist of celery (cf. perhaps fr. 58), because in these lines she tells him how others too will adopt the celery. There is no mention of the foundation of the games, but we cannot exclude that this was mentioned in the lost part. The fragment ends with Heracles’ departure, his fulfilment of a promise to Molorcus, and the mention of an everlasting ritual. We have no means of knowing whether this was also the end of the Victory of Berenice or whether Callimachus returned to the queen and her achievement at the end. The passage may be reminiscent of the prophecy of a goddess in B.13,54 ff. ή ττore φαμι I τάιδε] nepì ετεφάνοια I παγκ]ρατίου -πόνον ΈΧ[Χάνεεα,\ν ίδρώεντ ececöat (in 44ff. she had told how Heracles used his hands to kill the Nemean lion, because his sword could not pierce it); see Parsons 1977,41; Maehler 1982,2,252 f. and on B.13,44—57 (where he points out that the identity of the goddess cannot be established); Führer 1992,125 ff Apart from this, the structural device of the presentation of an aition in the form of a prophecy towards the end of the poem is also reminiscent of the deus ex machina scenes at the end of many plays of Euripides (cf. e.g. E.Hipp.1423 ff. with Barrett ad loc.). For other prophecies in Callimachus cf. fr.5,107 ff. (with Bulloch ad loc.); Hec.fr. 260,47ff. (= 74,5 ff Hollis); Jo.fr. 202,54 ff.

It is not certain whether Athena’s words were quoted by Heracles in direct speech or reported as an indirect quotation (‘she told me h o w . . . ’); the future tenses in fr. 58 and 54i,5 ff. would suit both ways of presentation (see Rijksbaron 1994,49 f.). 54i,2 c retf)oc[: perhaps this is the wreath of celery, which must have figured in the lost part of the poem and is referred to by μιν in 5. 54i,4 ]χρυεοιο·. according to Lobel this is perhaps a genitivus comparationis XpócoLO as part of a statement that the prize at the Nemean Games was ‘more precious than gold’; cf. for similar notions fr. 384,13 f. (the Isthmian Games) ένθα πο8ών iva yeipòc iva xpicic dfep[c ίππου I ίθυτάτη, χρυεόν 8’ εύδικίη παραθεΐ and passages like Pi. 0.1,1 ff; 3,42 ff Thus Berenice, who had won this precious wreath, would be praised in an indirect and subtle manner. Pfeiffer mentions and rejects εΧβχρΰεοω, probably rightly as helichrysus was used particularly for adorning the statues of gods; see Blech 1982,270 and 326. 54i,5-9 Athena tells Heracles how in the future the Corinthians will replace the wreath of the pine-tree at the Isthmian Games by the celery wreath because of competition with the Nemean Games (for a different explan­ ation see Blech 1982,133 f. n.117, who suggests that perhaps the celery wreath was used as victory wreath as opposed to the pine wreath used in the cult of Poseidon). Callimachus may have inserted this information because of its antiquarian interest, as is suggested by Führer 1992,127, who states that Callimachus used the prophecy as an opportunity to display his knowledge about the Nemean and Isthmian games and that he adapted the motif from Bacchylides (see above) to his own scholarly and aetiological interests. Even so, there may also have been encomiastic considerations, because the passage illustrates the importance of the Nemean Games and the prestige of the celery wreath won by Berenice. The evidence on the Isthmian wreath is rather complex: (1) in the 5th cent, ec Pindar mentions only the celery wreath at the Isthmian Games and does not speak about its aetiology; cf. Pi.0.13,32ff δ υ ο δ ’ α υ τ ό ν ερεφαν I πΧόκοι ceλινών εν Ίεθμιάδεεαν I φαν όντα' N ipea τ ’ ούκ άντιξοεΐ; Ν.4,87 f. iv άγώνι βαρυκτύπου I θάΧηεε Κορινθίοιε ceXivoic; 1.2,15 f.; 8,63 f.; Aeschylus, however, mentions the pine-wreath in A.Isthmiast.F 78c,39 f. cv 8’ ϊεθμι,άζειε καί π ίtvoc i c r [ ε μ μ ε ν ο ε ] κ τ λ ά δ ο ια and this may reflect the earlier situation before the change to celery; (2) in the 3rd cent. Be the version given in fr. 54i is also found in Euphor. fr. 84 Powell (= 98 Scheidw.) κΧαίοντεε 84 re κούρον επ ’ άγχίάλοιο πιτΰεεει I κάτθεεαν, οκκόθε 8η erεφάνωμ’ άθΧοιε φορεοντο· I ου γάρ πω τρηχεΐα Χαβή καταμήεατο χειρών I Μήνη c παΐδα χάρων a παρ’ Άεω ποΰ γενετείρηι, I

474

475

Commentary 54i,5-9

Commentary 54i,5

έξότε πυκνά εέΧινα κατά κροτάφων έβάΧοντο (this fragment is reminiscent of the Victory ofBerenice in several other respects too; cf. fr. 55,3 Tρηχνε αεθΧοε and fr. 56 on the lion as child of the moon) and this view of the change from one wreath to the other is recorded by Plu. Quaest. conv.5,3,3 (pp. 676f—677b) (quoted in app.); (3) in authors from the imperial period, like e.g. Paus.8,48,2, the pine wreath is mentioned again as the prize in the Isthmian Games and some passages in the Pindar scholia may reflect this view when they explain that the pine wreath replaced the earlier celery wreath in the Isthmian Games; cf. hypoth.c Pi,/. (3,194 Dr.) ετέφοε Se ieri τού άγώνοε πίτυε· το Se ανέκαθεν céXiva καί αυτόν ην ό ετέφανοε and hypoth.b Pi./. (3,193 Dr.), where the celery wreath is related to the mourning for Melicertes and the pine wreath to Poseidon (similarly Σ Pi. 0.13,45c explains the fact that both the Nemean and Isthmian Games had celery wreaths from the use of celery in mourning and seems to relate the Nemean celery to the death of Opheltes/Archemorus: άμφότεροι γάρ επιτάφιοι, iepòv 8è το céXivov των καταχθονίων; on this use of celery see further Blech 1982,94 f.); (4) Σ Pi./.2,19e distinguishes two kinds of celery: Töle τά 'Ίεθμια άγωνιζομένοιε εέΧινον ξηρόν ό ετέφανοε, υγρόν Se τοΐε τά Ν έμεα (see Blech 1982,134). For further evidence and discussion see O.Broneer, ‘The Isthmian Victory Crown’, A JA 66, 1962, 259-63, who on the basis of literary and archaeological sources suggests that the pine-wreath was used until the early 5th cent, b c , the celery wreath from the early 5th cent, to the 2nd cent, b c , and both wreaths from the 2nd cent, b c to the late 2nd cent, a d or perhaps later; Blech 1982,132 ff. 54i,5 μιν: sc. the wreath of celery, which replaced the wreath of pine at the Isthmian Games. This wreath is also mentioned in fr. 384,4 f. and 21 f. (where the Nemean celery is mentioned as well; see Pfeiffer ad loc.). ΑΧη^εΐδαι: these are the Corinthians, named after Aletes, a descendant of Heracles and king or founder of Corinth; cf. e.g. Pi.O.13,14 παίSec Ά ά τα with Σ ad loc.; Ephor.FG r/i 70 F 18b o Ik i c t Óc . . . Κόρινθόν μεν Ά Χ ητην (in a list of founders of the Peloponnese after the return of the Heraclids); Σ Pi./.2,19d ΆΧητί8αι οι Κορίνθιοι; EtGen. AB a 452 L-L Ά Χητηε· ό ΉρακΧέουε άπόγονοε, 6 τή ε Κόρινθόν βαειΧεύε, vìòc 8è Ιπ π ό το υ· άφ’ οΰ καί οι Κορίνθιοι ΆΧητίδαι. See further on Aletes F.Graf, in Der Neue Pauly 1,451 f. s.v. Aletes. It is somewhat surprising that Athena uses this name when speaking to Heracles, whose descendant Aletes at this moment is still unborn, and that Heracles dutifully repeats it to Molorcus. In a comparable way fr. 18,1 ff. suggests that Callimachus was well aware of the chronology of myth and could play with it (see comm, ad loc.). Here the point of the joke may be that the learned narrator as it were interferes with the text of his characters.

7Γ|ρυλΰ γεγειότερον I . . . αγώνα: for the adjective cf. e.g. Hec.fr. 277,1 (= 102,1 Hollis) ßoec . .. γέγεια ι (with Hollis ad loc.) and fr. 510 η p o u reue ò γέγειο ε έχει Χόγοε: Sud. γ 90 s.v. γέγεια ι ßoec■ αι αρχαίαι, καί άρεενικώε γέγειοε. Before Callimachus the word is attested only in Hecat. FGrH 1 F 362. See further Schmitt 1970,44; Nitikinski 1996,170 f. In the mythological tradition the foundation of the Isthmian Games was related to the death of Melicertes, in whose honour the games were founded by Sisyphus of Corinth (Paus.2,1,3), or to Theseus (Plu.T/jes.25,6). The beginning of the Isthmia as Panhellenic games in the historical period is dated early in the 6th cent, b c ( c.5 8 2 -5 8 0 b c ; see Blech 1982,131 f.; W.Decker in Der Neue Pauly 5,1147 f. s.v. Isthmia) and the beginning of the Nemea slightly later, i.e. in 573 b c (see Blech 1982,133; W.Decker in Der Neue Pauly 8,815 f. s.v. Nemea). Therefore the mythological and the historical tradition do not seem to justify ttlovXv γεγειότερον and one should perhaps regard this qualification as a deliberate exaggeration, put in Athena’s mouth for encomiastic purposes: the fact that even the far more ancient Isthmian Games adopted the Nemean celery wreath would enhance the glory of the Nemean Games and the victors in those games. 5 4 i,6 τοΰδε: sc. the Nemean Games, about which Athena must have been speaking in the preceding lines. The pronoun τοΰ8ε may simply be used to refer back to this earlier mention. Others, however, took it as ‘these, i.e. already existing and well-known’ or as ‘these, i.e. which are now being founded’: the second idea is preferred by Pfeiffer ad loc., but Führer 1992, 83 n.313 regards both interpretations as possible (and the first perhaps preferable because of τρ έχ ε ι[v which may be supplied in the scholion in fr. 60f,5). παρ’ A Ιγα ίω νι ιθεώι: i.e. Poseidon in Corinth; cf. Σ Lyc.135 Αίγαίω νοε του Ποεειδώνοε; Hsch. a 1688 s.v. Α ιγαίω ν, Philostr. VA 4,6. The name is first attested in //.1,403 f., but is there used of Briareus (see Kirk ad loc.). O f Poseidon we first find it here (in E.A/c.595 the text and interpretation are uncertain; see Dale ad loc.), but in Pherec.FGrH 3 F 43 he is called Aliyafoc (on which see Jacoby ad loc.) and in SH 910,3 αιγαιωνα was corrected into Έννοείγαιο[ν. The name might have been related to Aegae as a cult-place of Poseidon, which is mentioned several times in Homer (//.8,203; 13,21 f.; Od.5,381) and from which Poseidon comes to the Isthmian Games in Pi./V.5,37 Ποεει8άωνα . . . , oc ΑΙγάθεν π ο τί κΧειτάν θαμά incerai Ίεθμόν Δωρίαν. For Poseidon’s sanctuary on the Isthmus see also on 8; for Aegae see further A.Lesky, Thalatta, Wien 1947,93. Elsewhere similar expressions are used to indicate the location of the games, as in e.g. fr. 98 παραί Διί; 384,25 άμφοτέρω ι παρά παιδί (i.e. Melicertes and Opheltes/Archemorus).

476

477

478

Commentary 54i,6

reXcovTce αγώνα: for this expression cf. e.g. h.2,14 reXieiv . . . γάμον with Williams ad loc.; Ε.Βα.485 τα δ’ iepa . . . τελεΐε; IT 463 f.; see further LSJ s.v. τεΧεω III 3 ‘perform’. The expression occurs in a different sense in ep.adesp. 8,1 ff. (p. 81 Powell) ivi εκοπεΧοιο Ne μείηε I . . . [τεΧε\εαε πάμπρω τον αγώνα (sc. Heracles). 541.7 νρκηε εύφ,βοΧον Ίεθμ ιάδοα for this expression cf. ff. 384,36 où κόεμου εύμβοΧον, άΧΧά πάΧηε. For the epithet cf. also ί.8,4 ΊεθμιdSoc . . . νίκαε άποινα; 0.13,32 ff. (quoted above) and N.2,9. Expressions with ενμβoXov apparendy were popular with Callimachus and often occur in other authors too; cf. e.g. Ep. 27,3 f. ΧεπταΙ I prja.ec, Ά ρητου εύμβοΧον άγρυπνίηε (coni. Ruhnken); ff. 384,36 κάΧπιδεε, ού κόεμον εύμβοΧον, άΧΧά rraXpc and perhaps ff. 110,13/14; Marc.Argent.AP 5,118,4 νμετερηε ενμβοΧον ηΧικίηο, Antiph.Byz.AP 6,199,2; Leon.Alex.AP 6,328,2; adesp.AP 7,329,4; Apollonid.AP 9,228,4; adesp.AP 9,689,2. 541.8 τώ ν Ν^μΑηθε: cf. St.Byz. s.v. Νεμεα- . . . καί “Ν εμεηθεν” επίρρημα, which may refer to our passage. The suffix is usually accompanied by a verb of movement from a place, as in e.g. II.4,500 Άβυδόθεν ηΧθε; 9,664 Λεεβόθεν ηγε; Od.9,38 άπο Τροίηθεν ίόντι. Therefore here τών Ν μ μεηθε seems best interpreted as ‘the victors (who came home) from Nemea’ rather than as ‘the games at Nemea’, whereas 9 άγων perae . . . t o lvc Έ φ ύρψ focuses on the situation at the location of the games. For similar expressions cf. e.g. Hes.Op.l Movcai Πιερίηθεν (with West ad loc.); h.4,284 Δινδώνηθε ΠεΧαεγοί; Arat. 1094 (with Kidd ad loc.); Nic.G. ff. 74,2 (with Schneider ad loc.). Alternatively one would have to assume that Ν ^ μ εη θ ε was used as a genitivus loci. However, KG 1,384 f. do not mention this use of -θεν. ττίτυν: the 7riruc-wreath would have seemed particularly suitable for the Isthm ian Games, because pine-trees grew in abundance on the Isthmus and surrounded the Isthmian sanctuary of Poseidon; cf. e.g. Mosch.4,49 πιτυώδεοεΊεθμον', Str.8,6,22, 380C i v i Si τώ ιΊεθμ ώ ι καί το τοΰΊεθμίου Ποεειδώνοε ιερόν άλεει πιτνώ δει ευνηρεφεε, οπού τον αγώνα τών Ίεθμίων Κορίνθιοι cvveriXovv; Paus.2,1,7. See further comm, on 5 ff.; Blech 1982,132 f.; Burkert 1983,198 f. ά^ττοτιμψουον: cf. h.Merc.34 f. (Hermes to the lyre) δφεΧόε τ ί μοι éccrji, I ούδ’ άποτίμηοω (after greeting the tortoise in 30 as ονμβοΧον .. . μ ε γ ’ όνήομον). Usually a versus spondiacus in Callimachus ends in a word of four syllables, but we find the spondaic ending with a word of six syllables also in h.1,46 προεεπηχνναντο; 2,13 and 55; 3,36; 223 and 237; see further McLennan on h.l, 41; ff. 1,31 with comm, ad loc. and Introd. 7.1.

541.9 ayojvj tcrac. . .

to [tic Έφνρηι:

the word άγιονιετηε is found mainly in

Commentary 54i,9

479

prose and used of participants in the games already in e.g. Hdt.2,160,4 ξείνοιο dycoviCTTjLci εκεΧευον τον αγώνα τιθεναι; 5,22,2. The locative dative without a preposition is a poetic and primarily epic feature; in Callimachus we find it in e.g. ff. 67,6 την Δ η Χ ω ι.. . βουφονίην; 178,6; 655,2; h.5,18 τ dv'lSai (Stanley et Bentley: ϊ'δαν Ψ) . . . εριν (where see Bulloch). See further KG 1,441 ff.; Schwyzer 2,154 ff.; Lapp 1965,130. The context makes it clear that with Έ φύρη Corinth must be meant, as in ft. 384,4 and h.4,42 (where see Mineur). In Homer Έ φύρη is mentioned several times, but only in II.6,152 ff., where it is related to Sisyphus, can we be certain that it refers to Corinth (see Kirk ad loc.). After Homer the name also refers to different towns and we find it used of Corinth also in Simon, fr. 10,1W; AR 4,1212; Theoc.16,83 and 28,17. See further Mayer 1986,51 f.; Sistakou 2002,153 ff. 54i,10-25 The contents of the last part of Heracles’ speech are far from clear. Only a few points are certain: (1) with 10 γέρον Heracles must be address­ ing Molorcus again (as in ff. 54d,10 and 54h,3), so apparently Athena’s prophecy ended with the aition of the wreath at the Isthmian Games; (2) in 12 f. Heracles refers to himself and Pallas; (3) 15 f. c]rjv κατ επω[νυμίην . . . I . . . ΜοΧόρ[κειοε suggests that something was called after Molorcus (perhaps according to instructions of Athena mentioned before). In 17 ff. Heracles’ speech has ended and the narrator tells the end of the story (eating, sleeping, departure, and the sending of a gift), rounding it off in accordance with the contents of the last speech as often in Pindar (cf. e.g. Pi.iV. 10,89 f. and see further on this pattern Führer 1967,79 ff.). Pfeiffer and Lloyd-Jones-Parsons let Heracles’ speech end already with the pentameter in 15, but, although usually speeches in the Aetia end with a pentameter, we have examples of speech ending with a hexameter in ff. 7c,3 and 80,4. It is therefore quite conceivable that Heracles’ speech ended in 16, and, if we have to read ΜοΧόρ[κειοο in 16, that solution would in fact be more attractive. The sequence would then be: in 15 f. Heracles tells Molorcus that something will be called ‘Molorcean’ after him; in 17-20 the narrator tells the end of the story; in 21 ff. the narrator returns to the present and mentions an everlasting ritual as a result of the preceding story. This sequence seems neater than one in which the narrator speaks one line about something called ‘Molorcean’ in 16, then tells the end of the story, and then switches to the present again. 54i,15 c]rjv κα τ' επα)[νυμίην: for the supplement cf. Hdt.1,173,3 κατά τού Λ ύκον την επαινυμίην Λ νκιοι άνά χρόνον εκΧηθηεαν. It is not clear what was called after Molorcus, but a few pieces of possible evidence may be considered. Verg.G.3,19 lucos Molorchi may be no more than a periphrastic description of Nemea (cf. also 181 Iouis in luco of

480

Commentary 54i,15

Olympia; Stat.Silv.3,1,30 pauperis arua Molorchi), but passages like St.Byz.s.v. Μολορχία- ττόΧιε N epeac, dvò Μολόρχου τού ξενίεαντοε ΉρακΧεα άπιόντα επί τον αγώνα· το εθνικόν Μ ολορχίτηε suggest that a town was called after Molorcus. If so, Molorcus would be honoured in the same way as Hecale, after whom Theseus called one o f the Attic demes; see Hollis 1990a, 7 n.10 and on Hec.fr. 83 (= 264 Pf.). This need not be all, however, as the status of an eponymous hero might have implied the institution of a cult, as was also the case with Hecale; see Hollis on Hec.fr. 83 (= 264 Pf.), who derives from Michael Choniates, Theano 340 ού γάρ νηκουετα ετηεια δείπν’ Έ κάλεια the institution of an annual banquet for Hecale in commemoration of her hospitality to Theseus. In 21 we might have evidence of such a cult for Molorcus. 541.16 Μολορ[: there seem to be two possibilities: (1) Pfeiffer’s ΜοΧόρ[χειοε or rather -κειοε, for which cf. also Tib.4,1,13 Molorcheis . . . tectis; o f his further suggestion to read e’Aa^]uc re Μολόρ[χειοε δόρποε the latter part would fit in with the idea of an annual banquet in Molorcus’ honour mentioned at the end of Heracles’ speech and the more speculative ελαχ]νε could be related to the cold snack offered in ft. 54b; (2) a form of the name Μόλορκοε. The state o f the text makes it impossible to choose, but metrical con­ siderations help to limit the possibilities. The position of re MoXop[ in the hexameter may be ^ ^ 8- 9or In the first case, Μ ολόρ\κειοε is not likely, because that would imply a monosyllabic word at the end of the line, which, however, is found only if the line contains a b-caesura (see Introd. 7.3); a form of Μόλορκοε would go. In the second case, Μ ο\όρ[κειοε vel sim. would go, but could not be followed by δόρττοc, because that too would lead to a monosyllabic word at the end of a line without a b-caesura; Μολάρκου or -ωι would be excluded by Naeke’s Law and Μόλορκοε, -ον, -e by Hermann’s Bridge (see Introd. 7.3) and probably also by the accentuation in the papyrus. 541.17 θυμόν άφε[εεάμενοε·. sc. Heracles, as is clear from the sequel. For the supplement cf. Nonn.D.25,370 f. ειλαπίνηε εφαυεεν άρεεεάμενοε δε τραπεζηι θυμόν éóv (Attis left). The verb is attested in the early Greek epic, though not of eating, in e.g. Od.8,402 εγώ τον ζεΐνον άρεεεομαι; [Hes.] Sc.255 f. φρέν ac . .. àpécavTO I αΐματοε. For θυμόε in contexts of satisfy­ ing one’s hunger or thirst cf. Od.5,95 f. αύτάρ ènei δείπνηεε καί ηραρε θυμόν εδωδηι, I καί τό τε δη μιν errecciv άμειβόμενοε προεεεειπεν; 14,45 ff. κλιείηνδε ϊομεν, γέρον, οφρα και αύτόε I ατού καί οΐνοιο Kopeccdpevoc κατά θυμόν I ειττηιε όττιτόθεν ècct; 17,603 f ; II.4,263. In the first two cases the meal is followed by a report of the subsequent conversation in normal epic fashion (for more examples of this pattern see

Commentary 54i, 17

481

Führer 1992,109 f. n.413), but here we find no such thing, as the narrator only briefly summarizes the subsequent events. Even though Heracles may be imagined to have fulfilled his promise of a story to Molorcus in ff. 54h,3, its contents are not revealed to the reader. As to the syntax, it is likely that θυμόν άρε[εεάμενοε was part of a temporal clause, e.g. ‘after he had eaten, satisfying his desire for food, he spent the night there and left for Argos early in the morning’. 541.18 The line shows a striking chiastic arrangement which draws attention to the oppositions ‘night—morning’, ‘there (i.e. in Cleonae)—Argos’, and ‘staying—leaving’; for a similar arrangement cf. Hec.fr. 291,3 (= 113,3 Hollis) écrrépiov φιλεουειν, άτάρ cτυγεουειν εώιον (with Hollis ad loc.) and for the chiastic focus on night and day also Od. 15,49 f. oil πω ε εετιν επειγομενουε περ όδοΐο I νύκτα διά δνοφερην iX dav τά χα δ’ εεεεται ήώε. See further on chiasmus in Callimachus Lapp 1965,40 ff. Άργοε: this is probably the town, where Heracles went to report to Eurystheus after the completion of his labour, as Nemea was part of Ά ργο ε in the sense of Argolis. eώιοε: Callimachus uses this form also in Hec.fr. 291,3 (= 113,3 Hollis); on the various forms of this word and for further references see comm, on ft. 31d,2 and 75,10. 54i, 19-20 Apparently Heracles had promised Molorcus a reward for his hospitality, which he fulfilled when he came home. The gesture described here recalls Heracles’ offer to Thiodamas in ft. 24,12, which is rudely rejected, and may be related to Heracles’ help of the hospitable Admetus in Euripides’ Alcestis (see on this point Magnelli 2003,37 f.). 541.19 ξεινοδόκαη: the adjective briefly summarizes Molorcus’ importance once again towards the end of the story. It is attested already in Homer, in e.g. II.3,354; Od.8,210 and 543; 15,55, and recurs in post-Homeric poetry in e.g. Theoc.16,27 (with Gow ad loc.); Paul.Sil.AP 10,15,8. νποεχεείηα this word is used as a variant form of ύπόεχεειε in epic (e.g. II. 13,369 ύποεχεείηιει πιθηεαε) and is found in Hellenistic poetry in e.g. Ep. 58,2 ΕΙρήνηε μητρόε ύττοεχεείηι; AR 2,948 ύποεχεείηιει δολωθείε. 541.20 το[ν] δρηα: here and in ff. 85,5 we find the form 6ρεύε, in fi.6,107 the Homeric ούρεύε. The variation is probably metri causa; see Schmitt 1970,52; Hopkinson on h.6,107. Mules were precious animals which could very well serve as gifts (cf. ft. 85,5 with comm.) and a mule would probably be particularly welcome to a poor farmer like Molorcus, who apparently had a limited stock of animals (see comm, on ff. 54b,31). The article, in combination with 19 ύποεχεείηε, suggests that the mule had been mentioned and promised

482

Commentary 54i,20

before. Therefore Parsons 1977,41, while admitting that ‘the mule remains obstinate’, suggests that perhaps Heracles had borrowed Molorcus’ mule and, when it was killed by the Nemean lion, promised to send him a new one. It is, however, not easy to see why Heracles would take a mule with him on this expedition. For possible earlier references to the mule and another attempt to account for it see comm, on fr. 54e,8 and cf. ff. 60g,9 which mentions a δώρον. Livrea, 1980b,26 (= 1991,185) aptly points to the aspect of ringcomposition which Callimachus creates by ending the poem, which began with the horses of Berenice, with Molorcus’ mule. riev Se e ώε éva ιτηών: the double hiatus deserves consideration. Normally Callimachus allows hiatus only in three cases (see Introd. 7.4), and one of these is before a word which originally began with a digamma. The hiatus in τίεν Se e is therefore acceptable. Besides, it is supported by the fact that the phrase is reminiscent of II23,705 τιον Sé è τεεεαράβοιον (and perhaps [Hes.] Sc.85, where Sé é was proposed by Ranke), which Callimachus also imitated in Hec.ff. 231,1 f. (= 2,1 f. Hollis) riov Sé e πάντεε όδίται I ήρα φιλοξενίηε. From this point of view there seems to be no need to accept Maas’s μιν, which would remove the hiatus, although this too could be supported with epic parallels (like e.g. Od. 19,247 riev Sé μιν εξοχον άλλων; Hes.fr. 26,32 = 229,12). The hiatus in i die, however, is less easy to explain and in this respect Maas’s μιν may seem a welcome improvement. Even so, it is possible that, because Homer sometimes used postpositive die as if it began with a con­ sonant (as in e.g. II.4,482 α’ΐγειροε ώε), Callimachus did the same with non-postpositive d>c here. The phrase, emphatically placed at the end of the story of Heracles’ first labour, may be meant to recall Hes.fr. 26,32 f. (= 229,12 f.) νΰν S’ ήδη πεφίληκε, riet Sé μιν εζοχον άλλων I αθανατων about Hera, finally reconciled with Heracles (in contrast with ff. 55), who is now settled as her son-in-law on Olympus. Thus this rustic story, in which the narrator did not even let the young Heracles tell about his heroic exploit, at the last moment reminds the perceptive reader of Heracles’ eventual divine status and shows him to be a worthy ancestor of Berenice. d»c èva πηών: for πηών cf. Hsch. π 2235 s.v. πηών· φίλων, συγγενών; Σ Nic.Tber.3 ό γάρ παοε εημαίνει τρία, τόν re φίλον καί τον ευγγενή, eri Se καί τον κα τ’ επιγαμίαν οίκείον. The word’s original meaning might have been ‘relative by marriage’, as in Od.8,581 if. ή τίε τοι καί πηοε απέφθιτο I .. . γαμβροε ή ττενθερόε, οι τε μάλιετα I κήδιετοι τελέθουει μεθ’ αΐμά τ ε καί γévoε αυτών, but it is found in the more general sense of ‘relatives’ in Homer as well, in e.g. Od.23,120 ττηοΰε τε προλιπών καί

Commentary 54i,20

483

-πατρίδα γαϊαν; see further M.Miller, ‘Greek Kinship Terminology’, JHS 73,1953,46-52 (esp. 49); Gow on Theoc. 16,25; West on Hes.Op.345; Matthews on Antim.fr. 159 M. For this kind of brief comparison cf. ff. 23,2 ff. with comm. 54i,21-5 The accusative in 21 must have been followed by a subject and predicate in the following line(s), perhaps something like ‘the people of Pelops celebrate’ (see on 22). From 23 onwards the remains are too scanty to allow conclusions about the contents. Perhaps Callimachus referred again to Berenice’s victory (as was tentatively suggested by Parsons 1977,41 f. and Lloyd-Jones—Parsons 1983,110); for some other suggestions see Thomas 1983,100 n.51 (about φθόνοε); Führer 1992,78 n.290 (about an Olympian victory of Berenice). 541.21 vv]v 8’ e0’: this kind of expression is often found in aetiological con­ texts, as in e.g. e.g. AR 2,526 f. Κ έω ι δ’ ετι νΰν ίερήεε I . . . ρέζουει θυηλάε; 1,1075 f.; see further comm, on ff. 43,78. [α\γιε[τείη]ν: this supplement is attractive because of the presumed contents of the line, but it is by no means certain: (1) although Pfeiffer thought that ]yi[ was more likely then ]π[ Lloyd-Jones—Parsons regard both readings as equally likely, and are doubtful about these letters being followed by a c: ‘unde de [ά\γι[ετείη]ν dubitandum’; (2) all examples of the word in LSJ are ffom prose (like e.g. Isoc. Busiris 28,1; Str.9,3,7, 420C) and Callimachus uses ά γιετύε in ff. 178,3. All this need not be fatal, but it should be a reason for caution. ονδαμά παυεομΑνην. these words are explained by the scholia in ff. 60j,2 as τ(ου)τ{έετιν) αίώ[νιον or αίω[νίαν. The exact nature of this everlasting ritual is uncertain. It may have been an annual banquet in commemoration of Molorcus’ entertainment of Heracles (see comm, on 15) or, as Führer 1992,77 suggests, the sacrifice to Zeus at the beginning of the Nemean Games in commemoration of a sacrifice Molorcus brought at Heracles’ return. See also H.Schwabl, RE Suppl.15,1083 s.v. Zeus about a cult for Zeus Soter in Cleonae because of Heracles’ sacrifice after the killing of the Nemean lion. The adverb ούδαμά is post-Homeric. 541.22 Πελοτη/' [: this suggests a form of either Π ελοπήϊοε or Πελοπηίε; for the first cf. e.g. AR 1,758 Π ελοπήια νώτα; for the second h.4,72 f. φ εύγε δ’ ολη Π ελοπηίε οεη παρακέκλιται Ίεθμώι, I εμπλην Α ίγιαλοϋ γ ε καί Άργεοε; ff. 384,11; AR 4,1570; Nie.ff. 104,4. Führer 1992,78 n.290 regards this as an indication that an Olympian victory of Berenice was mentioned, but Π ελοπηίε may be more or less equivalent with Argolis, as argued by Mineur on h.4,72 {., who in support of this idea adduces Stat.TTz. 10,50 and 12,540 where Pelopeides refers to the women of Argos.

484

Commentary 54i,22

Here too one would rather expect a reference to the people of Argos cele­ brating the ritual mentioned in 21. 54i,23 εεχον ava[ : cf. perhaps ff. 184 εΐχεν άνακτορίην and see comm, on ff. 54b,38 ff. about the scholion in ff. 60h,l. The subject of this line and the next might still be the people of Argos. 541,25 ]7T.47,534 (of Hera). The idea that the Peloponnesian Argives were Pelasgians is well attested in Greek tragedy; cf. e.g. A.Supp.253 γενοε Π ελαεγώ ν τήνδε καρποΰται χθόνα; 1023 (quoted on 7 ff.); and for fur­ ther references see Bulloch on h.5,4 (who also observes that Apollonius follows the Homeric tradition, where only Thessalian Argos is called Pelasgian). Even so, the epithet is somewhat unexpected of the daughters of Danaus, because elsewhere it was their father who changed the name of the Argives from ‘Pelasgians’ to ‘Danaans’ (cf. E.Archelaus ff. 228,7 f. with Harder ad loc.), and the daughters of Danaus are carefully distinguished from the Pelasgian women in Hdt.2,171,3 a l Δαναού θυγατερεε . . . διδάξαεαι τάε Π ελαεγιώ τιδαε γυναίκαε. By placing this unexpected ethnic in a marked position at the end of his poem and calling the Danaids ‘Pelasgian’ Callimachus may have meant to draw his readers’ attention to the ideologically important notion of the blending of Egyptian and Argive elements. For a different view see Sistakou 2002,156 f. (who suggests that Callimachus hints at a connection with Thessaly). On the closural function of the ethnic see comm, on ff. 63,12. On the ethnic in -lac see comm, on ff. 63,12.

67-75e ACONTIUS AND CYDIPPE

540

541

Barigazzi 1975b; Bopp 1966; Buttmann 1823-24 (= 1829); Cairns 1979,117 ff,; Cameron 1995,256 if.; Dietzler 1933; Dilthey 1863; Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004,60 ff; Graindor 1911; Harder 1990 and 1993b; Hopkinson 1988,102 ff.; Housman 1910b; Kuhlmann 2005,19 if.; Legrand 1911; Lynn 1995,192 ff; MagneUi 2005; vOphuijsen 1988; Pasquali 1911; Puech 1910; Rosenmeyer 1996; Sanchez Ortiz de Landaluce 1991; 1994; 1995; 1996; Vranek 1970

Contents The story of Acontius and Cydippe can to a large extent be reconstructed on the basis of the fragments and testimonia (particularly Aristaenet.1,10 = ff. 75b). After an introduction in which the two main characters are described (fr. 67-9) it is told how Acontius, a young man from Ceos, fell in love at first sight with Cydippe of Naxos at the Apollo festival on Delos (ff. 70?). Near the temple of Artemis he threw an apple to her which contained the inscription: ‘I swear by Artemis that I shall marry Acontius’ (fr. 75a). Cydippe read this aloud and thereby bound herself by oath to marry Acontius, but after these events they both went home and Acontius spent his time longing in vain for Cydippe (fr. 72-4). Meanwhile Cydippe’s father Ceyx tried to arrange a marriage with another man for her, but three times she fell ill just before the wedding day. Then Ceyx consulted the oracle of Apollo, which explained that Cydippe was bound by oath to marry Acontius and instructed Ceyx to arrange this marriage. This then happened. After a brief mention of the wedding, a hint of a happy wedding night, and a passage about the lasting rule of the Acontiads at Ceos Callimachus concluded the aition with an extensive summary of his source, the author Xenomedes of Ceos (ff. 75). The plot of this story recalls the plots of thwarted love and a happy ending in New Comedy and seems to foreshadow the plots of the romantic Greek novel. It differs markedly from the treatment of love in the Epigrams, where the emphasis is on affairs with young men or hetairai, but it shares the male perspective we find there, as the story seems to be largely presented from the point of view of Acontius and we hear practically nothing about the feelings of Cydippe (see also e.g. Ziegler 1937,31 ff.; Kuhlmann 2005, 26 and 28). The fact that the story of Acontius focuses on the period before he becomes the eponymous hero of his clan also fits in with a tendency to concentrate on pre-canonical phases which one can observe elsewhere in Hellenistic poetry too, e.g. in the description of the young Medea in Apollonius’ Argonautica, the young Polyphemus in Theoc. 11, the young and unborn gods in h. 1, 2, 3,

Fr. 67-75e Introduction

Fr. 67-75e Introduction

and 4, and the attention to Heracles’ first labour in the Victory of Berenice. See on this aspect of Hellenistic poetry in general Ambühl 2005. We have no evidence of this story before Callimachus, but he says that he found it in the 5th-cent. historian Xenomedes of Ceos, who wrote about his native island. More generally the story seems to belong to an Ionian tradition of storytelling, just like the story of Phrygius and Pieria (ff. 80-3b); see Puelma 1982,239 n.52 (with further references). The first part of the story with the trick involving the apple is similar to the beginning of another Cean love-story, the story of Hermochares and Ctesylla in Anton. Lib. Met.l (attributed to Nicander’s Metamorphoses), which gives the aition of the temple of Aphrodite Ctesylla in Iulis (see also Storck 1912,27 ff. and comm, on fr. 75a,2). The remains of this story consist of 109 lines, but it was probably con­ siderably longer, because it would at least also have included: (1) a description of Acontius (of which only ff. 68-70 are preserved) to correspond with the description of Cydippe’s beauty in ff. 67,9 ff.; (2) the events at Delos (of which we catch some glimpses in the diegesis in ff. 75a); (3) Acontius’ distress and speech in the countryside (of which ff. 72-4 are preserved). For some evidence about the lost parts of the poem see also below on Other fragments connected with this aition. A rough guess would suggest a length of c. 150-200 lines.

(see also Dietzler 1933,45). Also the appendix with the summary of the work of Xenomedes (fr. 75,53 ff.) is of aetiological interest as it provides the reader with information about the origins of Acontius and the towns and popula­ tion of his island Ceos and also about the origin of Callimachus’ knowledge of these facts (see also Krevans 1984,158; Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004,65 f.). On Callimachus’ tendency to incorporate extra aetiological elements into his aitia see further Introd. 2.

542

The aition The aition of this story is not entirely clear. Fr. 67 and 75 are from the beginning and the end of the poem, where one would expect some mention of the aition, but they do not offer any information about a ritual resulting from this story. The only thing which seems to be presented as a result of this story is the fame and power of the Acontiads at Iulis, which is not an aition in the strict sense of the explanation of a ritual, and Fraser 1972,2,1017 n.77 objects that ‘this form of quasi-aition’ is without parallel in Callimachus. However, a survey of the various kinds of aitia in the Aetia (see Introd. 2) shows that there are far more variations than Fraser admitted. Some stories are only slightly aetiological in nature, as in the present instance, but the origin of the Acontiads certainly seems to provide the story with an aetio­ logical element sufficient to ‘justify’ inclusion in the Aetia; so also e.g. Storck 1912,3 f.; Cahen 1929,124; Dietzler 1933,45 f.; Bopp 1966,11 f.; see further fr. 75,50 ff. with comm. Apart from the main aition the story contains several aetiological elements, which are mentioned or hinted at only briefly, like the origin of the Naxian marriage-ritual in fr. 75,1 ff. or the etymologies of names in fr. 75,25 and 36

543

Narrative technique The story of Acontius and Cydippe is the best preserved part of the Aetia and gives a good picture of Callimachus’ narrative technique (on which see in general Introd. 6.3). As far as we can gather from the fragments the presenta­ tion of the story showed a great deal of variation in tempo, themes, and points of view and contained many digressions. Apparently it began with an elaborate description of the protagonists, each described in their own sphere, first Cydippe, then Acontius (fr. 67,5 ff.—fr. 69). The description of Acontius, who broke many hearts of other men, might have led to a transitional passage in which it was told how Acontius himself fell victim to Eros (see on fr. 70). Callimachus’ version of the events at Delos is lost, but fr. 75a, 1 ff. suggests that he told them at some length. Another coherent passage seems to have been the description of Acontius’ distress after his return from Delos and his monologue in the countryside, which contained several elements which influenced the later Latin love-elegy (fr. 72-4). Fr. 75 deals first with the events at Naxos, focusing on the fate of Cydippe and ending with the marriage (1-43), but with several interruptions. In these interruptions the reader is invited to share the point of view of the narrator about himself (4 ff.), of the animals who might be sacrified for the marriage (10 ff.), and of Apollo’s oracle, which is quoted at length (22 ff.). Then the story is finished with a brief reflection on the wedding-night and its results (44-52) and a summary of the narrator’s source (53—77). For a detailed description of the tempo and variations of the narrative in fr. 75 see also Cairns 1979,117 ff. (and for earlier observations Legrand 1911,8 f.). In fr. 75 the narrator is very much in evidence, quite openly displaying the character of a learned scholar-poet, as in e.g. fr. 75,4 ff. and 53 ff. (for details see Harder 1990 passim and the commentary on fr. 75). At another, more implicit, level there is evidence of the scholar-poet and his preoccupations as well, as in e.g. fr. 67,3 (where the reader seems to be invited to ponder over the differences between Acontius and Odysseus and its implications for the story), and 75,22 ff. (where Apollo’s learned speech about the cult-places of

Fr. 67—75e Introduction

Fr. 67—75e Introduction

Artemis and about the Etesian winds seems to show that he is exactly the right god to be the patron of poets like Callimachus).

Apart from the love-theme the focus on Ceos may be thought to pursue a line which began in ff. 64. There we heard about the famous Cean poet Simonides, whereas in Acontius and Cydippe we are informed about the history of Ceos and meet two other Cean authors, the historian Xenomedes (fr. 75,53 ff.) and the poet Bacchylides (to whom the reader is referred by means of some allusions in ff. 75,64 ff.).

Position in the Aetia The position of this story in book 3 of the Aetia is guaranteed by the Diegeseis. It may well have been intended as a kind of companion-piece to the story of Phrygius and Pieria in ff. 80-83b, as both are love-stories and there are some striking similarities and contrasts between the two stories: (1) in both stories Artemis plays a role, as in Acontius and Cydippe she watches over the oath and in Phrygius and Pieria the festival in Miletus celebrates her; (2) in Acontius and Cydippe the emphasis is on the phase before the marriage and Acontius’ courtship, whereas in Phrygius and Pieria the pair seems to get together quickly and the emphasis is on the aftermath of their first (and perhaps only) time together; (3) both stories have political consequences: in Acontius and Cydippe the marriage leads to the long-lasting rule of the Acontiads at Ceos, in Phrygius and Pieria the love-affair leads to peace between Miletus and Myus. The aitia which come in between the story about the nuptial rite at Elis (ff. 76b-77d) and the aition about Artemis as a birth-goddess (ff. 79-79a) fit well into this theme and suggest a sequence of love-related aitia, following the introduction to this theme in fr. 65-66. The story of the Isindian host (ff. 7878b) is less easy to fit into this scheme, but as a story of misbehaviour towards a guest it fits in with the first part of the Elean story about Augeas’ refusal to pay Heracles for his services. Therefore it may be read as an associative digression after which the love-theme is resumed. On a larger scale the cluster of love-related aitia might have been a deliber­ ate part of the design of Aetia 3-4 and intended to prepare the reader for the manifestation of royal love at the end of book 4 in ff. 110 (see also below). Besides, the emphasis on romance recalls the description of Medea’s love in book 3 of Apollonius’ Argonautica, where, in contrast with the emphasis on the male lovers Acontius and Phrygius in the Aetia, the love of a young woman is the centre of attention (see also Huber 1926,89), Considering the fact that there are other intertextual connections on a structural level between the Aetia and the Argonautica as well (see Introd. 4.4), this state of affairs may be another indication of the interaction between Callimachus and Apollonius in composing their work.

545

Topical aspects There seems to be a contrast between the stable and long-lasting rule of the Acontiads as a result of Acontius’ love-story and the preceding more turbulent events at Ceos. In a similar way the love-story of Phrygius and Pieria (ff. 80-83b) leads to peace between Miletus and Myus. These notions of love as a condition for political stability may be read as a background for the Lock o f Berenice and underline the importance of the love between the royal couple, which was part of the Ptolemaic kingship ideology. The focus on Ceos may be related to a certain Ptolemaic interest in the area (see comm, on fr. 67,5 and 74,53 ff).

Date The date of composition of this aition is unknown. According to Cameron 1995,22 there are reasons for considering the story of Acontius and Cydippe as one of the earlier stories collected in Aetia 3-4, because fr. 75,4 ff. may be a kind of humorous criticism of a poem by Sotades about the marriage of Philadelphus and Arsinoe and would therefore provide an argument for dating Acontius and Cydippe soon after their wedding, i.e. between 279 and 274 Be (see comm, on fr. 75,4). Cameron’s argument is attractive, but cannot be proved.

Other fragments connected with this aition Among the fragments of Callimachus a few have been related to the passage about Acontius’ beauty in ft. 68-9: Fr. 500 φοιτίζζιν αγαθοί ττολλάκιο ήίθεοι I etc òàpovc èdéXovciv, which is rejected by Pfeiffer, because it is a general statement and therefore does not fit the narrative of Acontius’ lovers. This argument is not fatal, because this kind of general statement could easily be inserted by the narrator and, as B.Acosta-Hughes observes, òàpovc recalls Posidipp.55,2 AB, also of

546

Fr. 67-75e Introduction

teenagers’ conversations and would therefore suit Acontius too. However, as there is no more specific link with the story of Acontius and Cydippe it is better to keep this fragment among the fragmenta incerta (other contexts are easily conceivable; see Pfeiffer ad loc.). Fr. 534 καί pa παρά εκαιοΐο βραχίονοε εμπλεον ολπιν, which, as Pfeiffer remarks, would very well suit Acontius going to the baths (fr. 68). The oilflask would then be mentioned as one of his attributes as an active young man-about-town, like Delphis in Theoc.2,156, where Simaetha tells how Delphis often left τάν Δ ωρίδα . . . δλπαν at her home. On the other hand this kind of detail could also be part of a description of a work of art, as in fir. 114,5 f„ so we cannot be certain. Fr. 714 was placed before ff. 73 by Dilthey 1863,74 ff., but this is rightly rejected by Pfeiffer on ff. 714, because it does not really fit the story of Acontius. As Callimachus’ story of Acontius and Cydippe obviously had considerable impact on later Greek and Latin poetry and prose it might also be worth while to search these later texts for elements that might be derived from Callimachus, although one should of course be cautious in doing so. Comparison of Ov.Her.20 and 21 with Aristaenet. 1,10 (= ff. 75b) suggests that some elements mentioned by both authors might be derived from Callimachus: (1) the role of Cydippe’s nurse; cf. Ov.Her.21,109 sustulit hoc nutrix mirataque ‘perlege1 dixit and Aristaenet. 1,10,27 ff., where the nurse also admires the apple and asks her mistress to read the inscription; (2) Cydippe’s blush, when she has read the text on the apple; cf. Ov.Her.20,5f. nam, sicut in aede Dianae, I suspicor ingenuas erubuisse genas; 20,97 cum tu decepta rubebas; 21,111 f. nomine coniugii dicto confusa pudore I sensi me totis erubuisse genis and Aristaenet.1,10,40 ff. (for a similar notion cf. also fr. 80,10 about Pieria’s blush); (3) Acontius’ wish to be punished instead of Cydippe; cf. Ov.Her. 20,125 ff. maceror interdum, quod sim tibi causa dolendi, I teque mea laedi calliditate puto. I in caput ut nostrum dominae periuria quaeso I eueniant, which recalls fr. 74 and Aristaenet. 1,10,64 f. ώ δυετυχηε eyco. τι δε coi τούτον επηγον τον φοβον and the sequel to these words in 69 f. oi) cè γάρ, άλλα τον δόντα τή ε επιορκιαε την προφαειν κολαετεον. For some further elements which might be derived from Callimachus story of Acontius and Cydippe in Prop. 1,18 and Aristaenet. 1,10 see introd. to ff. 73-4. On the possibility that SH 301 may overlap with fr. 75,20 see comm, ad loc.

Commentary 67,1—4

547

Commentary 67.1— 4 This aition does not start with the mention of an unusual ritual or statue vel sim., but begins with a brief introduction to the story’s characters, a summary of the situation, a hint of the main events, and an indication of the outcome in 1—4. There are no indications at this point that this story will be in any way aetiological, but this only becomes clearer at fr. 75,50 ff. The contents of these four lines recall the epic convention of beginning a narrative with a prooemium (see also Bopp 1966,12 f.) and by means of an allusion to Od. 1,1 (see on 3) particularly the opening of the Odyssey. The use of this convention at the beginning of an elegiac love-story may be regarded as an invitation to the reader to ponder about the differences and similarities between the two genres. An important difference is that, as opposed to the opening passages in the early epic, this prooemium does not mention or invoke the Muses and does not present the story as an object of their song (see also Lynn 1995,197 and 241 f. n.19). The summary of the story’s source in ff. 75,53 ff. reveals why this is so, because it suggests a poet who has access to scholarly works in the Alexandrian library and can find information without the help of the Muses. At the end of the aition in fr. 75,77 this point seems to be underlined once again by the fact that Calliope has been transformed into a metaphor for the narrator’s art or poem. 67.1— 3 αυτόε Έρωε εδίδαξεν Ά κ ό ν τ ιο ν . . . I τέχνην: these words must refer to the trick with the apple through which Acontius achieved his end. They also show that the following story will be about romance under divine guidance, an aspect which may enhance the status of the Acontiads who are the result of it (cf. fr. 75,50 ff.). The phrasing draws attention to several aspects of Eros’ role in the story: (1) the emphasis on αυτόε recalls the idea of the proverbial expression è τρώεαε tacerai (Mantissa Proverb., Cent.2,28), here applied to Eros curing his victims as in Aristaenet. 1,10,22 f. αυτόε ò τρώεαε (sc. Eros) αεί Tivac παραδόζουε μηχανάε διαπλεκων ΰπέθετό coi (sc. Acontio) καινοτάτην βουλήν; Musae. 198ff. άνδρα γά ρ αίολόμ ητιε’Έ ρωε βελεεεει δαμαεεαε I καί πάλιν àvépoc ελκοε άκεεεεται· cuci δ’ άνάεεει I αυτόε ο πανδαμάτω ρ βουληφόροε εετ'ι βροτοΐειν I αυτόε καί ποθεοντι τό τε χραίεμηεε Λεάνδρωι. This idea has been thought to originate in the story of Telephus, who was told by an oracle that Achilles’ sword, which had wounded him, would also cure him; cf. Ps.-Apollod.£pfr.3,19f.; Hyg. Fab. 101 and the remains of E .Telephus (F 696-727c, discussed in C.Collard

548

Commentary 67,1-3

-MJ.Cropp-K.H.Lee, Euripides, Selected Fragmentary Plays I, Warminster 1995,17 if.); see further on this notion Kost on Musae. 198-201; (2) Eros as a teacher who transmits his own knowledge to mortals recalls a notion which occurs frequently in Greek literature, where the idea of the god as teacher may figure as an indication of quality; thus the Muses and Apollo teach poetry and singing (e.g. Od.8,479 ff. and 488; Hes.Th.22); Hephaestus and Athena teach arts and crafts (e.g. Od.6,233 f.; Hes.Op.63 f.); Artemis teaches hunting (e.g. II.5,51 f.); Apollo teaches the art of prophecy (e.g. AR 1,65 f.; 144; 2,257 f.); for more examples see Braswell on Pi.P.4,217(e); Clausen 1987,109 f. In some of these passages there is an emphasis on the personal involvement of the gods teaching the mortals themselves, as in II.5,51 f. (Scamandrius as a good hunter) δίδαμε yap Α ρτέμιο αντή I βάλλε ιν άγρια πάντα; AR 1,144 (Apollo teaching his son Idmon) αύτόε δε θεοττροττίαε εδίδαζεν. For εδίδαζεν in such contexts in the same metrical position as here cf. Od.8,481 and 488; AR 1, 66 ;

(3) Eros sometimes appears as an abstract force which increases people’s natural abilities; this notion too seems present in the statement that the power of Eros made Acontius clever beyond his normal level in 3 (and in this sense the passage also seems to be alluded to in Ov.fier.20,25 ff., where see Kenney). In a somewhat comparable way Medea is led by Eros to deceive Chalciope, so that she will feel entitled to help Jason, in AR 3,686 f. άψε δ’ εειπεν I το ία δόλωι- θραεεεε γάρ επεκλονεεεκον Έ ρω τεε. For other examples of abstract forces teaching people a certain behaviour cf. e.g. A.Pr.391 ή εή, Π ρομηθεν, ευμφορά διδάεκαλοε; E.E/.376 διδαεκει (sc. πενία) δ’ άνδρα τή ι χρείαι κακόν; Telephus ff. 715 οϋ τάρ’ Ό δυεεεύε εετιν αίμνλοε μόνοε' I χρεία διδάεκει, καν βραδνε tic ήι, εοφον; [Theoc.]21,lf.; fr. 228,11 (?). όππότε: as early as Homer we find the poetic licence of οπότε referring to a particular time like ore, in e.g. 11.3,173 f. (Helen:) όππότε δεύρο I υίεϊεώ ι επόμψ ; 1,399. In Callimachus we find it also in e.g. ff. 75,26 f. όππότε εή παΐε I ωμοεεν; 228,52; Hec.fr. 269,1 (= 25,1 Hollis); h.3,54. καλήι I . . . Κ νδίππτμ παΐε επί παρθενικήι: the words which introduce Cydippe as a beautiful virgin are placed in emphatic positions at the end of two consecutive lines and her name is placed before the caesura of the pentameter in 2. The part of the pentameter following the caesura emphasizes with παΐε επί παρθενικήι the youth of both characters as well as the difference of sex, two elements which will turn out to be important for the story (see also Hopkinson ad loc.). The set of characters thus recalls that of New Comedy and the Greek novel and sets the story apart from the tradition of erotic

Commentary 67,1-3

549

epigrams, where hetairai and boys are the usual objects of passion; for similar emphasis cf. also Musae. 19 ήίθεόν φλεξαε (se. Eros) καί παρθένον. ήιθετο: the verb draws attention to the intensity of Acontius’ feelings and is found in similar expressions in e.g. Theoc.7,102 εκ παιδόε Ά ρατοε .. . αίθετ ερωτι; 2,40 επί τήνωι πάεα καταίθομαι (sc. Simaetha); X.Cyr.5,1,16 οι δε καλοί καί τούε άπωθεν θεωμενουε ύφάπτονειν, ώ ετε αΐθεεθαι τώ ι ερω τι (in a warning not to look at beautiful people). It is also used of love’s attributes in e.g. Meleager AP 12,83,1 f. (= HE 4342 f.) λαμπάδ’ .. . I . . . αίθομενην and of love itself in e.g. AR 3,296 f. αιθετο .. . I ουλοεΈρωε. See further Campbell on AR 3,296 f. The notion of burning love is first attested in A.Pr.590f. τή ε Ίναχείαε, ή Διόε θάλπει κεαρ I ερωτι and is well attested from then onwards; see Groeneboom ad loc.; Williams on h.2,49; Kost on Musae. 19. παΐε: apparently Acontius was still very young. According to G.BinderM.Saiko, Der Neue Pauly 6,1207 f. s.v. Lebensalter one was a παΐε until one was c. 15 years old, although sometimes the word παΐε is also used of youth­ ful participants in the Olympian Games (up to 18 years) or occasionally of young men and women who are marrying (as in Str. 10,4,20, 482C about Cretan marriage customs). This suggests that Acontius was hardly older than 18, and therefore well below the usual age to marry, which was c.30 for men; cf. e.g. Hes.Op.695 ff.; Solon ff. 27,9 f.; for more examples see West on Hes.Op.696-7; J.Wiesehöfer, Der Neue Pauly 5,256 f. s.v. Heiratsalter (who records evidence fluctuating from 25 to 37 for the man and 16 to 20 for the woman). However, West also records a few examples of marriage at 18 for men ( [D.] 40,4; Ach.Tat. 1,3,3) and observes that the bridegrooms in New Comedy also give the impression of being younger than 30. It is conceivable that it was felt to increase the pathos and impact of romantic plots if both partners were still very young. Other passages confirm the impression created by παΐε, because they too draw attention to Acontius’ youth; cf. ff. 68,1 κονροε; 72 and Aristaenet.1,10,48 ff., where the μειρακίον Acontius is afraid to appear before his father and withdraws into the country; 75,76 παιδόε (and Aristaenet. 1,10,20 and 80 παιδίον). παρθενικήι: παρθενική is a poetic variant of παρθενόε, attested from Homer onwards; cf. e.g. II. 18,567 παρθενικαί . .. καί ήίθεοι; Od. 11,39; Hes.Op.699 and in Callimachus also e.g. fr. 63,10; h.4,298; 5,34. τέχνην, this is best taken as the object of εδίδαξεν in 1, which is then constructed with a double accusative, as in e.g. //.23,306 ί . ε ε . . . ίπποεΰναε εδίδαξαν and often elsewhere. The mention of the τέχνη in the introduc­ tory lines of the story is an indication of its importance for the plot, but at this point in the poem it is not yet clear that the τέχνη will consist of the

Commentary 67,1-3

Commentary 67,3

trick with the apple and the reader’s curiosity may be raised. Other passages about Eros suggest several possibilities: (1) he may be a teacher of poetry, as in E.Sthen. F 663 ποιητήν 8’ apa I’Έρωc διδάεκει, καν άμουεοε ψ το πριν (this passage was apparently famous and alluded to in Pi.SmpA96e,l ff; Ar.Vfel074); Bion fr. 10,10 ff. (where see Reed); Nicias SH 566; (2) he may be an inventive teacher of boldness, as in E.Hipp. Cal.ir. 430 εχω 8 è τόλμηε και θράεουε διδάεκαλον I εν t o ìc άμηχάνοιειν εύπορώτατον, I ‘Έρωτα, πάντων δυεμαχώ τατον θεόν (probably spoken by Phaedra). The parenthesis in 3 at first sight seems to clarify the point, but, as πολύκροτοε is open to different interpretations (‘cunning’ or ‘talka­ tive’; see below), the reader still cannot be entirely certain what kind of skills are going to help Acontius. Only in the course of the story will it become clear that thanks to Eros Acontius will invent a clever trick, but in ff. 74 we also have part of a lament, which inspired Latin poets like Vergil and Propertius and recurs in a lengthy monologue in Aristaenet. 1,10,58-79 (see on fr. 74). If this lament was quoted at length in the Aetia as well, Acontius became both clever and talkative in the course of the story, i.e. πολύκροτοε in both senses of the word, and profited from Eros’ teaching in several ways. 67,3 ού γ ά ρ : on this kind of parenthesis see comm, on fr. 23,6. πολύκροτοε: this word is here usually taken to mean ‘cunning’. The most important argument in favour of this interpretation is the fact that Ovid seems to have interpreted the word in this way in Ov.Her.20,25 ff. non ego (i.e. Acontius) natura nec sum tam callidus usu . .., (30) consultoque fui iuris Amore uafer (cf. also 21,222 arte. .. mea). The Greek evidence, however, is more ambiguous. On the one hand, in Od. 1,1 άνδρα μοι εννεπε, Μοΰεα, πολύτροπον we find πολύκροτον attested as a variant reading for πολύτροπον. This variant is of unknown date (although P.von der Mühll, Homeri Odyssea, Basileae 1946 (and later editions) in his apparatus on Od. 1,1 suggests that it was ‘antiquissima’; similarly Pardini 1991,57 ff; Rengakos 1993,148) and it is attested in Σ Matr Ar.Nu.260f. (p. 65,9 ff. Holwerda), Sud. τ 988 s.v. τρίμμα, and Eust. ad Off 1,1 (1,5,2 ff Stallbaum) (who, however, regards it as deliberate mockery, playing with the comic use of κρόταλον). Hence πολύκροτοε has been taken to mean ‘cunning’, like πολύτροποε. The same meaning is possible in Hes.fr. 198,3 uioc Λ αερταο πολύκροτα μή8εα ειδώε (which may also be a variant reading; cf. QS 5,238 uiòc Λ αερταο πολύτροπα μήδεα νωμών), about Odysseus going about his courtship of Helen in a rather circumspect way by sending messages to her brothers instead of presents, because he is aware that in that respect he cannot beat the wealthy Menelaus. On the other hand, elsewhere the word is best taken as ‘noisy’ or

‘talkative’; this use is attested particularly in prose, but is also found in poetry; cf. e.g. h.Hom. 19,37 πολύκροτον (of Pan); Anacr.PMG 427,2 f. τήι πολυκρότηι I cùv Γαετροδώρωι; see further Pardini 1991,58 ff. This fits in with the use of related words, used of Odysseus in particular; cf. e.g. E.Cyc/.104 κρόταλον δριμύ (with Dover on Ar.Nw.260 'κρόταλον: “Castanet” is an obvious slang term for a fluent talker’). It seems that Callimachus is here contrasting Acontius with the clever and well-spoken epic hero Odysseus and playing with πολύκροτοε in both senses. Acontius was not ‘cunning’, and therefore had to be taught a clever trick by Eros, and he was not a ‘fluent talker’, and therefore had to rely on a trick which could be performed in complete silence (i.e. the inscribing and throwing of the apple), but, even so, in the course of the story he became eloquent on his own feelings in fr. 74. If the variant in Off 1,1 was already known to Callimachus there would also be an allusion to the textual tradition of Homer, but here we cannot be certain. See on πολύκροτοε further Coletti 1962,299 ff. (who suggests that in h.Hom. 19,37 and Anacr.PMG 427,2 f. the word also has erotic connotations, to which Callimachus may allude); Schmitt 1970,146; Pardini 1991,57 ff; and the extensive discussion in LfrgrE s.v.; and on the Hesiodic reminiscence Reinsch-Werner 1976,106 ff With the above interpretation our passage is a good example of Calli­ machus’ technique of using an ambiguous term, the meaning and relevance of which become gradually clear in the course of the poem; for further discussion of this technique see K.J.McKay, The Poet at Play, Leiden 1962,62 ff ; Arnott 1969,7, where he uses the term ‘ambiguous anticipation’). 67,3-4 οφρα Aeyo.. [ I . . . κουρίδιον: the general sense is clear: Acontius’ aim is a lawful marriage, as in Ov.Her.20,7 f. coniugium pactamque fidem, non crimina, posco; debitus ut coniunx, non ut adulter, amo. The phrasing recalls h.Ven. 126f. Ά γχίεεω 8ε μ ε φάεκε (sc. Hermes about Aphrodite) παραί λεχεειν καλεεεθαι I κουριδίην αλοχον, but the exact reading and supplements are uncertain. Pfeiffer considers Lobel’s λεγοιτ[ο as a likely reading and mentions two possibilities with it: (1) ‘in order that he might be called by that name, i.e. her lawful husband’; but one would then expect the nominative instead of the accusative κουρίδιον, unless the accusative could be explained by way of ‘assimilation’ with οϋνομα (which Pfeiffer rightly thinks unlikely); (2) ‘in order that he might choose for himself that name, i.e. lawful husband’; this seems even less likely, because we would expect ‘possess’ rather than ‘choose’. Another possibility with λεγοιτ[ο would be to take it in a passive sense with τούτο ■■■οϋνομα κουρίδιον as internal object: ‘that he would be called by that

550

551

552

Commentary 67,3-4

lawful name (i.e. by that name of lawful husband)’, for which one might compare Pi.0.6,56 f. to /cat κατεφάμιξεν καλεΐεθαί νιν (sc. Iamus) χρόνιοι εύμπαντι μάτηρ I to u t’ ονυμ’ αθάνατον. Other suggestions include Kassel’s Aeyoi μ[ιν (‘in order that she called him her lawful husband’), which is followed by Hollis 1991b, 90 f., who, however, interprets it as ‘so that thoughout his life he could call her by the name of wedded wife’ and Lynn 1995,239 n.l, who takes Eros as the subject and Acontius as the object; Barigazzi’s λεγοιε[ν; and Gigante’s λεγοι_τ[ιε. Of these suggestions Barigazzi’s λεγοιε[ν with an undefined ‘they’ as its subject is a possibility, but a drawback of Kassel’s solution is that it would not be evident that Cydippe was the subject (in this respect Hollis’s interpretation is an improvement, but Lynn’s less so). An argument against both proposals is that μ[ and e[ are palaeographically unlikely. A drawback of Gigante’s t[ic is that it seems too indefinite to refer to Cydippe as he suggests. τούτο . . . οϋνομα: τούτο may resume or hint at something which has been discussed already; see KG 1,646,7 (outoc about something which was ‘vorher schon in der Seele schlummernd’). Here it would resume the notion of 2 rraìc erri παρθενικήι, because when the bride was a virgin she and her husband would rightly be called κουρίδιοε (see comm, below). Alternatively, the pronoun could also refer to what follows in apposition (cf. e.g. Od.2,306 f.; Pl.Apo723a,3 όνομα 8è τούτο λεγεεθαι, co are also used frequently in the Homeric catalogue (as in e.g. //.2,500 of τ ’ Ελεών εΐχον and 504 of re Π λάταιαν εχον etc.). The syntactic function of the relative clause may be that of an indirect object, as suggested by Barber-Maas 1950,96, but other functions as a subject or direct object are also conceivable. 80.17 μονν[η