Callimachus: Aetia - Introduction, Text, and Translation [1] 0198144911, 9780198144915

Citation preview

CALLIMACHUS Aetia Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary

by

ANNETTE HARDER Volume 1. Introduction, Text, and Translation

OXJORD U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS

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

To my parents, Anna Barnouw and Willem Harder

Preface

I t seems proper that this preface should begin with an aetiological question: ‘Why did I write a commentary on Callimachus’ AetiaV The idea first arose in the early 1980s, when I was teaching a course on Hellenistic poetry at the University of Utrecht and found that there was no recent commentary avail­ able. When in the course o f the 1980s I had my hands free again after the completion o f my dissertation I decided, full of youthful hubris, to solve this problem by writing a commentary on the Aetia myself, first with a post­ doctoral grant from the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). It soon became clear that this commentary should be accompanied by a new edition of the text, incorporating all the papyrus finds since Pfeiffer’s edition, and that it should be aimed not only at students and their teachers, but also at scholars of Hellenistic poetry in general, as the need for a new up-to-date commentary was widely felt. In this edition the aim of the commentary is to make the Aetia accessible to its readers at a micro- and meso-level and the Introduction is meant to present an overview of the Aetia as a whole, of its position in the Greek tradition and its function in contemporary Alexandria, o f various literary aspects, and of the transmission. Thus the Introduction aims at covering the macro-level and incorporates the results of the small-scale investigations in the line-by-line commentary and o f the introductions to the individual aitia. At all levels the emphasis is on the Aetia itself and its reception is largely left out of consideration. Although many matters will be dealt with at length in the commentary and it has definitely become ‘a big book’, it is not to be expected that the commen­ tary will be really comprehensive or in any way the last word about the Aetia. Very often there seemed to be much more that could be said about a particu­ lar passage or that had in fact been said by others and could have been incorporated and discussed here, but this would have extended the work endlessly. It seemed wise to put a full stop at a certain moment and leave work to do on the Aetia for others as well. I am greatly indebted to earlier scholarship on the Aetia, above all to Pfeiffer’s edition, which after more than fifty years is still a most impressive work of scholarship, and in many cases the essence of my notes can be traced back to his ‘notiunculae’. Other important tools have been Lloyd-Jones— Parsons’ Supplementum Hellenisticum, which provided texts and useful notes

Preface

Preface

on the more recently found fragments, the commentaries by d’Alessio, Fabian, Hopkinson, Marinone, Massimilla, and Torraca on (parts of) the Aetia and the recent translations by Asper, Durbec, and Nisetich. Also the fact that research on Hellenistic poetry in general has flourished during the last decades has been a great help. On the one hand, the appearance o f a large number o f articles and of several monographs on aspects o f the work of Callimachus and other Hellenistic poets has increased our insight into the literary issues which are at stake here and has been very useful for my work on the Aetia. On the other hand, the recent interest in Hellenistic poetry has resulted in a number o f commentaries on Callimachus and other Hellenistic poets, which often very helpfully discussed matters which also occurred in the

On the home front I want to give special thanks to Bert Kuik, who signed the contract with the Oxford University Press as a witness in August 1989, for his unwavering moral support. In a truly aetiological spirit I dedicate the book to my parents, Anna Barnouw and Willem Harder.

viii

Aetia. Many colleagues have been helpful by offering advice or by reading parts o f the commentary and Introduction and giving useful feedback on it. In Groningen several parts o f the commentary and Introduction have been discussed with great profit at the Groninger Wetenschapsavonden and the Societas Graeca et Latina. Audiences at lectures about my work on the Aetia elsewhere in the Netherlands and abroad have been lavish with comments and ideas. For various kinds o f help, such as reading and com­ menting on specific parts of the book, pointing to references, help with acquiring publications which could not be found in the Netherlands, as well as general support and encouragement in the course of the many years it took to complete this work I want to thank Annemarie Ambuehl, Stéphanie Bakker, Jan Bremmer, Martine Cuypers, Kathryn Gutzwiller, Mark Heerink, Adrian Hollis, Richard Hunter, Gregory Hutchinson, Lena Krauss, Luigi Lehnus, Enrico Magnelli, Giulio Massimilla, Ruurd Nauta, Peter Parsons, Stefan Radt, Remco Regtuit, Gerrit Reinink, Susan Stephens, Folkert van Straten, Richard Thomas, Gerry Wakker, Fred Williams, and Klaas Worp. Special thanks must go to Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, who has read through the whole manuscript with his students, corrected the English and offered many useful comments besides, and to Aaron Paimore for his careful reading o f the proofs o f volume 1. Two o f my students should be mentioned here too: I am very grateful to Mirjam Rutgers, who as my assistant made numerous xeroxes and with great and cheerful persistence hunted for obscure books and articles, and to Tanja Werler, who as part o f a research-master’s tutorial read through large parts of the commentary and whose comments and ideas as well as demands for clarification were very useful. Last but not least I want to thank the many people who in the course o f time have sent me books and offprints o f their books and articles, Huub Veldhuijzen, who kindly gave permission to use one o f his photographs on the front cover, and the Groningen research institute ICOG for financial support.

IX

M.A.H.

University of Groningen April 2009

Contents Volume I INTRODUCTION

1

1. Composition and size 1.1 Composition 1.2 Aetia 1-2 1.3 Aetia 3 -4 1.4 Original size of the Aetia

2 2 8 11 12

2. Contents

15

3. Date

21

4. Generic aspects 4.1 Aetiology in ancient literature 4.1.1 Poetry 4.1.2 Prose 4.2 The Aetia as didactic poetry 4.3 The Aetia and the elegiac tradition 4.4 The Aetia and narrative epic poetry 4.5 Play with other genres in the Aetia

23 24 24 26 27 30 32 34

5. The Aetia as Alexandrian poetry 5.1 The Aetia in its literary context 5.2 The Aetia in its social and historical context

36 37 39

6. Literary techniques 6.1 Word-order, language, and style 6.1.1 Word-order 6.1.2 Metrical unitsand sense units 6.1.3 Vocabulary 6.1.4 Imagery 6.1.5 Sound-patterns 6.2 Intertextuality 6.3 Narrative technique

41 41 42 45 47 48 49 49 51

xii

Contents 7. Metre 7.1 Dactyls and spondees 7.2 Caesuras 7.3 The position o f words in thehexameter and pentameter 7.4 Prosody: varia

56 57 58 59 61

8. The text 8.1 The transmission o f the Aetia 8.1.1 The papyri 8.1.2 Book fragments and testimonia 8.1.3 Ancient scholarship and the Aetia 8.1.4 The last Byzantine readers 8.1.5 Modern editions 8.2 About the present edition

63 63 63 68 68 70 72 73

9. Nature and purpose of the commentary

75

Bibliography TEXT AND TRANSLATION

77 109

Volume II COMMENTARY

1

Appendix 1. Survey of the Aetia

1025

Appendix 2. Other fragments atributed to the Aetia

1027

The numbering of the fragments: comparative tables

1029

Index o f Greek Words

1032

Index of Names and Subjects

1043

Index of Sources

1055

Introduction

Die Papyrusrollen waren beinahe vollständig erhalten; kaum dass sie einmal in der Mitte entzweigerissen waren. Als die Sonne aufging, lagen auf den geblümten Hand- und Betttüchern . . . insgesamt sechsundvierzig Blätter, allesamt swach, aber trotz der dunklen Verfärbungen erkennbar mit der Handschrift des Kallimachos bedeckt. Die Aitia, Pallas-Bad, Demeterfest, Das Haar der Berenike: Sämtliche Dichtungen hatte er mit ins Grab genommen— statt eines Totenhemds trug er ein papierenes Kleid aus Gedichten. Ein Hoch auf Kallimachos!1

The Aetia was Callimachus’ main work, probably written in several stages in the course o f his career as a poet in Hellenistic Alexandria in the first half o f the 3rd century bc. After the work was lost in the course of the Middle Ages, a considerable part of it came to light again in the course o f the 20th century, thanks to a number o f papyrus finds. Nowadays the general consensus is that the Aetia was a truly fascinating poem. In the past, however, the work was often underestimated, and it has taken a while for the Aetia to be appreciated as it deserves. Particularly the reactions at the publication o f ff. 75 from the love-story of Acontius and Cydippe were rather severe. At the beginning of the 20th century scholars still thought that this fragment did not show a great deal of ‘art’ and that it was in fact rather second-rate,2 learned, but without much emotion.3 Others formulated similar judgements about other fragments.4 Only gradually, in the course o f the 20th century, did this view of the Aetia change; in particular during the last decades the work has become much appreciated for its cleverness, wit, and variety, and has received a great deal of scholarly attention which has helped‘to refine our insights further. After

1 This utopian view of the rediscovery of the Aetia is found in a very entertaining novel by Susanne Fengler, Fräulein Schröder, Berlin (Gustav Kiepenheuer Verlag) 2004,278. My attention was drawn to it by A. Ambühl. 2 See e.g. Puech 1910, 259 and 274. 3 See Graindor 1911,63 f. 4 See e.g. Ziegler 1937,37 about ff. 110.

3

Introduction

1. Composition and size

Pfeiffer’s 1949 edition had provided a sound and important basis for further research, the increase o f insight into the quality and nature o f the Aetia was stimulated by further investigations in the fields of literary technique, genre, intertextuality, and the function o f poetry in its social and cultural contexts. Thanks to the scholarly work in these areas we are now able to form a picture of the Aetia which may still not be complete,5 but at least helps us to appreci­ ate more aspects o f this intriguing and important work. Research on the Aetia has also helped to show the extent o f the influence exercised by this work on later poets.6 This Introduction will discuss several aspects of the work in general terms, but for further details the reader is referred to the literature mentioned in the notes and to the commentary.7

(an early date which would account for the fact that the poet Apollonius Rhodius often refers to the Aetia)·, that the old Callimachus made a second edition o f it; and that the poet framed this second edition in a prologue (fr. 1) and an epilogue (ff. 112) and included the Lock of Berenice (ff. 110-110f).12 The date for the collection, after 246/5 bc, was derived from the poem for Berenice and supported by the references to old age in fr. 1. After the discovery o f the Victory of Berenice (ff. 54-60j) in 1976, Parsons 1977,49 f. further elaborated and modified this view. He argued that inserting the recendy discovered Victory o f Berenice at the beginning of a pre-existing Aetia 3 would be ‘a much more radical, and therefore less plausible, revision’ than just adding the Lock of Berenice at the end o f Aetia 4. He therefore suggested that the young Callimachus wrote Aetia 1-2, and that he continued writing aetiological poems which he collected in books 3 -4 ,13 framing these with two poems for Berenice, the Victory of Berenice at the beginning of book 3 and the Lock o f Berenice at the end o f book 4: ‘The result was a bipartite Aetia, to which a new prologue (ff. 1) and a new epilogue (ff. 112) gave external unity.’ Both views assume that books 1-2 were not modified in the second edition, probably righdy, because the narrative framework o f the dialogue with the Muses would make these books into a unity which might be disturbed by taking away or adding elements. The second view also has the advantage o f explaining the difference in structure of Aetia 1-2 and 3-4, which lack the dialogue framework.14 Recently Cameron 1995, 104 ff. has challenged the views of Pfeiffer and Parsons. He argued that ff. 1 was not necessarily written when Callimachus was old, that ff. 112 could very well be the epilogue o f Aetia 2 and that the story of Acontius and Cydippe (ff. 67-75e in Aetia 3) was written early in

1. COMPOSITION AND SIZE

1.1

C om position

In its overall structure the Aetia was a catalogue-poem, which contained a collection o f aetiological stories. There is ample evidence that the Aetia consisted o f four books8 and, as we shall see below, these books were divided into two clearly distinguished parts. In books 1-2 the stories were told with­ in the framework of a dialogue o f the poet with the Muses, who answered his questions in a dream which carried Callimachus9 as a young man to Mt. Helicon.10 In books 3-4 the stories were juxtaposed without this dialogue framework. The final appearance o f the work may reflect the way in which the Aetia was written in the course o f Callimachus’ life. Thus Pfeiffer11 suggested that the Aetia was an early work, consisting o f four books and written before 270 bc 5 See also e.g. Merkelbach 1970, 90: ‘Die Feinheiten dieses Dichters angemessen zu würdigen— darin werden wir nicht leicht an ein Ende kommen.’ 6 As A. Dalzell, The Criticism o f Didactic Poetry, Toronto-Buffalo-London 1996, 24 states quite emphatically: ‘No text in antiquity, with the exception of the epics of Homer, exercised a more profound influence on subsequent literature than the Aetia of Callimachus.’ 7 Shorter introductions to the Aetia may be found in e.g. Lehnus 1993b, 80 ff.; FantuzziHunter 2004,44 ff.; Asper 2004,23 ff. 8 See comm, on T 1. 9 Strictly speaking one should distinguish between the historical Callimachus (i.e. the poet), the narrator (who presents himself as the old Callimachus), and the young Callimachus, about whom the narrator is reporting. 10 Cf. T 6 and the scholia in ff. 2d. " See Pfeiffer 1928, 339 ff. and 2, xxxvi f. Hollis 1986,467 ff. suggested a further refinement of Pfeiffer’s view. Because of P.Oxy. 2258 B ff. 2 (of which the front overlaps with ff. 54c, 4—6 and the back contains some scholia) he argued that there must have been an early edition of

Aetia 3-4 in which the story ofEuthycles of Locri (ff. 84-85a), to which he related the scholia on the back, came first and was followed by the story of Molorcus, which at that time was not yet embedded in the Victory of Berenice. However, a simpler and more plausible explanation of P.Oxy. 2258 B ff. 2 was offered by Krevans 1986,37 f., who was able to explain it as a scholion on the Victory of Berenice. See further introd. to ff. 60f. 12 For further discussion and a survey of the evidence for second editions in antiquity see S. Heyworth and N. Wilson, in Der Nene Pauly 2, 271 ff. s.v. Auflage, Zweite. They rightly conclude on p. 274 'Die Annahme, dass zweite A. e silentio ausgeschlossen werden können, scheint verfehlt.’ 13 For the notion that Callimachus wrote aetiological poems all through his life and pub­ lished bits of them before making a collected edition in his old age see also Eichgrün 1961, 64 ff. 14 See also e.g. Van Sickle 1984,289 ff; d’Alessio 1996,1,40 ff; Massimilla 1996,34 ff. and the brief but very clear summary of the discussion by A. Köhnken, in H. H. Schmitt-E. Vogt, Lexikon des Hellenismus, Wiesbaden 2005,506-12 s.v. Kallimachos (esp. 506 ff.).

4

5

Introduction

1. Composition and size

Callimachus’ career. His conclusion was that Aetia 1-2 (including the pro­ logue and epilogue) were written c.270 bc and Aetia 3-4 were edited by the poet in 245-240 bc. His arguments, however, are far from cogent15 and on the whole Parsons’ view remains the most plausible.16 An important argument in favour o f Parsons’ view is also that the frag­ ments o f the Aetia contain several elements which are best accounted for if one assumes a final redaction o f the four books by Callimachus, which gave the work a new unity and added new programmatic and ideological layers o f meaning:

(2) Across the four books of the Aetia one may observe a certain develop­ ment in time, on the level o f the stories and perhaps also on the level o f the ageing poet. After a hint at the birth of Chaos in fr. 2,3, which reminds the reader of the prehistory o f the Aetia from Chaos to the generation o f Minos as told in Hesiod’s Theogony, the work moves from the reign of Minos in the first aition of Aetia 1 on the Charites at Paros (fr. 3-7b) to the present and future of Alexandria in the Lock of Berenice (fr. 110-110f) at the end of Aetia 4. The intervening episodes, however, do not by any means follow in chronological order (see also Introd. 2). Whereas Callimachus presented the chronological order, as far as we can see, in an apparently loose and unorganized way, Ovid’s reception o f the Aetia in his Metamorphoses, which begins with Chaos and ends with the catasterism of Caesar, suggests that he too read the Aetia as following a chronological time-line.19 Though less clear, there may also be a hint o f the development o f the poet in the course of the Aetia: one could argue that in Aetia 1-2 the young Callimachus presents himself as dependent on the Muses’ information (even though he gives hints of knowledge himself as in e.g. the catalogue of Sicilian cities in fr. 43, 28 ff.), whereas in 3-4, when he has woken up and is his older self again,20 he operates without their assistance and tells us how he found his information in e.g. the work o f Xenomedes of Ceos in fr. 75,

(1) The evidence suggests that at some stage the four books o f the Aetia were arranged in response to Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica or— some­ what less plausibly— that Apollonius reacted to the composition o f Cal­ limachus’ work by the way in which he organized his epic. The interaction between these two works is more complex than Pfeiffer thought and it seems best to assume a kind of continuous interaction between Callimachus and Apollonius (see also Introd. 4.4), but even so it seems that also with the final composition o f their works they made a statement about their works in relation to each other. Here a few details might be in order for clarification o f the issue. The story o f the return o f the Argonauts and the ritual for Apollo at Anaphe (fr. 7c-21d) is the second aition of Aetia 1, whereas it appears towards the end o f book 4 o f the Argonautica, and there are many allusions from one poet to the other in this section. Callimachus narrates the story of the Argo’s anchor, which was left at Cyzicus on the Argonauts’ outward journey, towards the end o f Aetia 4 (fr. lQ8-lQ9a), whereas it is one o f the earliest events in book 1 o f the Argonautica. Aetia 3 contained the love-stories of Acontius and Cydippe (fr. 67-75e) and Phrygius and Pieria (fr. 80-83b), whereas book 3 o f the Argonautica focuses on Medea’s love for Jason.17 These contrasts and similarities suggest that at some stage the two poets reacted to the overall structure of each other’s work18 and this implies that Callimachus himself arranged the four books o f aitia in the way he did.

15 See Harder 2002c, 600 ft; for further discussion see also the introductions to fr. 1 and 112. 16 See also Pretagostini 2006, 15 f. 17 As R. Kirstein suggests, the notion of the third book focusing on love may also have struck ancient readers, as in Hor. C. 3, 26 and 4, 1 the poet, after giving much attention to love in his third book of odes, emphatically declares that now he will have nothing to do with Venus anymore. 18 See also Harder 1993c; 103 ff. As B. Acosta-Hughes suggests, another aspect of interaction on a structural level might be that in the Aetia books 1-2 are framed by the dialogue with the Muses, while in the Argonautica we find invocations of the Muses at the beginning o f books 3 and 4.

53 f f .21 (3) There are several indications of structural devices which encompass the four books. There is, for instance, ring-composition in the arrangement o f the stories about the Argonauts and Minos at the beginning and end of the Aetia: fr. 3—7b tell about Minos’ reaction at the death o f his son Androgeos and fr. 103-103a also are about Androgeos, fr. 7c-21d are about the Argonauts’ return journey and fr. 108-109a about their outward journey. Also the

19 As S. Heyworth observes to me: Ovid might react to the chronological sequence implicit in the Aetia in his Metamorphoses and to the discontinuous presentation o f the Aetia in his Fasti. See also Harder 2003,296 ff. and 305 f. 20 See on this point also Kaesser 2005, 111. 21 In this respect it is interesting to compare the Aetia to Ovid’s Fasti, where a similar development was observed by S. J. Green, 'Docens Poeta: Development of the Interviewer’s Skills in Ovid’s Fasti, Latomus 60,2001,603-12. Although Green regards the development in the Fasti as an innovation by Ovid, it may well be that Ovid was inspired by a similar pattern in the Aetia. It should also be noticed, however, that other views of the poet in the Fasti have also been defended; see C. Newlands, Playing with Time, Ithaca-London 1995, who argues that the poet of the Fasti is increasingly unsure of himself (see e.g. 176 f. ‘The Fasti. . . is punctuated by more and more frequent appeals to both human and divine figures of authority for poetic inspiration’).

6

1. Composition and size

Introduction

references to Hesiod in ff. 2 and 112 frame the Aetia and there are parallels between the stories about Heracles as a guest in the early parts of Aetia 1 (ff. 22-25d) and 3 (fr. 54-60j). (4) another indication o f a careful arrangement of the four books of aitia at a late date by Callimachus himself may be the way in which the evidence suggests that the second edition contained a new interpretation of certain issues from the earlier Aetia 1-2. Thus the two aitia about Heracles in ff. 22-25d, where he appears first as a glutton robbing a farmer o f his plough-ox and then as a worried father o f the starving Hyllus and as civilizer o f the villainous people of Thiodamas, may be connected with the Victory of Berenice at the opening of Aetia 3, which is devoted to Heracles’ first labour, the killing of the Nemean lion.22 Reading the whole o f the Aetia makes the reader aware o f Heracles’ role as a civilizer of mankind while still a young man and helps to place the story of his mis­ behaviour towards the Lindian farmer (ff. 22-23c) into perspective as a minor aberration even more than was the case with the story o f Thiodamas (ff. 24-25d) for readers o f only the first two books. The addition o f ff. 110-110f at the end of the Aetia helps to establish the chronological line from Minos to the present, which probably was not yet found in Aetia 1-2, and thus suggests a reinterpretation of the world’s history from the point o f view of Ptolemaic ideology. The move back to the distant past and the beginning o f the work by means of the stories about Minos and the Argonauts placed in ring-composition just before the climactic move to the present in ff. 110-1 lOf draws attention to the time-span covered by the Aetia and the progress made in the course o f history. In this way the stories from Aetia 1 seem to acquire a new dimension which they did not yet possess in the earlier edition. At another level, as Seiden 1998, 358 f. observes, the abduction of Calli­ machus in his dream corresponds with the abduction of Berenice’s lock in ff. 110-110 f. In this way the poet’s dream seems to connect the poet more closely to his queen, just as the prayer to the Charites in ff. 17, 13 f. (the only reference to the future preserved in Aetia 1-2; see Harder 2003,303 f.) may in retrospect foreshadow the hymnic farewell to Berenice in fr. 110, 94a-b and point to the impact on future generations shared by the poet and his queen. (5) The integration of the prologue with the story o f the dream is pre­ pared in ff. 1, 33 ff., which may point forward to the rejuvenation in the dream itself, by which Callimachus is carried to Mt. Helicon as a young man. This may well be a device for incorporating the work written when he

22 See also introd. to fr. 1 and comm, on fr. 1, 32 ff.

1

was young into the ffamework of the new edition made when he was old so that the lapse of time between the two editions would be used in a creative way. (6) We may find an extra argument for the idea that Aetia 1-4 were conceived as a unity by Callimachus in Ep. 51 (where Berenice is added as the fourth Grace to the three Graces), as Petrovic-Petrovic 2003, 194 ff interpreted this poem. They suggest that the epigram is about the addition o f Aetia 3 -4 to Aetia 1-2: that it tells how the two books dedicated to Berenice were added to the books dedicated to the Charites, who figure prominently in the first aition o f Aetia 1-2 (fr. 3-7b). This idea is very attractive, particularly as the notion of xapic/Charites and scent in Ep. 51 recalls both ff. 7,12 ff. and fr. 110,75 f f and a connection between χόριο and Berenice is also hinted at in 54, l,23 so that the epigram ‘covers’ the whole of the Aetia.24 The evidence listed above suggests that the final redaction o f the Aetia was more than a mechanical framing of the dialogue with the Muses and the later aitia and that, in fact, a new overall composition came into being in which the elements were carefully arranged and introduced so that the work’s ‘message’ was subtly reinterpreted and adapted to the new situation. The arrangement o f the stories within the four books o f the Aetia has long been a matter o f dispute. There has been an overall move away from the idea that the work was a systematic treatment o f certain issues25 to the idea of complete ‘Planlosigkeit’26 to more refined ideas, which could be developed thanks to the increasing number of papyrus finds and further insight into Callimachus’ literary technique.27 It now seems that the Aetia, in spite o f creat­ ing an impression of irregularity, was nonetheless a well-organized work and that the careful arrangement of the material highlighted certain issues for the poem’s readers.28 One of these issues is the treatment of past, present, and future, which shows a certain emphasis on the ideas of expansion and

23 In this respect it may also be relevant that fr. 112, 2 mentions the Charites again. 24 Petrovic-Petrovic 2003,198 ff. suggest that in fact the epigram might have been composed either as a real or as a fictitious introductory epigram to books III and IV of the Aetia (198), and, while admitting that this is rather speculative, add some further arguments. For the idea that Aetia 1-2 were referred to as the Charites they refer to Theoc. 16, 5 ff; cf. also Arat. SH 117 (where Charites occurs as the title of a work of Aratus). 25 As suggested by Schneider 2,44 ff., who thought that Hyg. Fab. 273 ff reflected the organ­ ization of the Aetia. 26 As suggested in the footsteps of Pfeiffer 2, xxxiv f. by e.g. Eichgrün 1961, 166; C. R. Beye, Epic and Romance in the Argonautica of Apollonius, Carbondale-Edwardsville 1982, 7. 27 For an early attempt in this direction see e.g. Cahen 1929,101 ff 28 For a similar view see also Krevans 1984, 150 ff.

8

9

Introduction

1. Composition and size

progress and moral issues like the punishment of various offenders and par­ ticularly those who ignore the laws o f hospitality.25*29 The apparent irregularity o f the arrangement of the stories may now be related to the generic affinity of the Aetia to didactic poetry, which in the archaic period was characterized by a highly associative organization o f the material.30*

followed by a discussion about the descent of the Charites, in which the young Callimachus made some suggestions to the Muses; in ff. 24-25d Callimachus may have added a more positive parallel story about Heracles to the story which was told to him by the Muses in ff. 22-23c; fr. 43, 18 ff. contains a very elaborate question in which Callimachus himself advanced a great deal o f information about the foundations of the Sicilian cities; ff. 43a, 1 ff. shows that his curiosity was an important motive in questioning the

1.2

A e tia 1-2

Aetia 1-2 narrate aetiological stories within the framework of a dream of the old Callimachus about a dialogue between his younger self and the Muses, who on Mt. Helicon answered his questions about the aitia?' Thanks to a number of papyrus finds we are able to form a reasonable picture o f these two books and of Callimachus’ handling o f the narrative frame of the dialogue, even though many details are still obscure. The first part o f the dialogue with the Muses is largely lost, but the frag­ ments and scholia in fr. 2-2j (where see comm.) offer a rough indication o f the contents o f the transitional passage between the prologue and the dialogue and of the beginning of the dialogue and suggest that a seamless transition was created. The only actual fragment o f this passage is fir. 2, which contains a description o f Hesiod meeting the Muses on Mt. Helicon, and the lemmata in the scholia, which seem to contain references to the dialogue and to the Heliconian setting. Some indications o f the dialogue’s nature are provided by subsequent fragments. They show that there is differentiation between the individual Muses: two stories are told by Clio (ff. 3-7b and 43-43a), one by Calliope (fr. 7c-21d), and one by Erato (ff. 137a). In other stories other Muses may have appeared.32 We have evidence of the beginning o f an aition in fr. 7c, 1 ff., which contains a question about rituals at Anaphe and Lindos and the first part of the Muse’s answer. Other fragments show that the dialogue was not a simple matter of questions by the young Callimachus and answers by the Muses, but that in fact the young Callimachus was presented as an eager scholar, who wished to contribute his own knowledge to the conversa­ tion. Thus ff. 7a tells about the story o f the Charites at Paros, which was 25 See Harder 2003, 296 ff. and for further details see Introd. 2. 30 See Fakas 2001, 72 ff., who shows that Aratus imitated Hesiod’s Works and Days in this respect and refers to further literature on the subject. For evidence of associative composition in the Aetia see Introd. 1.2,1.3, and 4.2. 31 Evidence for the dream is found in fr. 2d and T 6. 32 Perhaps Urania told the story of Linus in fr. 25e-31a (see intr. to fr. 25e). For further discussion of the possible reasons for choosing a specific Muse see the commentary: on the differentiation of the Muses see comm, on fr. 43, 56.

Muses. Though scanty, this evidence allows us to gain some insight into the way in which Callimachus reworked the older literary tradition. The idea o f a dialogue with the Muses looks like an elaboration of the idea of the epic invocations of the Muses, which seemed to be ‘answered’ by the Muses, when they told the inquiring poets the Iliad, Odyssey, or TheogonyP Thus the first two books o f the Aetia are placed firmly in the ancient narrative tradition, while at the same time they contain an important innovation because they extend the single question and answer into a dialogue and no longer treat the Muses as the only trustworthy authority.34 On the other hand there is also evidence of a prose tradition of dialogues, which suggests that Callimachus’ play with the invocations of the Muses may also have been inspired by what he found in his prose sources.35 Although the dialogue is the overall ffamework, Aetia 1-2 also contain elements which remind the reader of other modes o f presentation. Thus the dialogue seems to have included or been interrupted by a symposium-scene in ff. 43, 12 ff., where the narrator refers to a story he has heard at a sym­ posium, and perhaps in ff. 178, which is also from a symposium context and where the narrator asks his fellow-guest Theogenes of Icus for information (but the attribution to Aetia 2 is not certain). Elsewhere the objects of the

33 See Harder 1988,1 ff. and comm, on fr. 3, 1. 34 On this aspect of the Muses in the early epic see A. Lenz, Das Proömium des frühgrie­ chischen Epos, Bonn 1980, 34 ff. The idea of aetiological dialogues was later picked up and elaborated by Ovid in his Fasti, who was obviously indebted to Callimachus, and a late poetic example of this format is Ps.-Orpheus’ Lithica. 35 In prose we find the format of questions and answers in e.g. the philosophical tradition of zetentata (on which see e.g. H. A. Gärtner, in Der Neue Pauly 12. 2, 777 ff. s.v. Zetema) and in a work like Satyrus’ Vita of Euripides (on which see G. Arrighetti, Satiro: Vita di Euripide, Pisa 1964,21 f.), but most examples are much later than Callimachus, like e.g. Plutarch s Quaestiones Graecae and Quaestiones Romanae (on which see e.g. J. Boulogne, Plutarque. CEuvres Morales IV, Paris 2002, 91 ff. and 179 ff.) and the early Christian erotapokriseis (on which see in general A. Volgere—C. Zamagni (edd.), Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context, Leuven—Paris—Dudley, Mass. 2004). G. J. Reinink draws my attention to W. F. Macomber, ‘Six Explanations of the Liturgical Feasts by Cyrus of Edessa , in Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 355-6, Script. Syri 155-6, Louvain 1974 (about the Syrian ellta, where we find a similar format of questions and answers in an aetiological context).

10

Introduction

stories are themselves addressed and we find hymnic endings o f aitia, such as the request for lasting fame to the Charites in fr. 7, 13 f. and the farewell to Heracles in fr. 23,19 f. It is not entirely clear how these endings fitted into the overall narrative framework and who spoke these lines, but, like the young Callimachus’ interventions mentioned above, these passages too suggest that the dialogue was far from monotonous and contained surprising variations.36 Since most o f Aetia 1-2 is lost, we know very little about the way in which the books’ contents were organized. Even so, we have a few clues as to the arrangement o f the aitia within these books. The sequence at the beginning of Aetia 1 is known through the Florentine scholia (fr. lb, 2d, 7a, 21a, 23a) and suggests that the following criteria were important: (1) programmatic and topical considerations may account for the sequence Muses (fr. 1)— Charites (fr. 3-7b)— Apollo (fr. 7c-21d)— Heracles (fr. 22~25d), that is, the divinities who were the poet’s patrons and the divine ancestor of the Ptolemies;37 (2) an associative connection between aitia may be detected in fr. 7c, 1 ff., where one question deals with the scurrilous rituals for Apollo at Anaphe and for Heracles at Lindos; in fr. 24-25d, where the story o f Heracles and Thiodamas seems to be added to the story o f Heracles and the Lindian farmer in fr. 2223c; in fr. 43 and 43b, where the aition o f the sacrificial meal for the anonym­ ous founder of Zancle is followed by the aition o f the theoxenia at Haliartus; in fr. 44—47, where the stories o f the brutal hosts Busiris and Phalaris may have been connected (but we do not know to what extent the story of Busiris was told). By using this kind of arrangement Callimachus may have reminded his readers of the principles o f organization in archaic didactic poetry and placed the Aetia in that tradition (see Introd. l .l ) .38 Further, as is true o f the whole o f the Aetia (on which see Introd. 1.1), the first two books too may have contained a certain amount of ringcomposition: (1) the end of Aetia 2 may have contained the stories of Busiris and Phalaris (fr. 44-47), which illustrated the dangers o f doing damage to others and thus recalled fr. 2, 5 about the danger o f people falling into their own traps, and perhaps fr. 137m, which may have contained the end o f the dream; (2) if fr. 178 about a symposium at the home o f the Athenian Pollis is from the beginning of Aetia 2 there may have been some kind o f relation with 36 Ovid’s Fasti may be adduced in order to acquire a better impression of Callimachus’ dialogue, but one should bear in mind that the later poet probably put his own stamp on the Callimachean example and might have elaborated devices which were only hinted at in Callimachus. 37 See Harder 1993c, 100 ff. and for possible earlier examples of such arrangements Gutzwiller 1998, 186. 38 For other possible instances of related aitia in Aetia 1-2 see ff. 31c-g, 187 and 190a-c (about statues of goddesses with unusual features) and if. 35, 38 and 178-185b (about nostos stories).

1. Composition and size

11

fr. 51 from the end o f Aetia 2, which is also about Athens. It should be emphasized, however, that, though attractive and supported by some good arguments (adduced in the commentary), these signs of ring-composition are not entirely certain. The following reasons may account for choosing the dialogue-format. This format provided Callimachus with ample opportunities for experimenting with the poetical tradition and for making his readers consider various aspects of that tradition. He could thus exploit the tensions between the sources of information o f the old tradition and of modern scholarly poetry. He could also play with the notion o f the archaic, associative organization o f poems by letting his young Callimachus wander from one subject to another, while at the same time presenting his readers with a careful arrangement of the various aitia (see Introd. 2).

1.3

A e tia 3-4

In Aetia 3 -4 the stories are juxtaposed without narrative framework, but there are still elements that recall the format of the first two books. Several aitia begin with a question or address (e.g. the question to Artemis as a goddess o f childbirth in fr. 79) or are told in Du-Stil (like the stories of Pieria in fr. 80-83b and Euthycles of Locri in fr. 84-85a). Other aitia are presented as brief dramatic scenes in which the speaker cannot be identified with Calli­ machus, but is another character (e.g. Simonides in fr. 64, the Pelasgian wall in fr. 97 and the lock of Berenice in fr. 110-110f) or show the narrator in a specific role, like that o f an epinician singer in fr. 54—60j, which celebrate Berenice’s victory in the Nemean Games, or of a scholar consulting his sources in fr. 75, 53 ff. at the end o f the love-story o f Acontius and Cydippe.39 These forms o f presentation, on the one hand, present a lively picture of a variety of communicative situations, reminiscent of the dialogue in Aetia 1-2, on the other hand, enable the poet to insert a great deal o f generic allusion and to draw the reader’s attention to a variety of genres (see further Introd. 4.5). As to the composition o f Aetia 3 -4 we see the same structural devices as in Aetia 1-2 and, although their information about many o f the stories is scanty, the Diegeseis, which are preserved for most of Aetia 3 and all of Aetia 4, still enable us to develop an overall view o f most o f Aetia 3-4. There is ringcomposition in the framing o f the two books between the poems for Berenice, but also within book 3, which begins with the Victory of Berenice (fr. 54-60j) and ends with an aition about another Panhellenic victor, Euthycles o f Locri 39

See farther Harder 2002 b, 399 ff.

Introduction

1. Composition and size

(fr. 84-85a), and perhaps within book 4, which seems to begin with a refer­ ence to kings in fr. 86 and ends with the Lock of Berenice in fr. 110-110 f. We also find groups of related aitia, like the scape-goat rituals in fr. 90-95c and the descriptions of statues in fr. 100-101a, both in book 4. The love-stories about the Argive springs (if. 65-66), Acontius and Cydippe (fr. 67-75e) and Phrygius and Pieria (fr. 80-83b) are grouped with the marriage-ritual in Elis in fr. 76b-77d and the question about Artemis’ help in childbirth in fr. 7979a. The latter group suggests a strong focus on love as a central theme in Aetia 3.40

In any case these page numbers indicate a maximum length of c.7400

12

1.4

Original size o f the A e tia

The size o f the Aetia is hard to establish, but some clues enable us to form at least a rough idea:

(1) Page-numbers and stichometric numbers: in fr. 75,42 we find the page number pvß = 152 in the upper left-hand margin in P.Oxy. 1011. As the columns are c.40 lines high, this means that c.6040 lines o f poetry may have preceded fr. 75,42 in this codex. We cannot be certain, however, that all these lines were part o f the Aetia. The fact that in the Diegeseis the order is Aetia 3-4; Iambi; Branchus; Hecale; Hymns and that in this codex too the Iambi follow the Aetia suggests that the Aetia may well have been the first work of Callimachus in the codex, but we cannot be entirely certain as other arrange­ ments cannot be excluded (see below). As we have some page-numbers in the Iambi too, it is possible to calculate that after fr. 75, 42 there were 34 pages = C.1360 more lines o f the Aetia (cf. Ia. fr. 191,1 = p. 186; fr. 191,78 = p. 188; fr. 194,65 = p. 192 and see Pfeiffer on fr. 112,1-10, who observes that between the end o f fr. 75 and the beginning of fr. 112 16 folia were lost).41 40 For a further attempt to discover thematic patterns in Aetia 3 see Bulloch 2006, 503 ff. He makes some interesting observations and is certainly right about the overall composition in Aetia 3, but he is not entirely convincing concerning details. Thus e.g. the idea that the focus on Delos in fr. 114 (which Bulloch attributes to the part of Aetia 3 between Acontius and Cydippe and the Nuptial Rite at Elis) mirrors the references to Delos in Acontius and Cydippe does not account for the strong emphasis on Ceos in that story. Also, Bulloch gives no attention to the im portant fact that the stories of Acontius and Cydippe and Phrygius and Pieria seem to mirror each other. 41 The evidence of the fragments and Diegeseis combined with the stichometric numbers also allows some conclusions for the internal organization of books 3—4. The fact that c.1000 lines (or a little more) accommodate 17 aitia in Aetia 4 indicates that the average length o f an aition in book 4 was 59 lines. Probably, however, there were aitia of different lengths as in Aetia 3. There the Victory of Berenice (ff. 54-60j) was at least 200 lines and the story of Acontius and Cydippe (ff. 67-75e) c. 150-200 lines, whereas other aitia like ff. 64 and 65-66 were much shorter (with c.16 lines) and after ff. 75 only c.315 lines were available for 7-8 aitia, so that these

13

lines. In fr. 80, 7 we find «·, the stichometric number 1000, to the right o f the text in P.Oxy. 2213 fr. 1, i.e. in the left-hand margin of the next column, which is lost. This suggests that the column following fr. 80 contained line 1000 of Aetia 3, which, as Pfeiffer on fr. 80,7 thought, may have been part of the story of Euthycles of Locri, the last aition of this book (fr. 84-85a). Therefore book 3 may have contained a little more than 1000 lines.42 Together the stichometric number in fr. 80 and the page-number in fr. 75 suggest a length o f c.1000 lines each for books 3 and 4. If this was the average length of the books the whole of the Aetia would have been c.4000 lines (which would more or less fit in with the evidence of T 2, which suggests c.4430 lines; see below). The fact that c.6040 lines preceded fr. 75, 42 suggests that either books 1-2 were much longer than the later books, i.e. well over 2500 lines each, or that other works by Callimachus or perhaps by another author preceded the Aetia in this codex. Pfeiffer 2, xxn f. favoured the idea o f other poems by Callimachus preceding the Aetia and suggested that in this codex the Hymns and the Hecale were probably placed before the Aetia (as in the catalogue of Callimachus’ poems in test. 23 Pf., of which T 1 is part). This would amount to c.1000 lines for the Hecale43 and 1084 for the Hymns and leave c.3960 (= 6040 - 2080) + 1360 = 5320 lines for the Aetia. This would still make Aetia 1-2 considerably longer than Aetia 3-4, but a format o f two books o f c.1500 lines each followed by two books o f c.1000 lines each is quite conceivable,44 Even so, one should bear in mind the possi­ bility that other poems apart from the Hecale and the Hymns preceded the

stories m ust have had an average length o f c.40 lines. Between the Victory o f Berenice, which probably ended about line 200, and Acontius and Cydippe, which began with fr. 67 in c. line 485/535 (i.e. 1000 - (315 + 200/150), some 285-335 lines must have been filled by several aitia. Two of these aitia occupy c.36 lines (fr. 64 and 65-6) and of another 12 lines from the end are preserved (fr. 63), so c.237-87 (i.e. 285/335 - 48) lines are still unaccounted for in Aetia 3 and may have contained an unknown number o f aitia. See also Borgonovo-Cappelletto 1994, 17 n. 26, who, on the basis of similar calculations, assume that c.250-300 lines are lost between the Victory o f Berenice and fr. 63, containing 6-7 aitia. 42 See also Parsons 1977, 48 f. (Fraser 1972, 2, 1059 n. 292 prefers to regard the number as indicating line 1000 o f the whole of the Aetia, but that is highly unlikely). See further on stichometric numbers K. Ohly, Stichometrische Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1928, 74 ff.; TurnerParsons 1987, 16. 45 On the size of the Hecale see Hollis 1990a, 337 ff. See also J. Van Sickle, ‘The Bookroll and some Conventions of the Poetic Book’, Arethusa 13,1980,5-42, esp. 7 f., who regards 1000-2000 lines as the limit for books in Hellenistic poetry. In Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica there is a comparable difference in length between books 2 (1285 lines) and 4 (1781 lines).

15

Introduction

2. Contents

Aetia in P.Oxy. 1011 or that the Hecale was somewhat longer than 1000

The first two books may have been roughly half to three-fifths of the length of the complete work and with the new edition Callimachus in one move made his work more or less twice as long. Thus the second edition may have appeared as an ironic answer to the criticism o f the Telchines, showing on the one hand how easily one could achieve length, while on the other hand modifying the work’s contents and ‘message’ in a sophisticated way (see Introd. 1.1).

lines.45 (2) Evidence o f the text: on the basis of the remains of the text o f the Aetia in the papyri one can make some calculations which help to establish a minimum number of lines: *

the number of lines which are completely or partly preserved in com­ paratively large fragments is 1135;

•

the number of the remains of lines preserved in small scraps is 341; as these scraps are often tiny and may contain letters which are part of the same lines as the remains on other scraps or of lines which are partly preserved in the larger framents it is not possible to calculate the number o f lines that once accommodated all these scraps;

•

in several instances it is possible to calculate the number of lines lost between fragments; these lines amount to: 46 (if one adds up only the lines which are calculated with certainty in fr. 110-110f) or 148 (if one adds the lines which are calculated on a more speculative basis: c.72 in fr. 7c-21d and at least c.30 in fr. 54-60j); in other aitia, like the story of Acontius and Cydippe (fr. 67-75d) and the story o f Phrygius and Pieria (fr. 80-83b), a number of lines must be lost too, but it is hard to estimate;

*

an unknown number of lines is represented by the lemmata in the scholia (e.g. in fr. 2a) and testimonia (e.g. in fr. 8).

The minimum amount of lines based on these numbers is 1181 (1135 + 46). (3) External evidence: T 2 may suggest a length of c.4430 lines for the Aetia (see comm.). Summarizing, one may estimate the length of the Aetia very roughly at c.5000 lines, but it could well be a few hundred lines more or less.46 Of these lines c.25% are more or less preserved and a number o f others are accounted for in one way or another.47 When compared to Hesiod, Homer, and Apollonius Rhodius this makes the Aetia a poem which in length is closest to the Argonautica. One should, however, bear in mind that the length of the Aetia was not a constant element.

45 See also Hollis 1990a, 340. 46 Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004,44 suggest c.6000 lines, which may be a little too long. 47 Hutchinson apud Hollis 1990a, 337 IF. calculates the number of lines o f the Hecale from the number quoted in relation to the lines preserved in the papyri, allowing also for the fact that there are fewer quotations from the later parts of the poem. For the much larger Aetia this kind of calculation is obviously somewhat hazardous, so it has not been attempted here.

2. CONTENTS The Aetia is primarily an aetiological work, as it is mainly about the origins of various cults and rituals. Even so, there are also aitia that deal with other subjects or stories that are hard to explain as an aition. This makes the picture more complex and, because the evidence for such aitia is mainly from Aetia 3-4, also suggests that the difference between Aetia 1-2 and 3-4 may not have been a matter of presentation only, but also comprised a changing and increasingly liberal view o f what could be inserted into an aetiological work. This is not certain, though, as thanks to the Diegeseis our knowledge of Aetia 3-4 is much better than that of Aetia 1-2. If we had more information about the first two books the picture might change again. A survey o f the subjects treated in the Aetia may help to show the extent of the variation.48 First of all one may distinguish a group of aitia focusing on cult and ritual, e.g. fr. 3-7b about the cult of the Charites at Paros, which was special because it lacked music and wreaths, or fr. 43-43a about the anonym­ ous founder-cult at Zancle in Sicily. These rituals are characterized by the fact that they are in some way unusual, either because they lack an important element of normal cult-practice, as in the examples just mentioned, or because they show an otherwise abnormal practice, like the scurrilous rituals for Apollo at Anaphe (fr. 7c—2 Id) and Heracles at Lindos (fr. 22-23c). Other aitia in this group focus on a specific element of a ritual, like the Victory of Berenice (fr. 54-60j), in which the explanation o f the origin of the wreath at the Nemean Games seems to have been of more importance than the foundation of the games. Another group of aitia deals with material remains. This group includes descriptions of statues, like the statue o f Artemis with a

48 Apparently this was imitated by Ovid in his Metamorphoses, where we also find a great variety of stories concerning e.g. nature, geography, religion, or foundations. For a schematic survey and discussion of the stories which can be recognized as aetiological in the strict sense see also Loehr 1996,40 ff.

16

17

Introduction

2. Contents

mortar on her head (fr. 31c-31g) or of Athena with a wound in her thigh (fr. 190a-190c), but also o f other material remains like the springs at Argos (if. 65-66), the old Pelasgian wall at Athens (fr. 97-97a) or the anchor o f the Argonauts at Cyzicus (ff. 108-109a). A third group consists o f stories which, although they may have a certain aetiological element, are rather o f a more general moralizing nature. To this group belong the story o f Heracles and Thiodamas (ff. 24-25d) and several aitia in books 3-4, like the story o f the Roman Gaius (ff. 106-107a), but also the love-stories of Acontius and Cydippe (fr. 67-75d) and Phrygius and Pieria (ff. 80-83b), which show the positive effects of love leading to a stable rule at Ceos and to peace in Asia Minor.49 Apart from the main aition many stories also contain other aetiological elements, which are added in the course o f the story or, in Aetia 1-2, may crop up in the dialogue between Callimachus and the Muses. Thus we find refer­ ences to foundation-stories at various points, e.g. in ff. 11-12, in an excursus about the Colchians who are afraid to return to Colchis after the pursuit of the Argonauts; in fr. 75, 70 ff. in the course of the summary of Xenomedes’ work, which Callimachus mentions as his source; in fr. 43,28 ff., where Calli­ machus gives a list o f Sicilian foundation-stories for the benefit of the Muses before finally focusing on the story of Zancle. Other aetiological explana­ tions include the passage about the birth o f the Charites in the aition o f the Charites at Paros (cf. fr. 7a, 10 ff.), the abortive attempt to explain a marriageritual at Naxos in fr. 75, 4ff. from the story o f Acontius and Cydippe, and perhaps the passage about the mousetraps in fr. 54c from the Victory of Berenice. In this way the overall aetiological character of the work is con­ stantly stressed by a variety o f additional ‘origins’ and the reader is confronted with a world in which past and present are intricately connected at all levels. The stories in the Aetia are usually of a local nature and are often related to smaller places like Paros, Anaphe, Lindos, Zancle, etc. The actual selection of the stories is now considered as less random than in the past, when scholars mostly remarked only on the variety of stories in the Aetia and on possible antiquarian considerations in order to explain the heterogeneous learned

material collected in this work.50 Some hints o f a different approach were given by Marco Fantuzzi and Richard Hunter, who suggested that one could look at the contents o f the Aetia from various angles. They mention several aspects that might have been important, for example, the relations between cities and the ongoing importance o f foundations, the sense o f ‘coming after’ the past, the Ptolemaic interest in the world outside Alexandria, and the importance o f organizing and judging knowledge.51 A closer look at the con­ tents confirms their view and suggests that the selection of contents was an important part o f Callimachus’ ‘message’ in the Aetia.52* Geographically the stories are from all parts of the Greek world with a certain focus on areas that were colonized by the Greeks and therefore draw attention to the notion of expansion. Thus we find many aitia that are located on the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea or in Asia Minor and several which are located in Sicily and Italy. However, there are also quite a number of aitia that are located on the mainland of Greece, so that altogether we get a picture of a world in which the Greek expansion towards the East and West still leaves its traces, but the important places on the mainland also remind the readers of a shared past. In this respect the emphasis on places like Argos, which was the traditional place of origin of the Ptolemies, who claimed descent from Heracles, and on Athens and Attica, as the centre o f the Greek world in earlier times, may be significant. It is also striking that the places on the mainland that were important in Homer, like Mycene, Tiryns, and Pylos, are absent. Apart from the story of Busiris (which may have been mentioned only briefly),33 Egypt figures as the place where the stories are told in the present, rather than as the area where they took place in the past. Thus the Victory of Berenice (fr. 54-60j) is presented as a poem composed in Alexandria and the

49 A brief survey includes: (1) rituals: various rituals: ff. 3-7b; 7c-21d; 22-23c; 25e-31a; 35 (?); 43-43a; 63; 76b-77d; 86-89a; 178-185b; 186; scapegoat-rituals: ff. 90-90b; 91-92a; 93-93b; 104-104a (?); games: ff. 54-60j; cult o f a new constellation: ff. 110-110f; (2) material remains: statues: ff. 31c-g; 84-85a; 100-100a; 101-101b; 114; 190a-190c; springs: ff. 65-6; other material remains: ff. 97-97a; 103-103a; 1Q5-I05b; 108-109a; 118; (3) other stories with various aetio­ logical elements, moralizing stories: ff. 24-25d; 44-7; 64; 94-95c; 96-96a; 98-99b; 102-102a; 106-107a; 113 (?); 113e (?); love-stories: as aition of ruler-dynasty: ff. 67-75e; of peace: ff. 8083b; foundation-stories, though not presented as aitia in their own right, are often related to the main aition: ff. 24-25d; 25e~31a; 38 (?); 43-43a; 67-75e.

50 Thus e.g. Körte-Händel I9602, 87 (‘bunte, vielgestaltige Welt’); Massimilla 1996, 32 (‘varietà’). Scholars tended to regard this variety as a purpose in its own right; see e.g. A. Lesky, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Bern-München 1972,800 (‘beabsichtigte Buntheit’); A. W. Bulloch, ‘Hellenistic Poetry’, in P. E. Easterling-B. M. W. Knox, The Cambridge History o f Classical Literature, 1. Greek Literature, Cambridge 1985, 541-61 (esp. 555 on Callimachus’ programmatic reasons for concentrating on episodic variation). Others regarded antiquarianism as the main impulse; see e.g. Wilamowitz 1924, 1,184; Hutchinson 1988, 41. Zänker 1987, 122 observes that besides antiquarianism there might have been a ‘realistic impulse to connect the past with the observable present’, but without wondering about the further implications of this impulse and the reasons for it. Only Hopkinson 1988,85 f. shows some awareness that there might have been more at stake when he observes that Ovid’s Metamorphoses may give a better impression of the Aetia than the Fasti as the effect of the Metamorphoses might have been that of a ‘complex organic unity rather than . . . unstructured chaos’ (86). 51 See Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004,49 f. For a detailed discussion with full references see Harder 2003; the suggestion made there that Vergil in his Aeneid read the Aetia in a similar way is confirmed by Nelis 2005, 82 f. 53 See introd. to ff. 44-7 on Contents.

19

Introduction

2. Contents

story of Peleus at Icus (fr. 178—185b) is told at a symposium by an Ician traveller who is visiting Egypt. Only in the Lock of Berenice (ff. 110-110f) is the story not only told in (the sky above) contemporary Egypt, but is also situated near Alexandria, where it is taking place in the present. The Egyptian element in this aition is enhanced because the lock of Berenice evokes the lock dedicated by Isis to Osiris, so that the story fits in with Ptolemaic attempts to integrate elements o f the Greek and Egyptian traditions.54 The geography of the Aetia fits in with the fact that in the Aetia the past is mainly the period before or after the Trojan War. A considerable group of stories deals with the period before the Trojan War, when the world which was familiar from later myth gradually took shape, like ff. 65-66 about the springs of Argos, the origin o f which was attributed to the daughters of Danaus, or fir. 86(?)-89a about the aftermath o f Apollo’s killing o f the monster Python in Delphi. Another group of stories refers the reader to the generations just before the Trojan War. This group includes the stories about Minos and his wars and expansion o f power over the Cycladic islands, like ff· 3-7b about the ritual for the Charites at Paros, which is explained by Minos’ reaction to the death of his son Androgeos, ff. 103-103a about the cult o f Androgeos in Attica, and perhaps fr. 113, which may be about Minos’ war against Megara. Other stories from this period are those about the expedition o f the Argonauts (ff. 7c—2 Id and 108—109a) and about Heracles, whose labours and parerga helped the world to become safer (e.g. fr. 22-25d; 54—60j). Quite a number o f these stories evoke the world before the Trojan War as a world of increasing civilization and expansion, and the fact that the first story o f the Aetia was about Minos may suggest that the work was presented as a kind o f sequel to Hesiod’s Theogony, which ended at that point.55 The period o f the Trojan War is represented by the stories of Teuthis (ff. 190a-190c) and the Oenotropes (ff. 188), which are not about the events at Troy, familiar from the Iliad, but deal with the war from an excentric point o f view. The aftermath o f the Trojan War, with its stories o f the return of the heroes, gets attention in stories like that of the death o f Ajax (fr. 35) or the death of Peleus (fr. 178-185b), but Odysseus, the returning hero par excel­ lence, is mentioned only marginally in the story of one of his companions, the Hero of Temesa (fr. 98-99b). Compared to the stories o f the earlier period these stories seem to present the heroes connected with the Trojan War in a

somewhat unfavourable light by means of the focus on quarrels, blasphemy, terror, and inability to cope. They also rather emphatically avoid the elements of the story that were central in Homer.56 A third group of stories can be placed in the archaic and early classical period. This group features events in Asia Minor, which became part of the Greek world after the period of colonization in the 10th-9th centuries bc.57 It includes, for example, fr. 78-78c about the Isindians being excluded from the festival o f the Panionia and fr. 80-83b about the romance o f Phrygius and Pieria against the background of a war between Myus and Miletus. Wars in the Aegean are featured in fr. 104-104a, which deals with a conflict between the people from Paros with the Thasians and their Thracian allies and reflects the same turbulent period as the poetry o f Archilochus in the 7th century bc. Another group of stories focuses on the western world, which had been the object of the second wave o f Greek colonization from the 8th century bc onwards. To this group belong the stories about the colonization of Sicily in fr. 43-43a, about Phalaris o f Acragas (fr. 45-47), about the war between Lipara and the Tyrrhenians in fr. 93-93a, about the Olympic victor Euthycles of Locri (in fr. 84-85a), and about the Roman Gaius in fr. 106-107a. Several stories in this group carry the reader well into the early classical period, like the story ofEuthymus o f Locri (in fr. 98-99b), who finally defeats the Hero of Temesa and whose Olympic victories can be dated to the first half o f the 5th century bc. Also the story about the tomb of the poet Simonides (fr. 64), who died in the early 460s bc, belongs to this period. As in the stories about the time before the Trojan War here too the notion of expansion and colonization seems integral. A special group o f stories in this respect is the group o f ‘chronological surveys’ which convey a notion of progress and development. We find this notion in fr. 100-100a, for example, about the developments in sculpture, in fr. 118 about the succession of temples for Apollo in Delphi, and perhaps in fr. 97-97a, where we see a glimpse of early classical Athens through a refer­ ence to the old Pelasgian wall around the Acropolis, which was later replaced by a new defence built by Themistocles c.480 bc. A similar notion of progress may be detected in stories that deal with changes in a certain ritual, as in fr. 91—92a, about child-sacrifices on Tenedos, and in fr. 186, about the transport of the sacrifices of the Hyperboreans to Apollo on Delos. The narrative frame sometimes presents stories as told or discovered in the present: in fr. 54-60j the song for Berenice is sung in the present, in 178-185b

54 See introd. to fr. 110-1 lOf on The Lock o f Berenice as court-poetry. Similar Egyptian over­ tones have been claimed for the slaying of Python by the young Apollo in fr. 86-89a; see introd. to fr. 86-89a on Contents and aition. 55 See Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004,55.

56 On the treatment of the Trojan War in Hellenistic poetry see E. Sistakou, Η Α ΡΝ Η ΣΗ TOY ΕΠΟΥΣ, Athens 2004 and Reconstructing the Epic, Leuven-Paris-Dudley, Mass. 2008. 5' See on this area in Callimachus in general Ragone 2006.

21

Introduction

3. Date

the symposium at the home o f Pollis takes place in the present, and in 75, 53 ff. the narrator says that he has found the story o f Acontius in the Cean history of Xenomedes and thus evokes the present in which he is reading this work. However, the only story that actually takes place in the present is the aition about the catasterism of the lock o f Berenice in ff. 110-110 f. Since this is the last story of the Aetia we may observe a roughly chronological line from the beginning with Minos in the first book to 3rd-century bc Alexandria at the end o f the work.58 A number of themes occur in several aitia. One of these is the theme of hospitality towards strangers, which is prominent in e.g. ff. 22-25d, 44-47 and 54-60j and 178-185b. This group of aitia shows various aspects of the theme o f hospitality and seems to emphasize its importance as an aspect of human intercourse in a civilized world. Also in other contexts crime and punishment is a recurrent theme, for instance in the story of the Arneia in Argos (ff. 25e-31b) and in ff. 84-85a on the punishment o f the Locrians, who unjustly accused the Olympic victor Euthycles of Locri o f taking bribes. These stories may all be read against the background o f ff. 114,5 ff., where the statue of Apollo is said to carry the Charites in his right hand and the bow in his left hand as a symbol of his attitude towards the good and the bad. The evidence does not allow the reconstruction o f a coherent view on the theme o f crime and punishment, but still creates a picture of certain moral values, which cannot be transgressed without punishment, and of a basically well-ordered world where sin may be fatal. A third theme which recurs in various aitia is that o f movement and expansion. Thus the past is presented as a time when people made war, travelled and founded new cities and in this way were busy creating the world as it was in the present o f Callimachus’ readers. Examples o f stories in which these issues are prominent are the story of the Charites at Paros in ff. 3-7b, the story about the Argonauts at Anaphe in ff. 7c-21d, and the foundation-stories, which are found in several aitia, either as a main theme or as a side-effect of the events in the story. Of particular interest in this respect are the stories in which issues of leadership, expansion, and war are related to romantic love, like ff. 67-75e, where the love-story of Acontius and Cydippe leads to the rule o f the Acontiads at Ceos, and ff. 8083b, where the love-affair o f Phrygius and Pieria ends the war between Myus and Miletus. These stories may be thought to provide a background to the Lock of Berenice, in which Berenice’s love for her husband was the driving

force behind her sacrifice and the subsequent catasterism. The beneficient effects o f love seem to be presented as a continous force, linking past and present. In summary, the following aspects of the Aetia’s contents seem important: (1) the work maybe read as a sequel to Hesiod’s Theogony, (2) the Trojan War is represented only by some marginal stories which show its heroes in a rather negative way; (3) the early period o f expansion and civilization before the Trojan War seems to be regarded in a more optimistic light and there is some emphasis on the expansion o f Greece towards the east and west in the archaic period as well as on the notion o f progress; (4) the Aetia as a whole shows a chronological line from Minos to the 3rd century bc, but the various periods are not presented in chronological order and the reader is forced to move through time in various directions, so that the Aetia seems to deliberately ignore the Telchines’ criticism in ff. 1, 3; (5) the plots show a certain focus on hospitality and other moral issues, progress and expansion, and love; (6) the Lock of Berenice is exceptional, because it is a story situated in contemporary Egypt, and may be read as a fitting climax to the long period of human history which began with Minos, pointing to the future beyond the Aetia, when Berenice’s lock will shine in heaven and be worshipped. On the whole the effects of time seem to be presented in a positive way and in this respect the Aetia seems to follow the example set by Hesiod, whose Theogony contains a similar, though more coherent and explicit, notion of progress from chaos to the well-organized world of the Olympian gods, and whose Works and Days insists on the importance o f moral values. Thus the references to Hesiod in ff. 2, 1 ff. are not just indicators of genre, but seem to foreshadow issues which were to be of prime importance in the Aetia.

20

58 Apparently this chronological line in the Aetia inspired Ovid in his Metamorphoses; see also Introd. 1.1.

3. DATE

The final redaction o f the four books o f the Aetia may be dated late in Callimachus’ career, as we have a clear terminus post quem of 246/5 bc in the poems for Berenice in ff. 54-60j and 110-110 f. The evidence of ff. 1 as an ‘old-age poem’ has recently been the subject of discussion,59 but the evidence

55 See e.g. Cameron 1995, 174 ff„ who argues that the text would also be conceivable for a 1997, 37 ff. who is still convinced that these lines were written when Schmitz 1999,160 f„ who is sceptical about the biographical interpretation altogether. m an of c.50; Livrea C allim achus was old;

Introduction

4. Generic aspects

discussed in 1.1 seems sufficient to keep the old view that fr. 1 was written late in Callimachus’ career for a second edition of the Aetia. As to ff. 112, the Epilogue of the Aetia, the evidence is less clear, but there are good arguments for regarding ff. 112, 2f. as a reference to Berenice II, which would point to a late date (see comm. ad loc.).60 Presumably Callimachus began to write the Aetia in the 270s, but the evidence is scanty and by no means straightforward. If the scholiast’s sugges­ tion that the beginning of Aetia 1 contained a reference to Arsinoe II as the tenth Muse (ff. 2e, 1 ff.) were right, that would be an indication that the opening part o f the story of the dream was written when she was queen and still alive to appreciate the compliment, that is, presumably between c.274 and 268 Be.61 The fact that in the dream Callimachus is presented as a young man may be explained as a way o f incorporating an earlier work into the later edition and would also fit in with a composition of the Aetia at widely differ­ ent stages in Callimachus’ career (see also 1.1).62 On the other hand, early stories may also have found their way into the second half o f the Aetia, as the possible reference to Sotades’ poem about the marriage o f Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus and Arsinoe II in fr. 75, 4 ff. (where see comm.) would suggest an early date for the story o f Acontius and Cydippe from Aetia 3.63 It is therefore conceivable that parts of the Aetia which were later collected in books 3-4 were from the early as well as the later stages o f Callimachus’ career and were written as separate elegies even at the time when he was composing Aetia 1-2.64 Other arguments that have been adduced to establish dates, for example, the striking presence of Asia Minor in Aetia 3—4, which might reflect the consolidation of Ptolemaic power in that area under Ptolemaeus III Euergetes,65 or the mention of Rome in fr. 106-107a (for which 273 bc might be a

terminus post quern), are even less decisive and the same applies to attempts to argue exact dating from the interaction with Apollonius Rhodius (for which see particularly on ff. 7c-21d). On the whole the evidence seems to present the best case for the idea of Callimachus working on various parts o f the Aetia throughout his life.

22

“ For further discussion of the evidence for Callimachus’ career after 245 b c see Lehnus 1995fl, 6 ff.; and on the chronology of Callimachus’ life in general R. Capei Badino, ‘Cronologie callimachee’, Acme 58, 2005, 329-41. 61 For discussion of other possible evidence for this date see comm, on ff. 1, 22. 62 Another argument for the double redaction at different moments may be found in the way in which in h.3,160 f. Callimachus seems to presuppose that the reader is familiar with the story of Heracles and Thiodamas in ff. 24—25d from Aetia 1, whereas in h. 3,251 ff. he tells the story of Lygdamis to which he refers only briefly in fr. 75, 23 from Aetia 3, possibly because the reader would know the story already from the hymn. This state of affairs would imply that the third hymn was written between Aetia 1 and 3 (see Swiderek 1950, 344 n. 9). 63 As was also defended by Cameron 1995,257 ff. 64 Thus a terminus post quern of 255 b c was suggested for the story of the tomb of Simonides in fr. 64 by Livrea 2006α, 55, who draws attention to the conquest of Acragas by the Romans in 262 b c and by the Carthaginians in 255 b c as well as to the Roman conquest of Camarina in 258 b c : the topicality of the theme in the 250s would have inspired the aition. 65 See Borgonovo-Cappelletto 1994,16 n. 25

23

4. GENERIC ASPECTS

Generically the Aetia may be defined as an aetiological catalogue-poem in elegiacs that can be related to various elements in the Greek literary trad­ ition. Because it is concerned with the transmission of knowledge it may first of all be considered as part of the tradition o f antiquarian didactic poetry, like Hesiod’s Theogony (for the terminology see Introd. 4.2). Because of its structure it may be related particularly to ancient catalogue-poetry, like the Hesiodic Catalogues.66 Because o f its metre and narrative character there are also links with narrative elegy and the question arises how the work should be regarded in connection with the related genre of narrative epic. Besides, at a micro-level we see that within this general generic framework Calli­ machus experiments with a variety of other genres in the presentation and structure of the individual aitia, particularly in Aetia 3—4, where the poem evokes such genres as epinician, epigram, hymn, and epithalamium (see Introd. 4.5). Although in Aetia 1-2 we also find some hymnic elements, there the emphasis on the didactic and narrative tradition seems somewhat stronger. The generic complexity of the Aetia as a whole is reflected in the prologue in fr. 1, which evokes many genres to the poem’s reader by means o f allusions and a kaleidoscopic picture o f Greek literature.

66 According to Gutzwiller 1998, 186 one may distinguish between Aetia 1-2 as catalogue poetry influenced by Antimachus’ Lyde and 3—4 as influenced by the tradition of Hellenistic epigram books. This is an interesting idea, because ff. 64,97, and 110 (and the unplaced fr. 114) are presented as kinds of epigrams, but we cannot be sure how prominent the epigrammatic element was when the text was complete. On the Hellenistic reception of the Hesiodic Cata­ logues see further R. Hunter, ‘The Hesiodic Catalogue and Hellenistic Poetry’, in R. Hunter, The Hesiodic Catalogue o f Women, Cambridge 2005, 239-65 and H. Asquith, ‘From Genealogy to Catalogue. The Hellenistic Adaptation o f the Hesiodic Catalogue Form’, in Hunter, The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, 266-86.

Introduction

24

4.1

Aetiology in ancient literature 4.1.1

Poetry

In his Aetia Callimachus for the first time in literary history seems to have presented a collection o f aetiological stories in their own right.67 Aetiological stories were always an important element in Greek cults68 and from an early date they found their way into Greek literature, where before Callimachus they were always incorporated into other literary genres.69 In Homer there are practically no aitia. There are only two more or less com­ parable aetiological passages in Homer: the passage about the ship o f the Phaeacians being turned into a rock by Poseidon in Od. 13, 125 ff. (where, however, no indication is given about the situation in the reader’s present),70 and the episode of the destruction of the Greek wall after the Trojan War in II. 12, 3 ff. (which in fact is a ‘non-aition, because it explains why something is not there anymore).71 In Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns aetiological pas­ sages are more frequent and include, for example, the Prometheus-myth in Hes. Th. 507 ff. (which explains the nature o f sacrifices, the origin of the fire, and of women; see West on 507-616), the foundation of the sanctuary of Demeter in Eleusis ( h.Cer: 270 ff.) and o f the oracle of Apollo in Delphi (h.Ap. 214 ff.), and the invention of the lyre in h.Merc. 24 ff. Besides, in a way Hesiod’s Theogony as a work about the origin of the world of the Olympic gods could be regarded as aetiological.72 In the choral odes o f Pindar and Bacchylides and in 5th-century tragedy aetiology becomes a common fea­ ture, found e.g. in Pi. 0 . 10,43 ff. about Heracles’ foundation o f the sanctuary at Olympia and the Olympian Games,73 A. Eu. 681 ff. about the foundation of the Areopagus, and at the end o f many plays by Euripides, e.g. Hipp. 1423 ff.

67 See also Herter 1973,194; Miller 1982,374; Loehr 1996,40 ff. 68 See F. Graf, Griechische Mythologie, Darmstadt 1991, 98 ff.; Loehr 1996, 4 ff. For further discussion of the term ‘aetiological’ see G. S. Kirk, ‘Aetiology, Ritual, Charter: Three Equivocal Terms in the Study of Myths’, YCS 22,1972,83-102, esp. 84 ff. 69 For surveys and discussions of aetiology in Greek literature see Codrignani 1958; S. Shechter, The Hellenistic Aition in Virgil’s Georgies, Diss. Harvard 1963, 9 ff. (teste Miller 1982, 373 n. 6); Valverde Sanchez 1989, 21 ff.; J. A. E. Bons, ‘Aetiologia’, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik (ed. G. Ueding) 1, Tübingen 1992, 203-9; Loehr 1996, 33 ff. (with a list of examples from various genres in 40 n. 4); Fantuzzi 1996,369 ff. and very briefly Brown 2002,19 f. 70 On the aetiological character of this passage see Hoekstra on Od. 13,157-8, 71 For discussion and further references see Harder 1994, 25 f. and introd. to fr. 97—97a. On other vaguely aetiological elements in Homer see Codrignani 1958, 527 ff.; Fantuzzi 1996,369. 72 See further on Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns Codrignani 1958, 530 ff.; Vaiverde Sanchez 1989, 38 ff; Fantuzzi 1996, 369 f. and on aetiological elements in epic in general Haussier 1976-8,1, 78 ff. 73 For more examples from lyric poetry see Valverde Sanchez 1989,40.

4. Generic aspects

25

about a ritual for Hippolytus and Ion 1571 ff. about the descendants o f Creusa and her son Ion.74 In the Hellenistic period the interest in aetiology becomes very strong and there is an increasing focus on obscure and local stories from all over the Greek world and beyond, made accessible by means o f the large amount of scholarly material collected in the Alexandrian library. This fits in with the notion that as the world became larger the need for a shared Greek past became stronger as well. In Callimachus’ own works the hymns, the Hecale, and the Iambi contain many aetiological elements,75 and in other Hellenistic authors we see a similar focus on aitia. In Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica the journey of the Argonauts results in a wide range o f monuments, rituals, and other traces along their route. The approach is different from that in the Aetia if only because in Apollonius the starting point is the Argonauts’ adven­ tures in the past, which leave traces that ‘even now’ people can observe, whereas in the Aetia the starting point is the present in which the narrator is confronted by traces from the past which he seeks to explain. In both approaches the notion that past and present are closely related as ‘cause’ and ‘result’ is prominent.76 In authors like Aratus and Nicander the myths that are incorporated in their works are often aetiological, as in e.g. Arat. 71 ff. about the wreath of Ariadne and Nie. Th. 309 ff. about the movement of the bloodletter.77 For the way in which Callimachus presented aetiological stories as poems in their own right we may have a parallel in the foundation-stories o f Apollonius Rhodius (fr. 4—12 Powell), where we find evidence o f poems like the Ά λεζανδρείac K tlc ic and the Καύνου Krictc, and the Metamorphoses of Nicander, a collection o f metamorphoses in hexameters o f presumably a somewhat later date.78 After Callimachus aetiology becomes an important element in Latin poets like Gallus, Virgil, Ovid, and Propertius. Their treatment o f aitia was inspired by Callimachus, particularly in Ovid’s Fasti and Metamorphoses, which, like the Aetia, adopt the format of aetiological catalogue-poems, but

74 For more examples see Codrignani 1958, 534 ff; Valverde Sänchez 1989, 40 f.; Fantuzzi 1996,370. 75 For some examples see Miller 1982, 374. On aitia in the Argonautica see further M. Fusillo, Il tempo delle Argonautiche, Rome 1985, 116 ff.; T. M. Paskiewicz, ‘Aitia in the Second Book of Apollonius’ Argonautica’, ICS 13, 1988, 57-61; Vaiverde Sànchez 1989 passim; Harder 1994, 21 ff. On the issue of the relation between present and past as either ‘continuity’ or ‘rupture’ see S. Goldhill, The Poet’s Voice, Cambridge 1991,321 ff. 77 See further on aetiology in Hellenistic poetry Miller 1982, 373 f.; Myers 1994, 16 ff; Fantuzzi 1996, 371; Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004, 49 ff. For more examples in Aratus see D. Kidd, Aratus. Phaenomena, Cambridge 1997,37. 71 See Myers 1994,23.

Introduction

4. Generic aspects

an exhaustive treatment of this large issue is beyond the scope of this edi­ tion.79 In Greek authors after Callimachus, there is evidence of aetiological works in, for example, Butas’ Aetia Romana (SH 234—5), an elegiac catalogue poem o f I bc which probably focused on Roman rituals,80 and Dionysius’ Α ίτια (SH 387-8 of unknown date).

instructive to compare these prosaic and businesslike surveys of aitia with Callimachus’ poetic and experimental treatment.

26

4.1.2

Prose

An aetiological question formed the starting point for Herodotus’ history of the Persian wars in his prooemium τά re άλλα και δι ην αίτίην έπολεμηοαν άλλήλοιαιν and aetiological explanations must also have figured to a certain extent in other prose accounts of Greek history and geography. These texts were probably important sources for the Aetia, where the stories were turned into poetry (see also Introd. 1.2). We have some explicit evidence o f Callimachus’ sources that suggests that he found aetiological stories in local writers, whose works may have found their way to the library at Alexandria, like the Argolica of Hagias and Dercylus and Aristotle’s Παρίων Π ολιτεία (ff. 7a, 15 ff.), the Milesiaca of Leandrius of Miletus (fr. 92,2 f.), or the Cean history ofXenomedes of Ceos (ff. 75,53 if.).81 As Lehnus 2004 b, 203 f. observes, Callimachus seems to have used these sources in an economical way, as he generally used one main source for a given area, e.g. Hagias and Dercylus for the Argive stories. Another prose-account which may have contained a large amount of aetio­ logical material is Timaeus’ history of the western world. We have no evi­ dence that Callimachus mentioned Timaeus explicitly, but together with Th. 6, 3-5 and perhaps the work of local Sicilian historians his work was probably an important source for fr. 43 on the foundation of the Sicilian cities.82 In other passages, like that about the Colchian settlements in the west and the Phaeacian episode in the journey of the Argonauts (ff. 11-15), the siege of Lipara (ff. 93-93a), or the story of Euthymus and the hero o f Temesa (ff. 9899b), Timaeus also is a likely source. After Callimachus we find two works entirely devoted to aetiological ques­ tions in Plutarch’s Quaestiones Romanae and Quaestiones Graecae. It is

79 See further on this subject e.g. George 1974; D. Porte, L'Étiologie Religieuse dans les Pastes d’Ovide, Paris 1985; Vaiverde Sanchez 1989,47 ff ; Miller 1982,378 ff.; J. F. Miller, ‘The Fasti and Hellenistic Didactic: Ovid’s Variant Aetiologies’, Arethusa 25, 1992, 11-31; Myers 1994; Loehr 1996 and on Roman aitia in other authors F. Graf, ‘Römische Kultaitia und die Konstruktion religiöser Vergangenheit’, in M. Flashar-H.-J. Gehrke-E. Heinrich, Retrospektive, München 1996, 125-35. 80 For a recent discussion of the fragments see Loehr 1996,68 ff. 81 See on Callimachus’ sources also Lopez Caballero 1994. 82 See comm, on ff. 43,28-55.

4.2

27

The A e tia as didactic poetry

Although the Aetia is generically somewhat ambivalent it seems best to regard the work as part of the tradition o f didactic poetry, which began with Hesiod and, although it continued all through antiquity,83 flourished particularly in the Hellenistic and later period.84 Although Bernd Effe’s monograph on didactic poetry does not treat the Aetia*5 (which can be explained by Effe’s typology o f the genre),86 the work has been considered as part of this tradition by a number of scholars: for instance, Puelma 1982, 287 n. 80: ‘Kallimachos stellt sich in den Aitien dagegen in die Tradition der eigentlichen Lehrepen des Hesiod’; Krevans 1984, 170: Tn the most basic sense, the structural goals o f the Aetia are those of the didactic poem: to present a corpus of information in an artistic and entertaining way’, and Kaesser 2005. In the Hesiodic tradition of didactic poetry one may distinguish two lines. On the one hand, we find moralistic didactic poetry like the Works and Days and, on the other hand, antiquarian didactic poetry like the Theogony, where the emphasis is on the transmission o f knowledge to the reader (although a moralistic element is present too), and the Catalogues, where the knowledge is transmitted in the form of a list. The Aetia shows features that are reminiscent of both lines o f this Hesiodic corpus in several ways, both by explicit allu­ sions, as in ff. 2, and implicitly by its structure (which recalls collective poems like the Hesiodic Catalogues),*7 composition, and contents, and by the con­ tinuing emphasis on the mechanisms of the transmission of knowledge. Later

13 See G. Wöhrle, ‘Bemerkungen zur lehrhaften Dichtung zwischen Empedokles und Arat’, in W. Kullmann-J. Althoff-M. Asper, Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Literatur in der Antike, Tübingen 1998, 279-86. 84 See e.g. D. Sider, ‘Posidippus on Weather Signs and the Tradition of Didactic Poetry’, in K. Gutzwiller, The New Posidippus, Oxford 2005,164-82 (esp. 176 ff); M. A. Harder, ‘More Facts from Fragments?’, in D. Obbink-R. Rutherford (edd.), Culture in Pieces, Oxford (forthcoming). 85 See Effe 1977. B. Effe, ‘Typologie und literarhistorischer Kontext: Zur Gattungsgeschichte des grie­ chischen Lehrgedichts’, in M. Horster-C. Reitz, Wissensvermittlung in dichterischer Gestalt, Stuttgart 2005,27-44 shows himself aware of the a-historical aspects of his earlier approach, but even so does not extend the boundaries of the genre to include works like the Aetia. On the reception of the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women in Hellenistic poetry see in general R. Hunter, ‘The Hesiodic Catalogue and Hellenistic Poetry’, in R. Hunter, The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, Cambridge 2005, 239-65.

Introduction

4. Generic aspects

Greek and Roman authors seem to have recognized these features and give evidence o f that in their own works.88 However, although the Aetia may be placed within the Hesiodic tradition, there is also a great deal o f undermining and variation o f the old didactic genre in several ways:

helpers par excellence of the oral poet, in books 1-2, which recalls the role of the Muses in the Theogony and Catalogues. By presenting the teaching and learning as all part o f his dream, Callimachus on the one hand evokes the ancient concept of divine inspiration in a dream, but on the other hand also leaves the reader room to think that the Muses are his own creation and that the source of trustworthy information eventually is the poet himself. Besides, the narrator is presented as by no means completely dependent on the Muses. He gives evidence o f a great deal of knowledge himself and thus explicitly undercuts the notion of the Muses as the sole source o f knowledge (cf. e.g. if. 7a, 10 ff.; 43,18 ff). At other points the reader o f the Aetia is sometimes left in the dark, as in e.g. ff. 43,18 ff, where the foundation-stories of the Sicilian cities are not told, but merely mentioned with a few significant details. The message seems to be that neither the Muses nor the present work provide complete knowledge and that the reader who wants to find factual informa­ tion must consult other sources. By thus challenging his readers Callimachus shows the limitations o f the present work as a proper source of knowledge and draws attention to its poetical and experimental qualities. He shows that the Aetia is different not only from archaic didactic poetry, but also from prose-handbooks and that it caters to a different audience. Also in books 3-4 there is a great deal o f emphasis on the learned character of the narrator, who may do without the Muses altogether, but is able to consult other sources, as in fr. 75, 53 ff, where he summarizes the prose-work of Xenomedes o f Ceos. Literary and programmatic considerations may be detected here, because the reader is given a picture of what a poet at Alex­ andria could do with the sources which were available to him in the Library: for the facts he excerpts Xenomedes, for details about the Telchines he refers the reader to poems by Pindar and Bacchylides. As in the dialogue with the Muses, here too the reader is made aware that for a complete survey he must consult those sources and he is reminded o f the long trad­ ition of scholarly and poetic interest in Ceos. Again the Aetia seems to serve as a guide to further knowledge rather than as a complete source o f know­ ledge itself91 and this kind of elliptic presentation seems to undermine its didactic purpose. Readers who want to know everything about all the aitia will be disappointed if they rely on the Aetia. They must either follow up the work’s hints and clues and start studying for themselves or forget about complete knowledge and ponder about what the Aetia has to offer them instead. One may also notice that not only the Muses or the narrator, but also other

28

(1) The focus on low, local, and obscure elements, which we find in quite a number of aitia, is in marked contrast with the stories of important gods and heroes in the Hesiodic corpus. (2) At first sight the Aetia does not show much interest in the moral or practical instruction of the reader: many stories seem ‘interesting’ for the reader rather than directly relevant for his understanding of the contempor­ ary world or of practical use, and this apparent lack o f relevance is reflected in the motivation for the questions (cf. e.g. the emphasis on curiosity’ in fr, 43b, 1 f.).89 (3) There are no signs of an attempt to offer a complete and systematic survey of a subject. (4) The transmission of knowledge, which was an important aspect of antiquarian didactic poetry, is often unmasked as an illusion, because the reader must be learned himself in order to understand what he is told, as in e.g. ft. 67, 3, where the interpretation of Acontius’ character as ού . . . TToXÓKpoToc depends to a certain extent on his knowledge of the Odyssey, or fir. 75, 12 f., where the description of epilepsy is rather cryptic. Elsewhere the reader is confronted with an excerpt of Callimachus’ source (fr. 75,53 ff.) and may wonder why he should be required to read the Aetia if there are more extensive prose-sources available. Besides, the old tradition of the Muses as the source of knowledge is called into question because the Muses are con­ fronted with a very knowledgeable human interlocutor, who, for example, tells them all about the Sicilian cities in ff. 43, 28 ff. (5) As to the presentation of knowledge, the convention o f legitimizing knowledge by attributing it to reliable authorities takes on various forms, which raise questions about the purpose and nature o f the Aetia. First of all, the Aetia is book-poetry in which there is a great deal of play with the conventions of oral poetry.90 One aspect of this is the fictionalization o f the communication between the young Callimachus and the Muses, the

88 See also introd. to fr. 2-2j on Programmatic aspects. For further discussion of the subject of the Aetia as part of the tradition of didactic poetry see Kaesser 2005; Harder 2007b. 89 See also Meyer 1993b, 325 ff. about the desire for knowledge in Callimachus. 90 For the idea that this might be so in order to create an illusion of immediate access to the mythological material see Meyer 1993b, 330 ff.

29

Another example of encouraging the reader to study and find out for him/herself may be found in ff. 54h.

Introduction

4. Generic aspects

fictional characters, to whom a great deal of authority is attributed, are entrusted with the transmission o f knowledge, for example, Theogenes in ff. 178. Especially in Aetia 3 and 4 there is a great variety of narrators and presentation and even some monologues o f ‘impossible’ speakers in ff. 64, 97-97a and 110-110 f, who are hard to locate in space, but through the medium o f writing have been given a voice. By presenting some o f his aitia in this way Callimachus draws attention to the bookish character o f his work, while at the same time playing with the notion o f reliability which was an important aspect of earlier didactic poetry.

one of the several types of elegy and included, for example, Mimnermus’ bc the recently published poem on the battle o f Plataea by Simonides. In the 4th century bc Antimachus’ Lyde, in which mythological stories were embedded as exempla in a consolatory work, was the first of a range o f collective or catalogue poems in elegiacs, which seems to have flourished in the Hellenistic period93 and was carried on in works like Hermesianax’ Leontion and Phanocles’ Erotes in the 3rd century bc. In the same period also Philitas wrote his Demeter, which was praised by Callimachus in ff. 1,9 ff., and there is evidence o f historical-encomiastic elegy in e.g. SH 958 and 969.94 Greek examples o f didactic poetry in elegiacs are comparatively rare and were probably a late development,95 but include, for example, the book on cooking by Archestratus (SH 132-92),96 the epigram Cubi Duplicatio attributed to Eratosthenes (fr. 35 Powell), and Butas’ Aetia

30

(6) Since the Aetia does not really preserve or transmit knowledge the old function of Hesiodic poetry is to a certain extent undermined. The necessary conditions for this modification of the function of Hesiodic poetry were created by the cultural situation in Alexandria with its Library and the learned audience gathered around the Museum. By its very nature the Aetia draws attention to this situation and shows its impact on the development of Greek poetry. On the other hand, the Aetia creates a positive picture of the development o f civilization from the time of Minos to Alexandria in the 3rd century bc. In this respect it may be regarded as a continuation of Hesiod’s Theogony, which ended with the establishment of Zeus as a just ruler of the gods and the world, on a human level. Thus a new, programmatic and ideo­ logical function attuned to the historical and cultural situation in Ptolemaic Alexandria (on which see also Introd. 5.2) seems to have replaced and sup­ plemented the older theological function. (7) Another aspect of Callimachus’ variation within the didactic tradition o f Hesiod is his choice to write in elegiacs, to which we now turn.

4.3

The A e tia and the elegiac tradition

Although our evidence of the elegiac tradition is largely based on fragments,92 it is sufficient to see that the Aetia fits into this tradition in a number of respects. From the beginning narrative elegy about local historical events was 52 For general discussions of the elegiac genre see West 1974,2 ff. (who on 14 remarks that in archaic elegy we might not have narrative for its own sake, as in epic, but that the narratives might rather be related to current events and contain a moral message); E. L. Bowie, ‘Early Greek Elegy, Symposium and Public Festival’, JHS 106, 1986, 13-35, esp. 27 ff. (where he dis­ cusses narrative elegy about local history in the 7th-5th cent, bc as performed at public festivals and concludes on 34 ‘poets of the archaic period used the form to compose substantial narra­ tives of their city’s history, narratives that in some respects resembled hexameter epic, but that may also have had features symptomatic of their form’s relationship to “personal” poetry ); A. Aloni, ‘The Proem of Simonides’ Plataea Elegy’, in Boedeker-Sider 2001, 86-105, esp. 89 f.; Barbantani 2001, 3 ff. and 2002, 30 ff.

31

Smyrneis and from the 5th century

Romana (SH 234-5).97 As a collective poem o f narrative elegies the Aetia was clearly part of this tradition o f elegiac poetry and Callimachus reminds his readers o f it by mentioning a few poets more or less explicitly; he refers to Philitas, Mimnermus, and, presumably, Antimachus in fr. 1, 9ff., where the first two are presented as examples to be followed, and Simonides appears as the speaker in fr. 64. The question why the Aetia was written in elegiacs in spite of its standing in the Hesiodic tradition o f didactic epic may find an answer in the character o f the work itself. As in Ovid’s Fasti, which is greatly influenced by the Aetia (as is apparent from the opening lines Fast. 1, 1 f. tempora cum causis .. . I .. . canam onwards), the playful, versatile, and subjective nature of the work and the large amount o f ‘personal’ interventions by the narrator are striking features. This kind o f poetry seems to be better suited to the elegiac metre, which already in the archaic period was used as a vehicle for more explicit personal or political messages, than to the more lofty and less subjective hexameter, which Callimachus used in his more ‘serious’ hymns and Hecale98

93 See also Magnelli 2005, 203 IF. 94 See on these poems in general Barbantani 2001. 95 See also West 1974,18, who states that elegiac poetry ‘was not used, so far as we can tell, for the straightforward telling of myths and legends, . . . for didactic poetry of a technical or factual kind’. 94 On which see Effe 1977, 234 ff., who regards it as a parody of didactic poetry. For a useful survey of elegiac poetry from its beginning until the Greek poetry of the imperial period see E. Bowie, in Der Neue Pauly 3,969 ff. See for the distinction between poetry in hexameters and in elegiacs also Effe 1977, 104 f. n. 5, who mentions several examples of elegiac didactic poetry which are of a somewhat play­ ful nature, like e.g. Ovid’s Ars Amatoria; Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004, 34; Kaesser 2005,97 (who sees a connection with the paraenetic and moralistic elegies of poets like Tyrtaeus, Solon, and

4. Generic aspects Besides, one should take into account that the generic background of the Aetia did not consist only of the Hesiodic corpus, but included a great variety of genres (see Introd. 4.5). Since elegiacs were a metre which from the archaic period onwards could be used for many kinds of texts (paraenetic, moralizing and narrative elegies, epigrams on an increasing range o f themes, cataloguepoems), the metre seems to be well suited for a poem o f great generic varietylike the Aetia.

4.4

The A e tia and narrative epic poetry

The relation between the Aetia and narrative epic poetry, that is, both the early poetry of poets like Homer and contemporary epic, also merits con­ sideration here. All through the Aetia Callimachus frequently reminds his readers of early Greek epic by means of allusions to epic techniques or to specific passages. The nature and prominence of these allusions show Calli­ machus’ debt to the Iliad and even more to the Odyssey." They also help to make the reader aware of the creative and experimental elements in Calli­ machus’ poetry, which turned it into something entirely new and helped to shape his elegiac narrative against the background of the old epic narrative.100 Although the prologue of the Aetia to a large extent is concerned with poetic style rather than genre,101 there is some evidence that the wrong style of post-Homeric and contemporary epic is also one of the issues this prologue addresses. The criticism in ff. 1, 3-5 may be aimed at long contemporary epics and in the past was thought to be directed also at Apollonius’ Argo­ nautica. However, the evidence for a ‘quarrel’ between Callimachus and Apollonius is late and scholars now rightly tend to reject the earlier idea that there was a serious conflict.102 Recent research has also shown that the relation

Mimnermus). Fantuzzi’s idea that the Aetia was in elegiacs because its erudition was more recondite than that of the Hymns or the Hecale (M. Fantuzzi, ‘II sistema letterario della poesia alessandrina nel III sec a.C.’, in Lo Spazio Letterario della Grecia Antica, 1.2 (ed. G. CambianoL. Canfora-D. Lanza), Roma 1993,31-73, esp. 54 ff.) is less easy to understand. 59 On the importance of the Odyssey as a model for the Aetia see Hunter 1996, 22 f.; Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004, 81 f.; introd. to ff. 178-185b on Contents. 100 For further discussion and examples see below, Introd. 4.5 and 6.2. 101 See introd. to fr. 1. 102 For a well-argued rejection of the quarrel see M. R. Lefkowitz, ‘The Quarrel between Callimachus and Apollonius’, ZPE 40, 1980, 1-19. For further discussion of the relationship between Callimachus and Apollonius Rhodius see e.g. M. T. Smiley, ‘The Quarrel between Callimachus and Apollonius’, Hermathena 17, 1913, 280-94; Wehrli 1941; P. Händel, Beobach­ tungen zur epischen Technik des Apollonios Rhodios, München 1954,50 ff.; Corbato 1955; Bundy 1972; Eichgrün 1961; Fraser 1972, 1, 629; 637 ff.; 2, 1055 f. n. 271; J. Smolarczyk-Rostropowicz, ‘Comments on the controversy between Apollonius of Rhodes and Callimachus’, Eos 67, 1979,

33

between Callimachus and Apollonius was in fact far more complex, and that there was probably a great deal o f interaction between the two poets and that they were concerned with similar poetic issues. In this respect fr. 7c-21d and ff. 108-109a are important from a structural point of view, because they show that Callimachus and Apollonius included the stories o f Anaphe and the anchor at Cyzicus in the opposite order at the beginning and end of their works. Besides, detailed comparison of ff. 7c-21d with Apollonius’ treatment of the Argonaut myth shows that both poets shaped their treatment o f the Anaphe story in such a way that their texts could be read as a dialogue about the epic and elegiac treatment o f the same theme.103 The question which work was written first, the Aetia or the Argonautica, still remains unsolved. The best way to explain the intricate relation between the two works is probably to assume that they were written over a consider­ able period o f time, during which the two poets read each other’s work and reacted to it until the moment when, in his second edition of the Aetia, when he probably had the whole of the Argonautica in front of him, Callimachus gave his final comment on the Argonautica by placing the story of the anchor at Cyzicus at the end (see also Introd. 1.1). On the other hand, Köhnken 2001, 77 ff. argues that Apollonius had seen the whole o f the Aetia when he wrote the Argonautica and adduces the following arguments: (1) quotations in the scholia, which suggest that Apollonius borrowed from Callimachus (particu­ larly the scholia on AR 1, 1309, discussed in comm, on ff. 12, 6); (2) Callimachean elements in a number of passages; (3) the story of Hylas in AR 1, 1211 ff., which according to Köhnken can only be understood if the reader knew Callimachus’ story o f Heracles and Thiodamas in fr. 24-25d. However, none of these arguments is entirely cogent and the elements of ‘dialogue’ in the overall structure of both works suggest that this view is too simple: they rather point to a more complex pattern o f interaction in which issues o f style and genre are subtly interwoven. Other works in hexameters show a similar awareness of the ways in which poets could deal with the demands of style and genre. In Callimachus’ own works his treatment o f the story o f Theseus’ stay with the old woman Hecale in the Hecale has been ffuitfully compared with that o f the story o f Heracles’ stay with Molorcus in the Aetia (ff. 54-60j) by Ambiihl 2004a, 23 ff. and 2005, 58 ff. One of the differences between the treatments is the more ‘tragic’ 7-*-79; Schwinge 1986, 83 ff.; Harder 1993c, 103 ff.; Hunter 1993a, 190 ff.; M. M. DeForest, Apollonius’ Argonautica: A Callimachean Epic, Leiden 1994; Wouters 1995, 71; Albis 1995 (see comm, on ff. 18,9); Köhnken 2001,77 ff.; C. Cusset, ‘Le Nouveau Héros épique’, REG 114,2001, 228-41 (about Apollonius and the Hecale)·, Citta Serena 2004. See further, Introd. 1.1, and for another aspect of this interaction, i.e. a shared interest in hterary genres, see Introd. 4.5 below.

4. Generic aspects character of the epic Hecale as opposed to the more ‘comic’ character of the story o f Heracles in the elegiac Victory o f Berenice. As to Theocritus there are no very close points of contact as with Apollonius, but the praise of brevity in ff. 1 recalls the way in which Theocritus preferred to write short poems and rejected excessive poetic ambition in Theoc. 7, 43 ff. The kind of epic that Callimachus, Apollonius, and Theocritus did not write may be represented by some o f the fragments in the Supplementum Hellenisticum and has been well analysed by Bing 1988a,50 ff. in a discussion of SH 946-7. It is not certain how many o f the fragments o f Hellenistic hexameter poetry are from long epics and one should reckon with the possi­ bility that a great deal of this poetry was short, encomiastic poetry.104 Even so, there is evidence o f an ongoing tradition of writing long epic poems in the 4th century bc in the discussion in Aristotle’s Poetics and in the fragments and testimonia o f authors like Choerilus o f Samos, Anaximenes o f Lamp­ sacus, and Choerilus of Iasus, who wrote historical epics, and of Antimachus o f Colophon, whose Thebais is an example of a mythological epic. In h. 2, 105ff. it seems to be exactly this kind of long and apparently unpolished poetry that Callimachus rejects.105

4.5

Play with other genres in the A e tia

Within the overall generic framework o f the Aetia there is a great deal o f play with other literary genres, so that at a metapoetic level the Aetia presents the old literary genres as an object of reflection to its readers.106 One may distinguish three categories of generic allusions: (1) Aitia where the form of presentation of the whole aition is that of a specific genre, for example, the epinician poem in ff. 54-60j ( The Victory of Berenice), the funerary epigram in ff. 64 (The Tomb of Simonides), the dedi­ catory epigram in ff. 110-110f (The Lock of Berenice), and other kinds of epigrams in ff. 97 about the old Pelasgian wall of Athens and fr. 114 about the statue of Apollo at Delos. Aitia which are presented in the form of a specific genre are not found in the fragments of Aetia 1-2 (unless fr. 114 should

104 For the earlier view that there is a great deal of evidence of long Hellenistic epics see Ziegler 1934; for a rejection of this view see Cameron 1995, 263 ff.; on Callimachus and con­ temporary epic in general see Barbantani 2002-3. 105 Williams ad Ioc. rightly argues that this passage is about epic poetry not coming up to the standards of Homer. As in fr. 1 the context and imagery used by Callimachus suggest that the notion that small and refined is better than large and crude is mixed with issues o f genre. See also Harder 2002c, 603 f. 106 For a more extensive treatment of this subject see Harder 1998,95 ff.

35

belong there), probably because in Aetia 1-2 the framework o f the dialogue with the Muses presupposes that Callimachus stays in charge as primary narrator so that different voices are less easy to incorporate than in Aetia 3-4, where the aitia are presented without an overall narrative framework and with a variety o f narrative voices and hence a wider range of generic presenta­ tion is possible. The choice of genres does not seem arbitrary, as, for example, the basic function o f genres like the Pindaric epinician and various kinds of epigram was honorific and this function may account for the way in which Callimachus used these genres in the Aetia. Thus the Victory of Berenice (fr. 54-60j) is not just a late epinician in elegiacs, but it is exactly this presen­ tation which helps to establish it as a complex court-poem for the queen in a new political and cultural context. Besides, the honorific function of the poem is further enhanced by the play with oral performance and written presentation: this epinician is not sung by a chorus, but presented as a text, so that the character o f the Pindaric epinician as a text primarily intended for oral performance has been transformed into that o f a text as a written monument. Its position at the beginning of Aetia 3 as well as the fact that whenever the poem was read the victory was called to mind again helps to establish it as a homage to Berenice in the new medium o f the book-roll. (2) Aitia in which within an extended passage the reader is rather emphatically reminded of a specific genre, for example, the ‘epic’ catalogue of Sicilian cities in fr. 43, the symposium framework in fr. 43, 12 ff. and 178, or the summary of a prose history in fr. 75, 53 ff. These kinds of passages are found in Aetia 1-2 as well as in 3-4 and the instances mentioned above all have to do with the acquisition and transmission of knowledge, perhaps not accidentally. These passages show an important aspect o f Callimachus’ virtu­ osity with generic allusions on a metapoetic level and help the reader to acquire a picture of poetry in the context of Ptolemaic cultural politics, which enabled poets to write this kind o f learned poetry against the background of a long and varied tradition. (3) Shorter passages that are reminiscent o f literary devices or contents which are typical o f a specific genre (most often epic or hymns) and may therefore draw the reader’s attention to that genre, for instance the hymnic ending of the aition o f the cult of the Charites at Paros in fr. 7, 13 f., the epic time-indication in fr. 54c, 5 ff., or the repeated reminders of elements from epithalamia in fr. 110. A particular aspect o f this kind o f generic allusion is the use of second-person address in narrative or description in several aitia (on which see also Introd. 6.3). This is an element typical o f the cult-hymn addressed to a god,107 which outside a hymnic context is unusual from the See e.g. Miller 1986,2.

5. The Aetia as Alexandrian poetry point of view of narrative technique, because when the narrator addresses his character he seems to be crossing the border between his world and the world of his characters. In the Aetia we find extended passages of Du-Stil in fr. 8083b (the love-story of Phrygius and Pieria) and fr. 84-85a (the story of Euthycles o f Locri) and perhaps in fr. 24 from the story o f Heracles and Thiodamas, where the Du-Stil in 1-4 suggests that the fragment was part o f a longer passage addressed to Heracles. In summary, most o f the larger as well as some o f the smaller fragments are in one way or another generically remarkable and generic allusions were probably a prominent feature o f the Aetia as a whole. The function of these generic allusions is complex and they often have a metapoetic aspect. They reflect the Hellenistic interest in literary genres and show that Callimachus’ tendency to polyeideia was not only apparent across his oeuvre as a whole, but also within the framework of a single work like the Aetia,m Altogether there seems to be much more at stake than simply stylistic embellishment.

5. THE AETIA AS ALEXANDRIAN POETRY

Broadly speaking the Aetia foregrounds literary concerns also found in Cal­ limachus’ other works and in the work o f other Hellenistic poets and shows the characteristics regarded as typical o f this kind of poetry (see Introd. 5.1). It is also possible to relate the Aetia to the cultural and historical context of Ptolemaic Alexandria in a meaningful way and to theorize about the work’s function on the basis o f its nature and contents (see Introd. 5.2). Also under this heading might belong the Aetia as an object of imitation and inspiration for later Greek and Roman poets, who looked for examples in Hellenistic poetry. However, this extensive subject has been dealt with fre­ quently in studies centring on those poets and therefore I have not engaged in it here. 108 For the notion of polyeideia cf. Ia. fr. 203 and see in general Acosta-Hughes 2002. In a paper entitled O rpheus and the Hymnic Origins o f Poetry in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius’ (given at the University o f Groningen on 2 June 2006) J. Klooster draws attention to the polyeideia of the songs of Orpheus in the Argonautica and observes that they may be related to the genres of didactic epic, hymn (including hymns to Artemis and Apollo), epinician, and epithalamium. The genres thus evoked in the Argonautica may be related to those in the Aetia and provide another intriguing connection between Apollonius and Callimachus, who, appar­ ently, were both exploring the notion of polyeideia and finding different solutions.

5.1

37

The A e tia in its literary context

The Aetia shows a number o f characteristics generally considered typical of Hellenistic poetry. First of all the Aetia may be described as self-conscious poetry. By means of its presentation the work often reminds the reader o f the narrator’s activities and his own concerns, which may, for example, be programmatic or political, and therefore of the artificiality of the work as a conscious literary creation in a specific cultural context. A good example o f this attitude is the long fr. 75, where the narrator frequently refers to himself as an Alexandrian scholarpoet at work, e.g. in 4 ff., where he reproaches himself for almost telling a story about Hera which should be kept secret, and in 53 ff., where he summar­ izes the source of the story o f Acontius and Cydippe. Another Hellenistic aspect, which may be related to Apollo’s exhortation to go along untrodden paths in fr. 1, 25 ff., is the way in which Callimachus experiments with the old literary tradition and turns his poem into some­ thing new and original, playing with earlier themes, genres, and conven*· _ _ 109 tions. Also the learned character of the Aetia makes it a typically Hellenistic poem, one that shows the scholarly capacities of its author and makes strong demands on its readers’ intellect and knowledge. This learnedness arises in various aspects o f the work; for example, the contents of the stories, which are often obscure and suggest the consultation o f many sources, e.g. the Cean history of Xenomedes summarized in fr. 75, 53 ff.; the discussions about dif­ ferent versions o f myths, e.g. the traditions about the birth o f the Charites in fr. 7a, 10 ff; the extensive use o f allusions to other authors;108*110 the frequent generic experiments;111 the use of glosses and rare or disputed words.112 In this respect the Aetia may well be compared with works like Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica and Lycophron’s Alexandra and, particularly for the generic experiments, also with Theocritus. An important aspect of Hellenistic poetry is also its character as written poetry, which, although performance or recitation cannot be excluded, seems to be aimed at readers who are able to grasp the learned details at their own pace. In this respect the learned character o f the Aetia may also be regarded as functional, because it would help to activate and engage the reader, as is plausibly argued by Schmitz 1999, 156 ff., who observes that erudition and

109 For some examples see Introd. 2 and 4. For discussion of this issue see Introd. 6.2. For examples see Introd. 4.5. 112 See Introd. 6.1.3.

5. brevity force the reader to make an effort to understand the poem and thus give him pride and pleasure in his role as a reader, which leads to further appreciation o f the poem. Besides, Callimachus also makes use of the medium of ‘the poetic book’ in order to make certain statements at a topical and programmatic level, for example, his praise o f Berenice, which is enhanced by the position o f the Victory of Berenice and the Lock of Berenice at the beginning and the end of books 3 and 4, and his dialogue with Apollonius as reflected in the structure of the Aetia. Another Hellenistic feature o f the Aetia is the amount o f ‘realism’ and features o f the more mundane aspects of life in several of the stories. Thus we find details about hunger, gluttony and ploughing farmers in fr. 22, 23, and 24, about Molorcus and the mice, which invade his cottage and destroy his meagre possessions, in ff. 54c, and about nasty illnesses hitting Cydippe in fr. 75, 12 ff. Also the interest in love, which we find in the stories of Acontius and Cydippe (fr. 67-75e) and of Phrygius and Pieria (fr. 80-83b), belongs in this category. Although the four books o f the Aetia may not have made a particularly short poem when taken together, the work fits in with the tendency to brevity which we find in Hellenistic poetry and which is also praised in the prologue in fr. 1 , because the individual aitia are of varying length, sometimes very short, sometimes a little longer, but as far as we know never much more than 200 lines. Last but not least it is worth mentioning the subtly humorous and playful character o f the Aetia. The examples are too many to list here and to a certain extent may be subjective, but one may think, for example, of Apollo’s some­ what self-interested request for fat sacrificial animals in ff. 1,23 f., the charac­ terization o f Molorcus as a mock-epic hero in his fight against the mice in ff. 54c, or the indignant self-address of the garrulous narrator in ff. 75,4 ff. The Hellenistic characteristics of the Aetia listed above are, in varying degrees, also true of other important Hellenistic poets like Apollonius Rhodius, Theocritus, Aratus, Lycophron, and Nicander. Therefore there can be little doubt that with this work Callimachus was very much part o f a group of poets who favoured a new, innovative, and experimental kind of poetry, one that used the old traditions in a self-confident and creative way. The way in which Hellenistic poetry and particularly Callimachus became a source of inspiration for Latin and later Greek poets suggests that this view was also widely held in antiquity. Even so, the existence o f a particular group o f contemporary critics, who did not appreciate Callimachus’ work, is suggested by the Telchines men­ tioned in ff. 1,1. The Florentine scholia in ff. lb, 3 ff. (written in the 2nd/3rd century a d ) offer a list o f names, but in spite o f Cameron’s attempt to regard

The Aetia as Alexandrian poetry

39

the evidence o f the scholia as an early and therefore trustworthy source for the identification of the Telchines113 it is by no means certain that the list is early. It may well be a later construction on the basis o f apparent contradic­ tions between Callimachus and the people inserted into the list. In fact we cannot be sure about the identity o f the Telchines and should even include the possibility that they were merely an unidentified ‘outgroup’. This outgroup could be used as a foil against which Callimachus could describe his own views and against which a different kind o f reader could define himself as belonging to the group o f proper readers of the Aetia, who understood what was really going on.114 Apart ffom this the impression o f a lively literary discussion created by the prologue may well reflect the actual situation in the literary circles o f Alexandria in Callimachus’ time.115

5.2

The A e tia in its social and historical context

The Aetia was written in context o f Ptolemaic cultural politics, which greatly stimulated art and scholarship.116 The work contains several features that relate it to the interests of the Ptolemaic court and to the cultural environment o f the Museum and Library at Alexandria. The position and role o f poets in Alexandria in relation to the Ptolemaic court has been the subject o f much recent scholarship.117 On the whole their poetry focuses on the rulers and their concerns, rather than on life at court, of which we hear almost nothing.118 In the Aetia we find both explicit and implicit references to Ptolemaic interests. The two poems for Berenice, which frame Aetia 3—4, are clearly written as encomiastic poetry, but in both poems the praise of Berenice is discrete and playful and the homage seems to consist to a large extent in the poems’ virtuosity and the effort that went into their creation as well as in the position they were given in the Aetia. At a more

113 See Cameron 1995, 185 if. and for further discussion comm, on fr. lb, 3 ff. 114 See for this idea Asper 2001,88. 115 See introd. to fr. 1 and for similar signs of discussions cf. Ia. fr. 191, 194 and 203. 116 On the historical and cultural background of the 3rd cent, b c s e e in general e.g. Fraser 1972; C. Préaux, Le Monde helìénistique: la Grèce et l’Orient (323-146 av. J-C), Paris 1978; Htìlbl 1994,9-107; Huss 2001,79-380. 117 See e.g. Gelzer 1982; Koenen 1983 and 1993; Weber 1993; Wouters 1995, 78 ff.; B. Effe, Alexandrinisches Herrscherlob: Ambivalenzen literarischer Panegyrik’, in G. Binder-B. Effe, Affirmation und Kritik: Zur politischen Funktion von Kunst und Literatur im Altertum, Trier 1995, 107-23; M. Hose, ‘Der alexandrinische Zeus: Zur Stellung der Dichtkunst im Reich der ersten Ptolemäer’, Phil. 141,1997,46-64; Seiden 1998; Hazzard 2000; R. Strootman, ‘Mecenaat aan de hellenistische hoven’, Lampas 34, 2001, 190-206; Hunter 2003,24 ff. See on this aspect of Hellenistic court poetry A. Kerkhecker, 'Movcioiv tv ταλάρωι. Dichter und Dichtung am Ptolemäerhof’, A&A 43,1997, 124—44.

6. Literary techniques implicit level the framing of Aetia 3-4 between the two poems for Berenice suggests that both books may be read with Callimachus’ role as a poet at the Ptolemaic court in mind and that the group of love-stories in Aetia 3 may enhance the impact of the Lock of Berenice, as they draw attention to the beneficial aspects o f love. Elsewhere in the Aetia we may also detect signals o f Callimachus’ adhering to the Ptolemaic cause119 and the interest in places like Sicily, Ceos, and Asia Minor as well as the presence of certain Egyptian elements in the Aetia has also been related to diplomatic and imperial interests o f the Ptolemies.120 The impact of the Library and Museum is evident in the learned character of the Aetia, which is clearly a work that could not have been written outside this environment and may be read as proof of the successful cultural politics o f the Ptolemies. The contents o f the Aetia as a whole create a picture o f the world and its history that would enhance the feelings of Greek identity among its readers as well as their awareness of the expansion and development of their civilization and of the positive moral and political developments in their history, culminating in Ptolemaic Alexandria,121 where the Greek tradition lives on in a new Egyptian environment. Considering the evidence it is clear that the Aetia does not fit in with the idea that Hellenistic poetry is a completely autonomous kind of poetry and should be regarded as Tart pour Part’ produced by poets in an ivory tower122 or with Martial’s view that the Aetia was a purely mythological work from which readers could learn nothing about themselves (cf. T 4). In many indi­ vidual fragments as well as in the whole of the Aetia programmatic, moral, or topical elements arise and a picture of a continuous Greek tradition and history results. This suggests that the idea of autonomous poetry with no function in contemporary life and no ‘message’ for its readers should be abandoned. The Aetia seems to have been a work which addressed a variety of issues of contemporary relevance and thus had a distinct function in society and in the cultural environment in which it was written and contributed to a Greek sense o f identity.123

As to the work’s presentation to readers or audiences Cameron 1995, 14 ff. argued that there was a lively succession of festivals and performances n the Hellenistic period, but was unable to produce evidence of such performances for major Hellenistic poets like Callimachus. It is more likely hat poetry like the Aetia, although it did have a distinct function in zontemporary society, was found too subtle for large-scale performances. Because of this Asper may well be right in postulating a select and learned ludience closely related to the court and the Museum for small-scale per­ formances and a larger, secondary audience of readers.124 This idea also derives support from the papyrus finds, which, though of a later date, indicate a readership not limited to the scholars in Alexandria, but also found in provincial towns like Oxyrhynchus, Hermopolis, or Tebtynis.125 In particular, the extensive and rather basic notes in the papyrus of the Victory of Berenice o f the 3rd century bc, presumably written not long after Callimachus’ death, suggest also that readers who were less learned read the Aetia or at least parts o f it. Besides, although the Aetia to a large extent requires learned readers (see also Introd. 4.2), there is a careful mixture of obscure and more accessible passages, as in fr. 43, where after the highly elliptic catalogue o f the founders of various Sicilian towns the story of the quarrel between the two founders of Zancle is relatively easy to follow. Thus, while certain passages may appeal to readers who feel ‘included’ as part of a literary elite, who understand all the difficult bits, others may attract a wider readership, which may enjoy a story which is accessible to the more average cultured Greeks. In this way the Aetia could reach a fairly large audience.

6. LITERARY TECHNIQUES

6.1 119 Cf. e.g. fr. 22-25d, where we find their ancestor Heracles in a prominent position early in the Aetia, first as a glutton, then rehabilitated as a civilizer of mankind; fr. 3-7b, where another ancestor of the Ptolemies, Dionysus, is chosen as the real father of the Charites; fr. 75, 4ff., where we may detect a subtle defence of the marriage of Philadelphus and Arsinoe II. 120 See introd. to fr. 43-43a and 67-75e and Introd. 2. 121 See further Harder 2003. 122 As was recently argued by e.g. Schwinge 1986; Wouters 1995, 61 ff. For further discussion of this issue and a rejection of the idea see Cameron 1995,24 ff.; Asper 2001,90 ff.; M. A. Harder, ‘Rondom de ivoren toren: Hellenistische poèzie als l’artpour FartV, Lampas 38.3,2005,232-41. 123 On the importance of these elements in Ptolemaic politics and the role played by the Aetia in this context see also Asper 2001,96 ff.

41

Word-order, language, and style

This section briefly describes some aspects o f Callimachus’ word-order, lan­ guage, and style in the Aetia to give a first impression of his literary technique See Asper 2001, 94 ff. As K. A. Worp reminds me, other locations indicated by Mertens-Pack3 are Antinoopolis, Karanis, Magdola, and Meir, and even if not all these locations are completely certain, there can be little doubt that there were readers o f the Aetia in the province. See further P. van Minnen, Boorish or Bookish? Literature in Egyptian Villages in the Fayum in the Graeco-Roman Period’, HP 28, 1998, 99-184 and Introd. 8.1.1.

6. Literary techniques in this respect.126 Already in antiquity Callimachus’ Aetia was considered a ‘difficult’ work and compared to the work o f Euphorion and Lycophron (cf. T 5 and test. 89 Pfeiffer). The extensive scholia and commentaries, o f which we have some remains in the papyri and testimonia, seem to confirm this. Even so, in the Aetia the display o f literary virtuosity rarely seems to be an end in itself: in this section some examples will show that Callimachus’ intricacies of word-order, language, and style are often more than mere adornment and in fact contribute to the significance we may attribute to the poem.127

6.1.1

Word-order

Scholars have often regarded the way in which Callimachus seemingly ignores rules o f word-order and/or forms certain patterns as a typical aspect of his style128 and indeed he was criticized for this in antiquity in A.D. Conj. 239, 3 f. Schneider επίμεμπτοι ot ràc ευντάξειε παραευγχεοντεε, ών εετι Κ αλλίμαχοε (in the context of ff. 6). However, although in some instances of complex word-order one has to admit that the text seems confusing, in other cases the apparently unusual arrangement o f the text may be explained by pragmatic considerations that, at least in the classical period, play an important role in Greek word-order and that imply, roughly, that the importance of the information offered by the constituents decides what comes first in the sentence.129 In classical Greek syntactic rules, that is, rules that dictate that certain kinds of words have a fixed position because of their function in the sentence, apply mostly to the position o f relative pronouns and particles, which define the boundaries of specific units o f information. Therefore deviations in the position of relative pronouns and particles may be regarded as significant manipulations of 126 As a starting point for the description o f Callimachus’ style in the Aetia I have used the theory of G. Leech, A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry, London 1979, which offers some concrete and clear criteria, as Leech regards style as a series o f deviations from certain norms, which the reader might regard as significant (58). 127 For further details the reader is referred to the commentary; looking up the issues dis­ cussed in this section in the Index will lead him to the right passages. A useful survey of many aspects of Callimachus’ language and style in all his works can be found in Lapp 1965. 128 See e.g. Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004,43. For a survey of passages from all of Callimachus’ works see Lapp 1965, 35 ff. For word-order as an aspect of style cf. e.g. Arist. Rh. 1407b, 38; DH Comp. 4, 55 ff. 129 Roughly speaking the usual word-order in Greek is ‘topic (i.e. the person vel sim. about whom or which something is being told)— focus (i.e. the most important information about the topic)— predicate— other elements’; see in general H. Dik, Word Order in Ancient Greek, Amsterdam 1995; id., Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue, Oxford 2007; S. J. Bakker, The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek, Diss. Groningen 2007 (who on pp. 8 ff. discusses the views o f Arist. Rh. 1407b, 38; DH Comp. 4, 55 ff.). I am grateful to S. J. Bakker for extensive discussion of this section of the Introduction.

43

syntax, which, like other instances o f apparently distorted word-order, such as ‘inversion’, ‘chiasmus’, ‘parallellism’ or ‘hyperbaton’, are often explicable from a pragmatic point of view, a tendency to offer the most significant information first. These general observations on word-order in classical Greek may be applied to the Aetia with some benefit, but some caution is also in order here because: (1) for Callimachus and Hellenistic poetry in general this kind of research has not yet been carried out systematically, so we cannot be entirely certain that the rules for word-order in the Hellenistic period were still the same as in the classical period; (2) in the Aetia an integral feature of word-order obviously is also the position o f words in relation to the elegiac distichs, i.e. their appear­ ance in marked positions at the beginning or end of the line, in relation to the caesura and in enjambement— it is not yet clear how this relates to pragmatic aspects; (3) some instances o f complex word-order in the Aetia simply defy a pragmatic explanation and one must certainly allow for the possibility that Hellenistic poets were led by stylistic considerations too. They were not just presenting information in the most efficient way, and in addition their poetry was more of a written nature than the largely orally performed texts of the classical period. In earlier scholarship several instances of apparently distorted wordorder in the Aetia have received a great deal o f attention, but some o f them turn out to be less strange when they are approached from a pragmatic point of view. A striking example was found in ff. 1, 33 ff. d π ά ντ]ωα, iva yrjpac iva 8pócov rjv μεν άείδω I π ρ ο ικ ιο ύ εκ δίηε rjépoc εΐδαρ εδων, I αΰθι Tjò δ’ ιεκίδνοιμμ). Here, however, the fact that the important elem­ ents which the speaker is going to treat themselves come first is consistent with the rules o f pragmatic word-order and the ‘chiasmus’ seems to follow quite naturally because the speaker goes on about the dew before switching back to old age. The only striking element that remains is the fact that Callimachus repeats 'iva instead of using an ordinary conjunction. In a similar way the apparently slightly irregular μεν . . . δε construction in ff. Π0, 77 f. ijc άπο, παρ[θ]ενίη μεν or rjv ετι, πολλιά πέ^πωκα I Aqrjà, γυναικείων δ’ ουκ άπελαυεα μύρων may be explained as due to the contrast between virgin and married woman being the most important elem­ ent of the message.

There are also passages where pragmatic considerations seem to overrule

44

6. Literary techniques

Introduction

the rules relating to the position of relative pronouns and particles. A good example o f this may be found in fr. 110,48 ff. Χαλύβων eoe άπόλοιτο γενοε, I γειόθεν άντελλοντα, κακόν φυτόν, οι μιν εφιηναν I -πρώτοι και τυπιδων εφραεαν εργαείην spoken by the lock of Berenice. Here the position o f the relative pronoun of far from the beginning of the relative clause is striking, but may be explained as a result of the tendency to give the most salient information about the iron or the Chalybes as an evil growth first. An example of a particle placed as the fourth word in a sentence is fr. 67, 11 κείνηε ο[ύ]χ δτερη γάρ, where the words preceding the particle form a coherent bit o f important information about the unique and unsurpassed beauty of Cydippe. In a comparable way elsewhere too the position o f relative pronouns and particles seems to be a means to draw the reader’s attention to the words that are placed ‘to the left’, i.e. to the beginning o f the sentence, because they contain the most salient information. In the past this was regarded as a ‘vice of Callimachus’ style’,130 but probably one should rather understand and appreciate the technique as a pragmatic means to steer the reader’s perception. Even so, there are also passages where it is hard to account for the wordorder from a pragmatic point o f view. Thus in fr. 178, 9 f. άλλ’ αΐνοε Όμηρικόε, αίεν δμοΐον I ώε θεόε, ού φευδηε, εε τον δμοϊον άγει the situ­ ation is complicated by the conspicuous variation of the Homeric example for this passage and the position o f ού φευδηε is confusing,131 but a wish to make the line as un-Homeric as possible while at the same time imitating Homer may account for the arrangement o f the words. In other instances, e.g. fr. 43, 5 2 f. εχω δ’ Εύβοιαν ενιεπε[ίν I φίλατο κα[ί] κεετ[ο]ΰ [δ]εεπότιε ήν Έρυκα and 63 f. καί γάρ δ βαεκαίνει πύργον ε[γειρόμεν]ον I γεωδαΐται καιίι επάρτα διηνιεκεε εύτε^ βάλωνται, the word-order seems hard to explain and particularly the position of καί is unusual, but it is conceiv­ able that the gradual transmission of information had a certain function in activating the reader or listener.132 Repetition o f words, which strictly speaking is a stylistic device, rather than a matter of word-order, is quite rare in the Aetia, but one may point to e.g. fr. 1, 33 ΐνα γήραε iva δρόεον and 25e, 1 f. αρνεε τοι, φίλε κούρε, ευνήλικεε, αρνεε εταίροι I εεκον. Since Callimachus makes use of these devices rather sparingly it seems to be an effective means of drawing the reader’s attention to something special.

130 Housman 19102», 115. For further discussion and examples see comm, on fr. 67,11. 131 Instances of a similar word-order are found elsewhere too; cf. e.g. ff. 6 oi S’ even Ένρννόμ-η Τιτηνιάε είπαν ετικ τεν and the examples mentioned in the commentary ad loc. 132 See comm, on ff. 43, 53.

6.1.2

45

Metrical units and sense units

There are many instances o f Callimachus positioning words and sense units in relation to the elegiac metre so that certain elements in the text are brought rather emphatically to the reader’s attention and the rhetorical message is enhanced by the interaction between contents and metre.133 Sometimes words are placed in relation to the caesura as well as in marked positions within the lines and help to steer the reader’s perception. Thus in fr. 25e, 1 αρνεε τοι, φίλε κούρε, ευνήλικεε, αρνεε εταίροι I εεκον the anaphora of αρνεε, placed at the beginning of the line and after the ‘bucolic’ diaeresis, draws attention to the importance of the lambs in the aition, in fr. 67, 1 ff. αύτδε’Έ ρωε εδίδαξεν Άκόντιον, δππότε καλήι I ήιθετο Κυδίππηι παίε επί παρθενικήι, 1τέχνην the adjective καλήι at the end o f 1 draws attention to the beauty o f Cydippe and παίε επί παρθενικήι following the caesura in 2 neatly summarizes the age and gender of Acontius and Cydippe. The patterns o f punctuation and units o f information in the sentences may also be related to the metrical units in the elegiac couplets. In many instances we see that punctuation occurs after the second or third element, after the P-, T-, or b-caesura134 or at the end o f the line in the hexameter.135 In the pentameters we find punctuation usually in the first half of the line, whereas punctuation at the caesura or in the second half o f the line is usually weak. Callimachus’ treatment o f enjambement is an aspect of punctuation in his verse worth especial attention. In this respect one should bear in mind that in elegiacs enjambement strictly speaking is found only between the distichs, which may be regarded as couplets in which the pentameter has a clausular function.136 Even so it is worth considering also the transition between the hexameter and pentameter, as both kinds o f enjambement have a different effect. Enjambement between distichs has the effect o f integrating the distichs in the poem, whereas enjambement between the hexameter and pentameter rather serves to make the couplet into an integrated unit.137

133 For a discussion of similar issues in the hexameter poems of Callimachus, Apollonius Rhodius, and Theocritus see C. W. Conrad, From Epic to Lyric. A Study in the History of Traditional Word-Order in Greek and Latin Poetry, New York-London 1990. )3 On these caesuras see Introd. 7.2. “ See the schemes in Maas 1962,64 f.; West 1982,153. On the way in which elegiac distichs were regarded as self-contained units even more than stichic hexameters see Barnes 1995,140 in his discussion of enjambement in elegiacs U37 ff.), 137 See e.g. vRaalte 1988, 149 f.

Introduction

6. Literary techniques

If we consider the occurrence of enjambement in the Aetia according to the categories established by Higbie for the Iliad,m we find examples of her four types of enjambement between distichs. Basically she distinguishes two groups:

the various types of enjambement.141 Sometimes we can observe certain pat­ terns in which a series o f distichs without enjambement is followed by a cluster o f distichs linked by enjambement. Thus we find a series o f selfcontained distichs without enjambement in ff. 1, 9-24 followed by Apollo’s exhortation to originality in 25-9, which form a unit in which the two dis­ tichs are connected by enjambement. In a similar way in fr. 43,72-9 a passage without enjambement is followed by a ritual invocation in 80-3 with enjambement between the distichs.142 Presumably these patterns are not acci­ dental, but should be considered as part of the rhetoric of the passages in which they occur. Within distichs the hexameter and pentameter are usually part o f a syn­ tactical unit, so that the elegiac couplets appear as an organic unity, in which the first half of the pentameter sometimes contains a syntactical break (as in e.g. fr. 1, 6, 16, 20, 24, etc.). Quite often we find examples of the ‘violent’ enjambement (4), which may be thought to aim at a certain effect, as in e.g. ff. 1, 27 f. κελεύθουε I άτρίπτο] oc, where the separation of noun and adjective may draw particular attention to the untrodden paths (if rightly supplied), ff. 67, 1 f. καλήι I ψθετο Κυδίππηι, where the beauty of Cydippe seems to be thus emphasized, or ff. 75,4 f. λαιδρε I θυμέ, where this arrange­ ment may underline the indignant self-address o f the narrator.143

46

(a) instances where the sentence could have ended at the end o f the line because it is syntactically complete, but the next line contains an unexpected independent addition, which may expand the sentence (internal) or add another clause to it (external); this kind of enjambement is called (1) ‘adding’ and is found in e.g. if. 7c, 6f. ivi μ]νημηι κάτθεο καί Μινύαε, I άιρχμενοε

dieμ ( b) instances where the sentence is not yet complete at the end of the line and the enjambement may be (2) ‘clausal’, (3) ‘necessary’, or (4) ‘violent’. Examples of (2) occur in ff. 43, 13 f. and 69 f., where the end o f the pen­ tameters coincides with the transition between a subordinate clause and the main clause; of (3) in fr. 18, 5 f. άλλ’ oy άνι,]άζων δν κέαρ ΑΙεονίδηο I cot yipac ηερ\τα.ζεν, where the subject is found in 5 and the object and verb follow in 6, and fr. 43, 51 f. Meyapeic ετερο[ί] τους ά[πε]ναεεαν εκεί I Nicaioi Μεγαρήεε, where the subject o f the relative clause beginning in 51 follows in 52; o f (4) in ff. 54c, 24 f. $ όττότ εξ irépov I ei'Àycay χγλοίο and 75, 53 f. τεδν δ’ ήμεΐε ίμερον εκλύομεν I τόνδε, where adjectives or pronouns are separated from a substantive by the end of the line. As far as we are able to judge on the basis o f the larger fragments,138139 Cal­ limachus mixes the various types of enjambement rather freely (although the ‘necessary’ and ‘violent’ types are rare),140 but distichs not followed by enjambement significantly surpass the distichs which are followed by one of

138 See C. Higbie, Measure and Music: Enjambement and Sentence Structure in the Iliad, Oxford 1990, 28 ff., who modifies and refines the four categories established by G. S. Kirk, ‘Verse-Structure and Sentence-Structure in Homer’, YCS 20, 1966, 105—52. For a different approach, particularly focusing on the oral presentation of the texts and starting from ‘idea units’ rather than sentences, see E. J. Bakker, ‘Homeric Discourse and Enjambement’, TAPhA 120, 1990, 1-21; Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse, Ithaca-London 1997, 152 ff.; ‘How Oral is Oral Composition?’, in E. A. Mackay, Signs o f Orality, Leiden 1999,29-47. It would be worthwhile to apply the results of these studies to Callimachus’ treatment of enjambement in the Aetia in a more systematic manner than is possible within the compass of this Introduc­ tion and to investigate how they relate to the notion that the Aetia was a work primarily intended for readers. For a brief recent discussion of enjambement in Homer see also M. W. Edwards, ‘Homeric Style and “Oral Poetics’” , in I. Morris-B. Powell, A New Companion to Homer, Leiden 1997, 261-83, esp. 267. 135 Le.fr. 1,43,67,75,178. 140 In this respect the treatment of enjambement in the Aetia seems to differ from that in Callimachus’ hymns, about which McLennan 1977, 135 ff. and Mineur 1984, 31 ff. observe that there the amount of enjambement in Kirk’s category 3 and 4 has increased in relation to Homer.

6.1.3

47

Vocabulary

Callimachus’ vocabulary in the Aetia is based on the Ionic vocabulary of early Greek epic, but there is a great deal of variation, which shows the influence of post-Homeric poetry and also o f prose. On the one hand, we find Homeric or absolute hapaxes, highly poetic words from epic, lyric, and tragic poetry and obscure dialect-forms; on the other hand, we find technical terms and prosaic and koine-words. There are a number o f variations on words from earlier

141 A rough calculation, allowing for the uncertainties of the transmission here and there, leads to c.60 distichs not followed by enjambement against c.36 followed by one of the four types of enjambement established by Higbie. On the frequency of couplets followed by enjambement in the early elegiac poets see West 1974,116. Other examples are fr. 75, 3-31, a long passage without enjambement, followed by Apollo’s description of Acontius, which forms a unit of distichs linked by enjambement in 32-7; 38-43, which again consist of self-contained distichs and are followed by 44-9 in which the narrator’s view of the wedding-night is presented in three distichs linked by enjambement; fr. 178,9-16, where a passage without enjambement is followed by the narrator’s proposal and request to Theogenes in 17-22 in three distichs linked by enjambement (after which the first couplet of the question is presented in a self-contained couplet in 23-4). fr· 75 contains a large number of instances of this pattern, which may well be intended to pude the reader’s understanding; cf. also fr. 75, 26 f.; 30 f.; 32 f.; 38 f.; 44 f.; 54 f.; 60f; 64 f.; 68 (.; 76 f.

Introduction

6. Literary techniques

poetry, which are first attested in the Aetia and might have been created by Callimachus himself.144 Callimachus’ vocabulary clearly shows his creative use of language and is also an important means of challenging the reader in various ways and of guiding his understanding of the Aetia. Unusual words may guide the reader to earlier texts that may be relevant for the interpretation, for example, the use of 7ToXÓKporoc in fr. 67, 3, which draws the reader’s attention to the differences between Acontius and Odysseus. They may also remind the reader of the scholarly aspects of the work, when they have been the object of Homeric textual criticism, e.g. fr. 12,6 ημελλε, or o f some dispute concerning their meaning, e.g. fr. 67, 13 pedoc, or when they are technical terms which point to the poet’s sources in the Library, as for example the colonization terminology used frequently in fr. 43. Sometimes word choice allows for two different interpretations, which may both be relevant in the context and, again, force the reader to think for himself, e.g. fr. 1, 33 yijpac (‘old age’/ ‘snake’s skin’) or fr. 41, 1 Ιλαφρότερον (‘lighterV'more nimble’). Else­ where the choice of words may add a touch of humour, as in fr. 75, 28 ενμφράδμονα, mpdesdy used by Apollo of himself when he gives advice to Cydippe’s father.

effective means of alerting the reader to something of importance.147 Such comparisons are e.g. fr. 1,6 rraic are of the poet working ‘like a child’, which is obviously a notion of considerable programmatic importance, and fr. 41,2 ofa yovrja and 54i, 20 coc εν a ττηών to illustrate affection and respect. Brief similes illustrate the weight o f old age in fr. 1,35 f. τό μοι βάροε occov εττεετι I τ ρ ιγ ιλ φ ιχ ίιγ òAtoóiij vrjcoc εττ Έ γκελάδω ι and the deafness ofHeracles to the scolding of the Lindian farmer in fr. 23, 2 ff. In fr. 54c, 10 f. a simile helps to present Molorcus, who is frightened like a deer by a lion’s cub, as a mockepic hero and in fr. 75, 30 f. άργύρωι ού μάλιβον γάρ Άκόντιον, άλλα φαεινώ ι1 ηλεκτρον χρυεώι φ η μ ί ce μειξεμεναι Apollo voices a simile with­ out aie to convince Cydippe’s father of Acontius’ worth as a son-in-law.148 The sparing use of similes and comparisons may also be an attempt to dis­ tinguish the elegiac style from the epic in which they are used more extensively.149 Extended personification occurs in the monologue o f Berenice’s lock in fr. 110-110 f. Other lifeless objects also speak and are addressed by the poet, e.g. the Pelasgian wall in fr. 97 and the statue of Apollo in fr. 114. In all these cases, however, the personification is closely related to the epigrammatic con­ ventions these fragments elaborate. Personification on a smaller scale occurs at fr. 1,14 in the joy o f the cranes and 19 on the birth of song.150 Periphrasis occurs at fr. 1, 31 θηρί . . . ούατόεντι of an ass, 54a, 2 κα[αγνή]των ιερόν αΐμα θεών to describe Berenice as a member o f the Ptolemaic dynasty, and 110, 52 γνωτοε Μεμνονοε ΑΙΘίοποε of Zephyrus.151

48

6.1.4

Imagery

On the whole Callimachus uses metaphor quite frequently, but comparisons, similes, personification, and periphrasis rather sparingly in the Aetia. This restrained use o f imagery seems deliberate. Metaphor arises often in the prologue (fr. 1), where it helps convey the literary views formulated in that fragment.145 Elsewhere one may adduce e.g. fr. 110, 63 tiSaci ] λουόμενον, where the bath of Berenice’s lock before it is brought to heaven may be read in a literal sense (of the lock being ‘washed’ after falling into the sea), but also evokes the metaphor of stars ‘bathing in the sea’ at the times when they are not visible in the sky and thus foreshadows the new status of the lock as a constellation.146 Comparisons and brief similes occur not very often, but as they are comparatively rare they stand out in the surrounding text and are another

144 For a useful and systematic survey of Callimachus’ vocabulary with many examples see Schmitt 1970, 153 ff.; on Homeric words in Callimachus see Rengakos 1992 and on Homeric vocabulary in Hellenistic poetry in general Rengakos 1993. Further examples are discussed in the commentary and may be found by means of the Index of names and subjects. 145 For an extensive discussion see Asper 1997. 146 For another example cf. e.g. fr. 7c, 16 about Phasis as the king of rivers; see further the index on ‘metaphor’.

6.1.5

49

Sound-patterns

Sometimes Callimachus uses alliteration or rhyme to achieve a certain effect, but not as a rule. Some examples are fr. 110, 45 f. διά με[εεου I Μηδειών (which recurs in Cat. 66, 45 f. cum M edi . . . I per medium) and fr. 75, 27 and 31, with two infinitives in -εμεναι at the end of the pentameters.

6.2

Intertextuality

An important feature o f the Aetia is the way Callimachus uses allusions to 147 On comparisons and similes in Callimachus see in general Lapp 1965, 87 ff.; Hopkinson on h.6, 50-2; Hollis 1990«, 14 f.; Hunter 2006b, 88 ff. U9 *3° Γ3 Homeric simile cf. perhaps also fr. 122,8 cue δτ[. On similes in Hellenistic epic see e.g. H. R Drögemüller, Die Gleichnisse im hellenistischen Epos, Diss. Hamburg 1956; C. Reitz, Zur Gleichnistechnik des Apollonios von Rhodos, Frankfurt etc· 1996; on similes in the Aetia see also Pretagostini 2006b. (5] See further Lapp 1965, 83 ff. See further Lapp 1965, 29 ff.

6. Literary techniques other texts. One may distinguish between (1) Callimachus’ presentation of the stories, where the allusions help the reader to acquire extra information about elements in the story, and (2) metapoetic and programmatic aspects, where the allusions help to create a certain impression o f the poet’s interests and views o f poetry or o f his role in society.152 In the Aetia one can distinguish several ways in which allusions to earlier texts occur. There are allusions to specific passages in earlier authors, and there are also certain literary techniques that recall an earlier literary genre or an author in general, without referring the reader to a specific passage (e.g. a Homeric simile in fr. 54c, 10 f., a Pindaric breaking-off formula in fr. 75,4 if., or an epic ‘if not’ situation in fr. 75,10 ff.).153 Thirdly, there are passages where the reader seems to be invited to consult other texts for further information on a specific point (e.g. a part of the story which is not told in the text as in fr. 54h, 1 f„ where Callimachus leaves his readers to their own resources to find out what happened to Heracles before he came back to Molorcus). A survey o f the allusions in the Aetia interpreted in their context(s) shows that Callimachus often uses allusion to assist the presentation o f the stories. Important elements like the characterization of the main character of a story, descriptions of situations or the character’s reaction to them, or even the narrative sequence are to a certain extent left for the reader to dicover by means o f his own knowledge o f the texts and passages to which he is referred. Thus the reader is provided with a set of clues and is invited to engage more if he wants to get access to the full story. Good examples o f Callimachus’ use o f allusions in the description of a character are fr. 54b, 15 ff., where allusions to the Odyssey help the reader to compare Molorcus to the poor but hospitable Eumaeus and thus to regard him in a favourable light, and fr. 67, 3, where allusions to the Odyssey and Hesiod help to describe Acontius as a none-too-clever lover. A highly allusive description of a situation arises at fr. 75,44 ff., where the reader needs to have access to the mythological tradition in order to acquire a good picture of the delights of Acontius’ wedding-night. In ff. 75, 64 ff. the reader needs to be aware o f several allusions to the Odyssey, Pindar, and Bacchylides in order to establish the narrative sequence in the episode of the gods’ destruction of the Telchines at Ceos. Programmatic use of allusions also occurs in a number o f instances, e.g. in ff. 1, where allusions invite the reader to set the prologue against the back­ ground of the earlier literary tradition; ff. 7c-21d, where the interaction between the Aetia and Apollonius’ Argonautica probably was an important 152 For a more elaborate treatment of this subject see Harder 2002a. 153 See also Introd. 4.5.

51

issue; fr. 75, 4 ff., where the proper behaviour of the Alexandrian poet seems to be an issue, and fr. 178, 5 ff., where a number of allusions invite the reader to set this part o f the Aetia against an Odyssean background. As is true of the other stylistic devices discussed above, Callimachus’ allu­ sions to earlier texts were more than just a learned adornment, display of virtuosity, or coming to terms with predecessors whose ‘influence’ he found it necessary to answer. They were in fact an important means for extending the dense and compact text of the Aetia, because they forced the reader to read or remember other texts in conjunction with it. By means of allusions Calli­ machus enabled the learned and active reader to understand the text better and to situate it in its literary and socio-cultural context. A special case is the way in which Callimachus gives his readers glimpses of his use o f sources in the Aetia. In fr. 43 the use of technical terms in the colonization stories recalls the terminology o f Callimachus’ prose sources and thus reminds the reader o f these sources; in fr. 92, 2 f. there is an explicit reference to the trustworthiness o f the local historian Leandrius. The most explicit reference to a source, however, is fr. 75, 53 ff., where Callimachus gives an excerpt o f the Cean history ofXenomedes. As Xenomedes’ work is lost it is not possible to compare Callimachus’ version with the original, but even so one gets some idea of Callimachus’ technique here. He gives a summary of his source, and at the same time he seems to have reinterpreted and rewritten his source in a highly creative manner. Xenomedes’ prose treatise, which presum­ ably was of some length, is reduced to less than twenty lines o f elegiac poetry, in which Callimachus in his turn refers the readers to earlier poetry by means of allusions and makes a probably rather idiosyncratic selection of Xeno­ medes’ material to suit his own purposes. Therefore the resulting summary does not only present the facts as they were in the work o f Xenomedes, but also seems to invite the readers to programmatic conclusions on a number of issues, for example, the evil character of the Telchines and the civilized stabil­ ity of contemporary Ceos, and to remind the readers o f the scholar-poet at work in the Alexandrian library, where local sources like the work of Xeno­ medes were available to him .154

6.3

Narrative technique

In his Aetia Callimachus gives a great deal o f attention to the presentation of the stories. This results in a refined narrative technique of a highly ‘selfconscious’ character, in the sense that much attention is given to the process 154

For further discussion see the Commentary.

Introduction

6. Literary techniques

o f storytelling and the activities o f the narrator as well as to the transmission and reception of knowledge.155 Callimachus creates an impression of author­ ity, which forces his readers to discover and accept the ‘truth’ and relevance of the stories and helps to get his multi-layered messages across.156 In Aetia 1-2 the aetiological stories appear within the framework of the dialogue with the Muses, which is told by an internal primary narrator, ‘the old Callimachus’, who records the dream in which his younger self was carried to Mt. Helicon. Within this framework the narratives are presented as ‘answers’ by the Muses as external secondary narrators, who respond to the questions of ‘the young Callimachus’ in the dream, whose curiosity and wish for knowledge inspire him to new questions all the time, as in e.g. ff. 43b, 1 f. cu]c ή μεν AtVre μΰθον, εγώ δ’ irrt καί τ[6 ττυ]θεεθαι I rj]6eXov rj γα ρ μοι θάμβοο ύττετρεφ[ε]το. However, these roles are not fixed and the Muses are not only telling stories, as in Homer, but are also listening to stories told by others. Sometimes the young Callimachus extends his questions with long digressions in which he displays his own knowledge, e.g. the catalogue of Sicilian cities in fr. 43,28 ff., which represents a series of foundation-stories in a nutshell. Elsewhere he seems to be adding stories of his own accord, e.g. the story of Heracles and Thiodamas in fr. 24—25d, or stories he has heard from others, e.g. the story of Peleus at Icus, told by the Ician guest Theogenes in the framework of a symposium in fr. 178-185b (which may be from Aetia 2).157 In the end the reader should also remember that both the Muses and the young Callimachus are all part o f the old Callimachus’ dream, so that in fact all the stories and information which are exchanged on Mt. Helicon originate in the mind o f the old poet, who in his turn had found his knowledge in sources that are not mentioned. In Aetia 3—4 the poet eschews the framework o f the dialogue; instead there is a great variety of primary narrators, many of them with a distinct identity, which sometimes evokes a certain literary genre. These narrators may be external, for example, the scholar-poet in fr. 67-75e, who tells the love-story o f Acontius and Cydippe with many narratorial inter­ ventions and is characterized by his garrulity (in fr. 75,4 ff., where he almost tells an unsavoury story about Hera) and by the fact that he quotes his source at length (in fr. 75, 53 ff), or the Pindaric poet, who offers a victory song to Berenice in fr. 54-60j. Elsewhere there are internal narrators, who in a way which is reminiscent of dedicatory or funerary epigrams tell their own story,

e.g. the lock o f Berenice in fr. 11 0 -II0 f or the dead poet Simonides in fr 64.158 The summary of the Cean history of Xenomedes in fr. 75, 53 ff is a special case: this is given in indirect discourse. By this means the primary narrator remains in control and is also able to present himself as a ‘reader’ o f Xeno­ medes’ work in 53 f. and 76 fi, which frame the summary. The result is an intriguing picture o f a narrator who is part o f a chain o f transmission, in which he is using old sources and modifying them at the same time. There is no explicit evidence o f a ‘reader’ in Aetia 1-2, but the characteriza­ tion of the young Callimachus may suggest the role of the intended reader, whose curiosity is urging him on, while at the same time he is o f a scholarly disposition himself as becomes manifest in his own contributions and in the fact that the Muses can ask him to co-operate as in fr. 7c, 5 f f Α^γΧητην ιΆνά)φην re, Λακώνίδι γείτονα Θιήρηι, I ττ]ρώτ[ον ivi μ]νήμηι κάτθεο καί Μινύαε, I φιρχμενοε tocj r/ρωεε άπ ΑΙήταο Κυταίου I au ric ic άρχαίηνι επΧεον ΑΙμονίην. In Aetia 3-4 there are some hints of a similar kind of reader, when readers are in some way involved or addressed and an appeal is made to their erudition and knowledge of the world, from which they have to supply information left out or given only sketchily by Calli­ machus, as in e.g. fr. 54h, 1 ff, where, apparently, the story of Heracles killing the Nemean lion is left out and the reader is invited to find it out for himself, and on a somewhat smaller scale in fr. 64, 5 fi, 75, 13 f. and 48 f. Also quite a number o f aitia are introduced by questions (like fr. 79) or addresses (like fr. 90) by an unknown speaker, who may represent a curious reader.159 A typical feature o f the Aetia is the large amount of apostrophizing o f gods (e.g. fr. 18,6 and 67,5 fi), self-address (fr. 75,4 ff), or address to the characters in the stories, which may even extend to long sections of narrative in secondperson address (on which see Introd. 4.5). In the case of the many aitia in Aetia 3-4 that begin with an address or a question it is conceivable that such openings introduce stories told in second-person address (as in fr. 84-85a), but because only the beginnings are preserved the evidence allows no firm conclusions about the narrative situation.160 Characterization occurs in various ways. There are some examples o f characters described by means o f their actions and speech, as in fr. 23 (Heracles as an indifferent glutton is deaf to the scolding o f the Lindian farmer), 24 (the boorish farmer Thiodamas turns down the request o f the civilized Heracles), 67,11 ff (the beautiful Cydippe surpasses all other girls when she goes out),

52

155 See in general Harder 1988; 1990; 2002-3; 2004; 2007/j; Lynn 1995; Magnelli 2005; and in trod, to fr. 67-75e on Narrative Technique. 156 For a similar idea see Myers 1994, 18 f. 157 On the complex and innovative interaction between Callimachus and the Muses see also Harder 1988; Lynn 1995,154 ff.

53

On narrators in the Aetia see further Harder 2004, 67 ff. and particularly on the narrator m i» 75 Harder 1990: Lynn 1995, 203 ff. in ^ee comm·on fr· 76b and 114,1-14. On readers in the Aetia see further Harder 2004,73 ff. See further Harder 1998, 109.

Introduction

6. Literary techniques

and 80 (the modest Pieria refuses Phrygius’ offer o f precious gifts and opts for peace instead). Elsewhere the description of characters relies to a large extent on allusions, as in fr. 54b, 15 ff. (the hospitable Molorcus is compared to Eumaeus in the Odyssey), 67,3 (the not-very-clever Acontius is contrasted with Odysseus), and 75, 64 ff. (the inhospitable and godless Demonax is described in terms which recall the Cyclops Polyphemus in the Odyssey). On the whole the descriptions are limited to a few aspects that are important for the plot of the story. A special case is the characterization of Theogenes in ff. 178, 5 ff., which relies on a description of his civilized and sober behaviour at a sym­ posium: a great deal of allusion serves to show that he is well qualified as a narrator o f the subsequent story o f Peleus at Icus. The pace o f the narrative is evident in only a few fragments, i.e. fr. 43 and 75. In fr. 43 the narrative of the foundation o f Zancle is a rapid succession of four stages: a description o f the situation (58-71), the conflict between the founders (72-4), its solution by Apollo (74-8), a description of the resulting ritual (78-83). As compared to the actual events a great deal o f attention is devoted to the description o f the bird-omens that lead to the conflict and of the ritual invitation at the end. In fr. 75 we get a similar picture, as inter­ ventions of the narrator in his own narrative take up a great deal of space in the fragment (4-9, 44-9, 53-77) as does a long quotation of Apollo’s oracle (22-37). Some additional information may be derived from the Victory of Berenice (fr. 54-60j), where we have a great deal o f direct speech and where the reader at some stage is asked to fill in part of the narrative himself (cf. fr. 54h, 1 ff.). From these examples one gets the impression that the rela­ tion between narrative time and narrated time could vary rapidly within the stories: often the narrative time was extremely short or even non-existent (as in fr. 75,38-40 and fr. 54h, 1 ff), at other times it coincided with the narrated time because there was direct speech, and often it was interrupted by digres­ sions and descriptions.161 The perspective from which the stories are told is mostly that of the narra­ tor, who in Aetia 3-4 (if we may judge from fr. 75) often interferes with his stories, whereas the Muses in Aetia 1-2 seem to interfere considerably less in their stories. The Aetia also contains some interesting experiments such as fr. 75,10 ff, where the reader seems to be invited to share the point of view of the sacrificial animals, the passages in second-person address mentioned above, where the narrator’s perspective seems to be impressed on the char­ acters, and the fragments, where the perspective o f an ‘impossible’ persona

appears before the reader, for example the dead Simonides in fr. 64, the Pelasgian wall in fr. 97, and the lock o f Berenice in fr. 11Q-I10f.162 The perspective in the Aetia also varies because Callimachus uses a great deal o f direct discourse in his narratives, so that the reader can hear the points of view of multiple characters.163 Apart from offering different perspectives, however, the use of direct speech also serves to structure the stories and to guide the reader’s understanding. Several times direct speech marks the beginning and/or the end o f a narrative. Thus the story o f the Argonauts at Anaphe opens with the angry speech o f Aeetes when the Argonauts leave Colchis and start on their homeward journey (fr. 7c, 5 ff). Because this angry speech begins a story about a ritual which involves scolding and is explained towards the end (fr. 21), it is conceivable that the opening speech and the scolding at the end o f the episode were meant to mirror each other and frame the story. In fr. 24,8-12 direct speech occurs near the beginning o f the story of Heracles and Thiodamas, when Heracles politely asks Thiodamas for a little food for his starving son Hyllus and receives a rude refusal (fr. 24, 1-Φ—19). These bits of direct speech, which give a favourable picture o f Heracles as a worried and modest father, may have underlined the difference with the preceding story in which Heracles rudely killed the ox o f a farmer at Lindos, who to Heracles’ delight scolded him for it from a distance towards the end of the story (fr. 22-23c). A few other instances show direct speech at a crucial moment in the story, where it marks a decisive turn o f events. Thus we find a long quotation o f an oracle o f Apollo in fr. 75, 22—37, where Apollo explains to Cydippe’s father that she must marry Acontius, and in a comparable way the crucial episode in the story o f Phrygius and Pieria is marked by a dialogue between the lovers in ff. 80,1-4 (Phrygius) and 12-13 (Pieria). The story o f Heracles and Molorcus in the Victory of Berenice also contained a great deal o f direct speech. The first meeting of Heracles and Molorcus contained a dialogue in which Heracles probably expressed his surprise at the ruined and empty countryside and Molorcus explained to him the situation caused by the Nemean lion (ff. 54b); in fr. 54c, 12 ff. Molorcus addresses the mice which invade his cottage; in fr. 54d-e we seem to have remains o f a speech o f Heracles just before he goes off to kill the Nemean lion. Another speech o f Heracles to Molorcus occurs towards the end of the story, when Heracles has returned and tells Molorcus about the instructions o f Athena concerning the wreath at the Nemean

54

55

162 On the subjective character o f Callimachus’ narrative technique in the Aetia see also Puelma 1982,228 ff. 161 See on Callimachus’ treatment of time in general Harder 2007a; on the way in which Callimachus adheres to lyric rather than epic narrative technique see also Cairns 1979,115 ff.

10 On Callimachus’ use of direct speech in general see Harder 2002-3; in the hymns, G. R. McLennan, ‘Direct Speech in the Hymns of Callimachus’, RhM 117,1974,47-52.

Introduction

7. Metre

Games, but seems to leave out the story o f the death o f the Nemean lion (ff. 54h and 54i). The importance o f the use o f direct speech as a narrative tool is also apparent from occasional suggestions of deliberate selection, for instance after the elaborate oracle of Apollo in ff. 75, 22-37, where the sequel is told very briefly in 38 ff. rj Oeoc αύτάρ ό Νάξον εβη πάλιν, cipero S’ αυτήν I κούρην, ή 8’ αν’ ετώ ς πάν εκάλυφεν erroc I κήν αΰ ahc. This com­ pact passage shows that the Callimachean narrator does not aim at complete­ ness or naturalistic mimesis as in Homer, but uses direct speech for specific effects and in that respect finds Apollo’s oracle far more important than the subsequent conversation at Naxos. As to the primary narrator’s relation to the historical Callimachus one may think in terms o f the narrator as assuming various roles: o f a scholar-poet working in the context o f the Museum and the Library at Alexandria, of a poet at a certain point in the Greek literary and cultural tradition, of a poet involved with the Ptolemaic court and its ideological concerns. These roles obviously overlap partly with the historical Callimachus, the scholar-poet working in the environment o f the Ptolemaic court at 3rd-century b c Alex­ andria, and allow us to identify him to a large extent with the narrator. Even so, one should bear in mind that Callimachus deliberately shaped his narrator o f the Aetia the way he did, as becomes apparent when we compare him to the narrator o f the Iambi, who gives no evidence of any concerns with the Ptole­ maic court, but rather appears as a character moving among and interacting with the other intellectuals o f Alexandria.164

influenced by the fact that they are not stichic, but form an organic part o f an elegiac couplet, as was observed by Barnes 1995, 136, who states that ‘the couplet form modifies both the organization o f thought within the hexameter and its patterns o f localization o f metrical word-types as well’. Besides, the ways in which Callimachus shapes his elegiac couplets ‘show a particular awareness o f the rhythmical balance between the two verses’ (vRaalte 1988, 157). This balance can be observed particularly in the way in which Calli­ machus draws attention to the difference between the two lines by means o f a high number of trochaic caesuras in the hexameters and ‘by keeping the second colon o f the hexameter maximally pure in all relevant respects’ (vRaalte 1988,161).166 The following description is based on 203 (almost) complete hexameters and 240 (almost) complete pentameters. It is only intended as a general survey o f Callimachus’ practice in the Aetia·, for more detailed discussion of the various phenomena one should consult the commentary on the frag­ ments mentioned as examples.

56

7. METRE

Callimachus’ hexameters show a number o f rhythmical refinements when compared to the hexameters o f Homer, particularly in the arrangement of dactyls and spondees and in the way in which word-end in certain positions is favoured or avoided.165 The structure o f his elegiac hexameters is also

164 See Harder 2002b. 165 For surveys of Callimachus’ treatment of the hexameter see Maas 1962,61 ff.; West 1982, 152 ff.; for discussions of the hexameter in the works o f Callimachus see e.g. Frankel I960; Hopkinson 1984, 51 ff.; Bulloch 1985, 31 ff,; Hollis 1990a, 15 ff.; for a useful general discussion Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004,34 ff and for a collection of essays on the Greek hexameter M. FantuzziR. Pretagostini (edd.), Struttura e storta dell'esametro greco, Roma 1995-6. For a discussion of the elegiac metre, which also deals with Callimachus, see Clarke 1955; West 1982,157 ff.; vRaalte 1988; Barnes 1995; for the metre o f the Aetia also Massimilla 1996,40 ff.

7.1

57

Dactyls and spondees

The arrangement o f dactyls and spondees in the hexameter obviously affects the rhythm o f the line and seems to have been a matter o f considerable concern for Callimachus, who in the Aetia reduced the number o f patterns of dactyls and spondees as found in Homer and altogether showed a strong tendency to make the lines more dactylic.167 There are twelve different patterns o f dactyls and spondees in the first four feet o f the lines o f the Aetia that I have examined. The most frequent are the patterns DSDD (67), SDDD (49 or 50 iffr. 75,40 is also SDDD), DDDD (40) and SSDD (18), DDDS (10). Other patterns occur more rarely: e.g. DSDS (5), SSDS (4), SDDS (3).168 Versus spondiacus, i.e. a hexameter with a spondaic fifth foot, on the whole is rarer in elegiacs than in stichic hexameters. It is not found in Callimachus’ epigrams and in h.5,169but occurs several times in the Aetia, sometimes with a special effect, as in fr. 1,31 θηρι pièv oj νατόεντι πανείκελον ογκήεαιτο about On the arrangement o f metrical patterns in the elegiac hexameter see also Barnes 1995, 154 ff; on the elegiac metre in the early elegiac poets see West 1974,112 ff. 167 See on this tendency in Callimachus, West 1982, 154; Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004, 35; on his tendency to concentrate the spondees in the first two metra in his elegiac hexameters, vRaalte 1988,151 f. IM The limited number of patterns and the frequent use of dactyls resemble the situation in Bion (12—13 different patterns; see Reed 1997,37). In the Hymns Callimachus employs a greater number o f different patterns; on the Hecale see Hollis 1990a, 17. ,M See West 1982,157; vRaalte 1988,151.

Introduction

7. Metre

the braying o f the asses, fr. 43, 68 o f the fortification o f the walls of Zancle, and 190c, 5 about the cutting of wood. In the other instances there are no specific links to the lines’ contents (fr. 54i, 8; 75, 34), but sometimes the spondaic ending seems to be used to accommodate a proper name (fr. 37, 1;

the b-caesura is filled either by one word or by a proper name or by two words which are closely connected, shaped as in e.g. fr. 1, 9 oAtyocrt^oc,174 fr. 6 Τιτηνι die,175 fr. 1, 17 όλοον yevoc.176 Often the words or word-groups thus placed in a marked position contain important informa­ tion, as in e.g. fr. 67, 7 ΕύξανriSoc about Acontius’ ancestry and fr. 84 Ενθΰκλεεζ and 102 Παείκλεεε, where the main characters are thus intro­ duced, or they are important for the train of thought, as in e.g. fr. 75, 8 χαλεπόν κακόν and 110, 45 μητροε céo. On the whole the number o f b-caesuras is higher in elegiac than in stichic hexameters and often coincides with clause division, a development which is probably stimulated by the couplet-form.177 The pentameters always have the caesura in the middle, dividing the line into two cola of equal length.

113e, 17).170 In the pentameters spondees are found only in the first half of the line. The second half is always dactylic.

7.2

Caesuras

The placement o f caesuras, which divide the line into cola, and the ‘rules’ about word-end at certain positions in the hexameter (on which see Introd. 7.3) were also part o f Callimachus’ attempt to create a rhythmically wellbalanced hexameter. As Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004,35 ff. suggest, this tendency to refinement may well be related to the fact that Callimachus’ hexameters were intended for readers, for whom a well-balanced rhythm ought to be part of the actual text, because a lack of rhythmical balance could not be corrected by the bard who was reciting the text in an oral performance. Every hexameter has a feminine or masculine caesura.171 The most frequent caesura in the Aetia is the feminine T-caesura, after the ‘third trochee’, of which there are 176 instances in 203 lines; the masculine P-caesura, after the fifth element, occurs in 27 lines. This percentage o f the T-caesura is somewhat higher than that in Callimachus’ other works.172 If there is a masculine caes­ ura it is always combined with a b-caesura, the so-called bucolic diaeresis after the eighth element, in the Aetia (and almost always in Callimachus’ other works).173 In most cases the part o f the line between the P-caesura and

170 As to the rules formulated by Hopkinson 1984, 55 for the Hymns one may notice that in the Aetia the spondaic lines do n o t occur in pairs (i.e. in subsequent disticha), that the spondaic ending is preceded by four dactyls only in fr. 1, 31 and 75, 34, that the fourth foot is not always dactylic and although the last word usually consists of four syllables there is a last word o f six syllables in 54i, 8. As to the tendency o f spondaic lines to have masculine caesura, observed by Hollis 1990a, 18 f., there is no certain example of this in the Aetia (although it might occur in the incomplete fr. 80, 8; see Pfeiffer on fr. 303); in this respect too the hexameters of the Aetia resemble those of Bion (see Reed 1997, 37). For divergences from Hopkinson’s rules in the Hecale see Hollis 1990a, 17 ff.; on spondaics in Hellenistic poetry in general also West 1982,154. 171 On the importance of the presence of these caesuras for the balance of the hexameters see Frankel 1960,127 f. 172 See West 1982, 153; 74% for the whole corpus; vRaalte 1988,152 f.: 86.71% for the Aetia, 78.03% for the epigrams, 71.8% for the hymns; Hollis 1990a, 19: 78% for the Hecale. 173 See Clarke 1955,18, who observes a difference in this respect between Callimachus’ elegiac and stichic hexameters; Maas 1956,23-4 (= Maas 1973,92-3); Maas 1962,62 f. § 93; West 1982, 155; Hollis 1990a, 19. As noticed by Clarke 1955, 18 the only exception in the Aetia may be

7.3

59

The p osition o f words in the hexam eter and pentam eter

With respect to the position o f words178 and word-ends, Callimachus’ hex­ ameters show a number of refinements and restrictions when compared to the hexameters of Homer, the possible purpose o f which is discussed above in Introd. 7.2. Application of these rules to the hexameters o f the Aetia leads to the following picture: (1) Hermann’s Bridge, which implies that a word only very rarely ends after the ‘fourth trochee’, i.e. after the first short syllable o f the eighth element (Maas 1962, 60 § 87; West 1982, 155), is always respected. (2) There are no violations o f Naeke’s Law, according to which word-end never follows a monosyllabic eighth element (Maas 1962,62 § 92; West 1982, 154 f.), a restriction which, according to vRaalte 1988, 155, is even more important in elegiac than in stichic hexameters.

fr. 90, where we presumably have a masculine caesura which is not followed by a bucolic diaeresis; for discussion of another possible exception in a line which might have a P-caesura followed by hephthemimeres see comm, on fr. 54c, 29. m Cf. also fr. 43, 76; 75,14 and 76; 96; 110,68. 175 Cf. also fr. 43a, 3; 67, 7; 75,54; 80,18; 84; 102. 1,6 Cf. also fr. 75,8; 77; 110,45 and 53 and syntactically somewhat different word-groups like fr- 43,58 ó Sè Χ αλκίδοΐ, 67, 9 ί>Χ\ι\γην eri, 75, 24 θρύον ϋπλεκεν. 177 See vRaalte 1988,155; Barnes 1995,152 f. 178 Words are here used in the sense of word-groups including the adhering prepositives and postpositives, as in Frankel I9602,142 ff; Maas 1962, 84 f.; Bulloch 1970a, 260; West 1982, 25 f.; see also Magnelli 1995b, 137 f. This implies that passages like e.g. fr. 23,19 ίπ ίτα κ τα μ ίν and 43, 82 wapecn Sé are no exceptions to the rule of Hermann’s Bridge, nor fr. 24, 7 and 54h, 3 to Naeke’s Law etc.

Introduction

7. Metre

(3) There are some violations ofHilberg’s Law,1 75*179which says that word-end must not follow a monosyllabic fourth element (Maas 1962, 62 § 92), as in e.g. if. 24, 3 δραξάμενo c τιν δ’. Van Raalte 1988, 156 f. discusses this rule in elegiac hexameters and pentameters and observes that in the hexameters o f the Aetia there is an incidence o f 2.1% o f word-ends in this position (in the 5% o f spondees in the second metron; see the table in vRaalte 1988, 166)180

ninth element is generally avoided (Maas 1962, 64 § 97); this applies also to the Aetia.'84

60

and in the pentameters o f 0.7%. (4) Giseke’s Law, which states that words which begin before the third element must not end with the fourth element (Maas 1962,63 § 94), is always observed, apart from fr. 64, 13 δαιτυμόνων ano.'8' (5) Meyer’s First Law, which supplemented Giseke’s Law by stating that words which begin before the third element must also not end with the ‘second trochee’, i.e. after the first short syllable o f the fourth element (Maas 1962, 63 § 94; West 1982, 38), is generally observed, but there are exceptions in fr. 20 ε τμ ή γ η Sc, 75, 10 ήώιοι μεν, 75, 70 réccapac toc re and a few disputed cases in other fragments.182 (6) Meyer’s Second Law, according to which we rarely find iambic words before the masculine caesura (Maas 1962, 63 f. § 95; West 1982, 155), is generally observed in the fragments o f the Aetia. There is a possible exception in fr. 1,9 erjv (?) and there are also some exceptions to this rule in Callimachus’ other works.183 (7) Monosyllabic nouns at line-end are found only after a b-caesura (Maas 1962, 64 § 96; West 1982, 156). In the Aetia there are no examples of such monosyllabic nouns (in fr. 75, 16 δεύτερον ή na[i]c and 26 ònnóre crj naie the monosyllabic nouns are part of a word-group with an article and a possessive pronoun respectively). (8) According to Tiedke’s Law word-end after both the seventh and the

175 For a survey of the violations o f the rules o f Meyer ( 1 and 2), Hilberg, and Giseke in all of Callimachus’ works see Magnelli 1995b, 143 f. 180 The other relevant passages are fr. 3 lb; 63,9; 75,12; 90 (on which see also Clarke 1955,18); 113e, 13 (on which see also McLennan 1974,63); see also Magnelli 1995b, 144. IS! A passage like fr. 178,33 ναυτι^λίηΐ el too would count as an exception if one regards el as postpositive; see Magnelli 1995b, 141 f. 182 On fr. 20 see further McLennan 1974,64. For the metrical sequence - 1- 2- 3 ^ I w4cf. also Hec. fr. 230 (= fr. 1 Hollis) Ά κ τα ίη t i c h.2,15; 3,77 and 126; 4,144; and f o r - 1 cf. h.2,41 npwKec ίραζε; 6,91 cue S i Μ Ιμαντι and fr.inc.auct. 787 with Pfeiffer on Hec. fr. 230; Williams on h.2, 41; Mineur on h.4, 144. Magnelli 1995b, 143 mentions also fr. 24, 1 ckoììXoc ènei μιν ίτυ φ ε (where, however, ίπ ε ί μιν ίτυ φ ε is regarded as one word-group by Frankel I9602,146) and adds fr. 137a, 9 as another possible exception. 183 See McLennan 1974,65; West 1982, 155; Hollis 1990«, 20; Magnelli 1995b, 144. In fr. 43a, 3 παρ’ ΰδωρ we have no exception because the iambic noun is part of a word-group.

,

61

(9) Spondaic words do not immediately follow the P-caesura unless there is also a b-caesura (Maas 1962, 62 § 93; West 1982,155). (10) Words shaped — or rarely end with the ninth element (Maas 1962, 60 § 88; West 1982, 155). In the Aetia there are no examples o f this feature.185 (11) Bulloch 1970a observed that word-break after the sixth element goes with a regular P- or T- as well as a b-caesura and with a syntactical break at either or both caesuras; for discussion o f this rule see also Hollis 1990a, 21. In Callimachus’ pentameters the following rules and tendencies are observed: (1) O f the relevant ‘laws’ Meyer’s First Law also applies to the first half o f the pentameter (Maas 1962,64 § 95). The same holds for Meyer’s Second Law (but for exceptions see comm, on fr. 75, 23 and Magnelli 1995b, 144 about fr. 54c, 8) and for Hilberg’s and Giseke’s Laws. (2) As West 1982, 158 observes, prepositives like the article or καί are allowed to stand before the caesura only if another prepositive precedes and in general monosyllables are only placed before the caesura if a word consist­ ing o f - or precedes (cf. fr. 1, 28 άτρίητο]νε, εΐ και and 75,7 εζ αν ènei και των). Besides, Callimachus avoids placing iambic words before the caesura unless preceded by a short monosyllable (West 1982, 158, who in the Aetia compares fr. 75, 23 γάρ εμη and 39; 110, 40; 112,1). (3) At the end of the pentameter monosyllables are generally rare (West 1982,159) and there are no instances in the Aetia. (4) There is an increasing tendency to have word-end after the seventh element in Hellenistic poetry, particularly in works like Callimachus’ Aetia (e.g. fr. 1,4, 6,10,14,18, etc.) and h.5, which according to vRaalte 1988,159 f. leads to a more sophisticated structure o f the second half o f the pentameter.

7.4

Prosody: varia

On the whole the versification in elegiacs is rather strict and in accordance with this Callimachus only rarely admits certain prosodic liberties:186

1.4 McLennan 1974,65 notes a possible exception in f r. 1 1 , 5 . 1.5 Fr. 54c, 31 Kißiciv re is no exception to this rule because of the enclitic. 1.6 See West 1982,157 f.

Introduction

8. The text

(1) Normally Callimachus allows hiatus only in a limited number o f cases:18718(a) between a long syllable and a disyllabic biceps, as in e.g. h.l, 96 αρετή άφενοιο, often within a combination o f a substantive or an adjec­ tive followed by a preposition, as in if. 43, 46 κεφαλιήι επι and 54c, 29 βρα[χε]ηι evi;m [b) after ή when followed by a disyllabic biceps, as in e.g. ff. 54c, 24 ή ο7τοτ’;189* (c) before a word which originally began with a digamma, particularly the pronouns oi and e, as in e.g. ff. 54i, 20 δε e.m The rare exceptions to these rules, like ff. 54i, 20 i cue, may be explained as Homeric reminiscences.191 (2) Elision occurs only rarely before caesuras in the hexameter in the Aetia,192 but does occur often at the caesura of the pentameter, as in e.g. ff. 1, 12 μεγάλη δ’, 16 and 24.193 It is common after ‘small’ words like conjunc­ tions, prepositions, or pronouns. It occurs less often with substantives, adjec­ tives, or verbs, but there are some examples scattered over the Aetia.194

(4) Crasis occurs occasionally, as in f t . 1 , 32 οΰλ[α]χύε; 75,4 0 and 42, and in some cases where it implies ‘ignoring’ the digamma, like fr. 24,3 and 64,15 (see below).196

lengthening o f short vowels in Hellenistic hexameters see further West 1982, 156 f.198

(3) Correption occurs a few times in the Aetia, in ff. 7,11 and 54a, 5 in καί; 75, 30 (if the text is right), 34 Ίκμίου cuci and 42. In fr. 43,62 εΐ μή εφε] ρττει Hunt’s supplement leads to an unusual kind o f correption, because usually the correpted syllable is the second short syllable o f the dactyl, not the

8. THE TEXT

62

63

(5) Synizesis appears once in the Aetia, in fr. 96 θεοί. (6) Digamma is sometimes ignored, as in fr. 2, 3 μ] εν oi; 67, 5 ή γάρ, άναξ and 114a, 6 ]μηνοε άναξ and in cases o f crasis like fr. 24,3 ώνα and 64,15. In other instances we have hiatus in positions where an original digamma may account for it, as in fr. 54c, 31 άμφ[ιά] oi; 54i, 20 δε i and 67, 13 ήοΐ

είδομενη. (7) As to quantity we find a long syllable before initial liquid in fr. 26,5 επί ράβδωι; 80,20 and 67,11 επί λαείοιο, but on the whole this kind oflengthening before initial liquids (apart from p ) or nasals is rare in elegiacs.197 On the

first.195

8.1 187 On the restricted use o f hiatus in Callimachus and particularly in elegiacs see Maas 1962, 89; West 1982, 157. For examples of hiatus in Callimachus’ other poems see also Hopkinson 1984, 54; Hollis 1990a, 22. 188 Cf. also h.3,170 χω ρώ ι iv i (with Bornmann ad loc.); Hec. fr. 235,1 (= 9,1 Hollis); 253,5 (= 40, 5 Hollis); ff. 611 (= Hec. ff. 172 Hollis); 788. For the same practice in other Hellenistic authors cf. e.g. Theoc. 17,106; 18,158; AR 1,443; 2,151 and 428; 4, 1719; Euph. fr. 51,5 Powell. See further Gow on Theoc. 5,148; Bühler on Mosch. Eur. 87; Bulloch on h.5, 65 iw iireßdcaro δίφρω; West 1982,156 n. 57. 189 Elsewhere rj is sometimes followed by a long syllable, as in Hec. fr. 260,55 (= 74,14 Hollis) rj ivSioc rj εεετ rpuc and h.4, 30, but these instances may be explained as Homeric reminis­ cences; see also Pfeiffer on Hec. fr. 287 (= 111 Hollis); Gow-Page on Ep. 44, 3 (= HE 1243); Bulloch on h.5, 48 n. 4. In Hec. ff. 326 (= 77 Hollis) Bentley’s η ϋετατον has been much disputed, bu t Hollis ad loc. tends to accept it because o f the Homeric character of the Hecale. 150 Cf. also h.5, 31 κτένα oi and see Maas 1962, 82 {.; Hollis on Hec. ff. 2, 1 f. (= 231,1 f. Pf.); Mineur 1984,43; Bulloch on h.5, 31. 191 See Mineur 1984,45. 192 Cf. ff. 7, 13 (before the T-caesura) and 75, 62 (before the b-caesura), both after S’. For some exceptions in Callimachus’ other poems see West 1982,153; Hopkinson 1984,53 f.; Hollis 1990a, 23. 193 See West 1982, 158. 194 For nouns cf. e.g. ff. 7,11 βεύδε'; 11,6; 31d, 3; 43,57; for adjectives ff. 66,7 π ό τ η ’; 75,50; for verbs ff. 24,12 μνήεομ; 43,55 and 75; 54c, 13. See also West 1982,156. 195 See comm, ad loc. and Pfeiffer on ff. 535. On the relative rareness o f correption in Callimachus’elegiac poetry see Mineur 1984,42; on the greater ffeedom with correption in the Hecale see Hollis 1990«, 22 f.; on correption in Callimachus in general see Maas 1962,79 f.; West 1982,11 f.

The transm ission o f the A e tia 8.1.1

The papyri

Thanks to a considerable number o f papyrus finds in the course o f the 20th century a large part o f the Aetia has been recovered and we are now able to form a good idea o f the work in general as well as of many details (even though only four stories are more or less complete).199 These papyri consist of text of the Aetia itself as well as remains of ancient scholia and summaries of aitia, the so-called Diegeseis. Landmarks in the recovery o f the Aetia have been the publication of P.Oxy. 1011, the first substantial papyrus o f the Aetia, which contained part o f the story o f Acontius and Cydippe and was published in 1910; P.Oxy. 2079 and 2080, with remains o f the prologue and the aition o f the founders’ ritual 194 For crasis in Callimachus’other works cf. e.g. Hec. fr. 274,1 (= 45, 1 Hollis); ff. 488; 553,2; 592; 620a. Crasis is also found quite often in the Epigrams and Iambi, but rarely in Hymns 2, 5, and 6 and never in the other hymns; see further Pfeiffer and Massimilla ad loc.; McLennan on li.l, 33; Williams on h.2, 9; Hopkinson on h.6, 38; Lapp 1965,137 f. 197 See West 1982,157. iw ^or treatment of muta cum liquida in particular see also Fantuzzi 1988,155 ff. Le. the story of the ritual at Zancle (ff. 43) and the brief aitia about the tomb of Simonides (fr· 64), the Argive springs (ff. 65-6) and the statue of Apollo at Delos (fr. 114).

Introduction

8. The text

at Zancle in 1927; P.Mil.Vogl. I 18 with the Diegeseis o f a large part o f Aetia 3 and the whole o f Aetia 4 in 1934, which showed that the Lock o f Berenice, of which substantial fragments had been published a few years earlier, was part o f the Aetia and that the framework o f the dream was not adhered to in Aetia 3—4; and last but not least the Lille papyrus with fragments o f the Victory of Berenice, which was published in 1976. In between many smaller fragments have been published, which each in its way also contributed to our

4. P.Berol. 17057 (= fr. 7 ,9 -1 1 and 7d). 5th/6th cent. a d . Ed.: Müller 1974, 399 no. 7; re-edited by Gronewald 1981, 179-80 and in SH 249 A. No. 198.1 Mertens-Pack3

64

knowledge o f the Aetia.200 The number of papyri o f the Aetia is quite large and in fact Callimachus belongs to the top ten of authors represented by papyrus finds in Oxyrhynchus.201 The way in which the papyri are scattered in time and place suggests that the Aetia was well read not only in Alexandria, but also in provincial towns (see Introd. 5.2), and that it stayed in vogue during a long period: the oldest papyrus is now the Lille papyrus o f the Victory of Berenice o f the 3rd century b c , the latest papyrus is P.Oxy. 2258 from the 6th/7th century a d . Besides, the comparatively large amount o f sub-literary papyri related to the Aetia suggests a considerable amount o f scholarly interest as well as attempts to make the work accessible on a less than scholarly level (see also Introd. 8.1.3). An alphabetical list o f the papyri of the Aetia is given below. This list includes the list o f papyri until 1953 (which is given with brief descriptions in Pfeiffer 2, ix ff), as well as the papyri published after 1953. For further details o f physical aspects or of the script and layout o f the papyri the reader is referred to Pfeiffer’s descriptions and/or the editio princeps of each papyrus. References to the editio princeps as well as other references are given by author’s name and year (full references can be found in the bibliography). 1. PAnt. 113 (= f t . 137a-l; ). 3rd/4th cent. a d . Ed.: Barns 1967, 9-18; re-edited in SH 238—49. No. 205.2 Mertens-Pack3 2. PAnt. 114 (= fr. 113a-d). 3rd/4th cent. a d . Ed.: Barns 1967, 18-19; re-edited in SH 271-274. No. 217.1 Mertens-Pack3 3. P.Berol. 11521 (= scholia in fr. 21b). 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Wilamowitz 1912, 544-7. No. 17 Pf„ 200 Mertens-Pack3

200 For general evaluations of the impact of the papyrus finds see P. J. Parsons, ‘Recent Papyrus Finds: Greek Poetry’, in J. Harmatta, Actes du Vile Congrès de la FIEC, Budapest 1984,2, 517-31 (esp. 526 ff.); K. Fabian, ‘Literaturgeschichte und Kallimachos nach den Papyrusfunden’, in A. Bülow-Jacobsen, Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copen­ hagen 1994,312-16; Casanova 2006,1 ff. On the way in which the papyri also contributed to the text transmitted in the indirect tradition see Massimilla 2006b, 31 ff. 201 See J, Krüger, Oxyrhynchos in der Kaiserzeit, Frankfurt etc. 1990, 214 f.; A. Harder in Der Neue Pauly 15.2,77 s.v. Papyri, Literarische.

65

5. PLille 76d (= fr. 54b, 1-23 and scholia in fr. 60e and 60g, 1-15), 78a (= fr. 54e and scholia in fr. 60i), 78b (= fr. 54d), 78c (= fr. 54f ), 79 (= fr. 54b, 24—43 and scholia in fr. 60g, 16-34), 82 (= 54, 2-9 and scholia in fr. 60d), 84 ( = fr. 54g). 3rd cent, b c .202 Ed.: Meillier 1976b, 255-86 and 345-6; re-edited by Parsons 1977, 1-50 and in SH 254-8 and 260-3. No. 207.3 Mertens-Pack3 6. P.Lit.Lond. 181 (= scholia in fr. Id; fr. 2a and scholia in fr. 2e). 1st cent. . Ed.: Milne 1927, 148-50 and Hunt 1927, 55-7. No. 5 Pf„ 197 MertensPack3 ad

7. P.Mich. inv. 3688 R (= fr. 17, 8-10 and scholia in fr. 21c). 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Henrichs 1969,23-30; re-edited in SH 250-1. No. 201.1 Mertens-Pack3 8 . P.Mich. inv. 4761c ( - fr. 190a, 5-15). 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Gronewald 1974, 105-16; re-edited in SH 276. No. 217.2 Mertens-Pack3

9. P.Mich. (Cairo) inv. 5475c (= fr. 21, 6-14). To be edited by G. Schwendner.203 10. P.Mich. inv. 6235 (= a diegesis in fr. 190b). 2nd/3rd cent. a d . Ed.: Koenen-Luppe-Pagän 1991, 157-64; re-edited in vRossum-Steenbeek 1997, 277-8 (no. 47). No. 217.01 Mertens-Pack3 11. P.Mil.Vogl. I 18 (= diegeseis of Aetia 3 -4 in fr. 75a; 76b and 77b; 78 and 78b; 79 and 79a; 84 and 85a; 86 and 89a; 90 and 90a; 91 and 92a; 93, 1 and 93a; 94 and 95a; 96, 1 and 96a; 97 and 97a; 98 and 99a; 100a; 101 and 101a; 102 and 102a; 103 and 103a; 104 and 104a; 105 and 105a; 106 and 107a; 108 and 109a; 110, 1 and 110a). (lst)/2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Norsa-Vitelli 1934 and Vogliano 1937, 66-145; re-edited in vRossum-Steenbeek 1997, 259-73 (no. 43). Subsequently other pieces of this papyrus were editied by GallazziLehnus 2001 (inv. 28b = fr. 76a and inv. 1006 = fr. 62b and 62d). No. 8 Pf., 211 Mertens-Pack3 12. P.Oxy. 14 (= fr. 190a, 1-14 and 17-20). 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: GrenfellHunt 1898, 37-8; re-edited by Gronewald 1974, 105-116 and in SH 276. No. 217.3 Mertens-Pack3

202 On the date in the second half o f the 3rd cent, b c see E. G. Turner, Ptolemaic Bookhands and Lille Stesichorus’, S&C4, 1980, 19-40 (esp. 21). Others argue for a later date, i.e. the first half of the 2nd cent, b c; see Bastianini 2006, 149 n. 3. 205 I am grateful to G. Schwendner and T. Gagos for putting the text of this fragment at my disposal and allowing me to include it in this edition.

8. The text

Introduction

66

13. P.Oxy. 1011 (= fr. 75; 76 and 112). Late 4th cent. 1910fr, 15-82. No. 35 Pf., 211.1 Mertens-Pack3

ad

.

Ed.: Hunt

14. P.Oxy. 1362 (= ff. 178-83). 1st cent. a d . Ed.: Grenfell-Hunt 1915,83-90 (fr. 178-82; ff. 183 ed. Lobel apud Pfeiffer 1, 504). No. 3 Pf., 216 MertensPack3 15. P.Oxy. 2079 + 2167 + PSI 1217A (= ff. 1 and scholia in fr. lc; 7,1-17 and scholia in ff. 7b; 7c; 11; 17; 18,1-12; 113e; 116-17). 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Hunt 1927, 45-55 (P.Oxy. 2079), Lobel 1941, 47-51 and 1948,147-9 (P.Oxy. 2167), and Vitelli 1934,1-4 and Norsa-Vitelli 1935,129-33 (PSI 1217A). No. 15 Pf., 195 Mertens-Pack3 16. P.Oxy. 2080 (= fr. 43 and 43b; scholia in ff. 43a and 43c). 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Hunt 1927, 57-72 and Lobel 1948, 147. No. 18 Pf., 206 Mertens-Pack3 17. P.Oxy. 2168 + P.Berol. 11629 A and B (= ff. 12; 18,9-15; 23-4; 54h; 54i, 18-22; scholia in ff. 60j). 4th/5th cent, a d (according to the editio princeps of PSI 133, a ffagment o f the Hecale from the same papyrus; see Hollis 1990a, 49 f.; Mertens-Pack3 on 201; others have dated the papyrus in the 3rd cent. a d ; see Wilamowitz 1914, 222; Pfeiffer 1953, xx). Ed.: Lobel 1941, 51-2 (P.Oxy. 2168) and Wilamowitz 1914, 222-44 (P.Berol. 11629 A and B). No. 32 Pf., 201 Mertens-Pack3 18. P.Oxy. 2169 (= ff. 54i, 8-25). Late 2nd cent.

26. P.Oxy. 2214 (= ff. 186). Late 1st cent. Pi, 217 Mertens-Pack3

67

bc.

Ed.: Lobel 1948, 35-38. No. 2

27. P.Oxy. 2258 (= ff. 54c, 4 -6 and scholia in ff. 60f and 60h; 74; 75, 3-6; 110, 43-55, 65-78 and 89-94b; scholia in ff. 110e-f). 6th/7th cent. a d . Ed.: Lobel 1952, 69-103 and 104-7. No. 37 Pf., 186 Mertens-Pack3 28. P.Oxy. 2261 (= ff. 30a). Early 2nd cent. No. 14 Pf., 205.1 Mertens-Pack3

ad

.

Ed.: Lobel 1952, 113-15.

29. P.Oxy. 2262 (= ff. la; 2b and 2c; scholia in ff. le and 2f-2j). Late 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Lobel 1952,115-24. No. 20 Pf., 197.1 Mertens-Pack3 30. P.Oxy. 2263 (= fr. 31c and 31i; diegeseis in fr. 31a; 31g and 31h). 2nd/3rd cent. a d . Ed.: Lobel 1952,125-9; re-edited in vRossum-Steenbeek 1997,2756 no. 45). No. 26 Pf., 205 Mertens-Pack3 31. P.Oxy. 4427 (= fr. 75, 11-15 and scholia on ff. 75, 23 and 25 in ff. 75c). lst/2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Richter-Parsons 1997, 114-16. No. 211.11 MertensPack3 32. PRyl. 13 (= f f. 26). Early 2nd cent. Pf„ 203 Mertens-Pack3

ad

.

Ed.: Hunt 1911, 22-3. No. 13

33. PSI 1092 (= ff. 110, 44-64). 1st cent. b c . Ed.: Vitelli 1929α, 3-12 and 1929fr, 148-52. No. 1 Pf., 214 Mertens-Pack3

Ed.: Lobel 1941, 52-4.

34. PSI 1217 B (= ff. 7,14-18 and 7c, 1-8).204 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Vitelli 1934, 4—7 and Norsa-Vitelli 1935,129-33. No. 16 Pf., 195 Mertens-Pack3

19. P.Oxy. 2173 (= 54) + PSI 1500 (= ff. 54a). Late 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Lobel 1941, 66-7 (P.Oxy. 2173) and Ozbek 2005, 3-9 and Bastianini 2008,177-82 (PSI 1500). No. 23 Pf., 207.21 Mertens-Pack3.

35. PSI 1218 + P.Oxy. 2170 (= fr. 92; 93; 95; 96; 175; 54b, 21-34; 54c). 1st/ 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Vitelli 1934, 7-12 and Norsa-Vitelli 1935,134-9 (PSI 1218) and Lobel 1941, 54-6 (P.Oxy. 2170); ff. 54b and 54c were re-edited in S H 257 and 259. No. 6 Pf., 207.4 Mertens-Pack3

ad

.

No. 22 Pf., 209 Mertens-Pack3

20. P.Oxy. 2208 (= ff. 2; ff. 113; 113f; 114, 1-12). 3rd cent. 1948,1-3. No. 29 Pf., 198 Mertens-Pack3 21. P.Oxy. 2209 A and B ( ff . 21 and 118). (lst)/2nd cent 1948, 4-6 and 7-8. No. 9 Pf., 202 Mertens-Pack3

ad

ad

.

.

Ed.: Lobel Ed.: Lobel

22. P.Oxy. 2210 (= ff. 43, 8-9; 119, 2-7; 120-37). Early 2nd cent. Lobel 1948, 8-14. No. 10 Pf., 207 Mertens-Pack3 ad

ad

.

Ed.:

36. PSI 1219 (= scholia in fr. lb; 2d; 7a; 21a; 23a). 2nd/3rd cent, a d (but Mertens-Pack3 date the papyrus in lst/2nd cent. a d ) . Ed.: Norsa-Vitelli 1933, 123-32 and 1935, 139-49; re-edited in vRossum-Steenbeek 1997, 273—4 (no. 44). No. 24 Pf., 196 Mertens-Pack3 37. P.Sorb. inv. 2248 (= f f. 46, 2-11 and 137m, 2-16). 1st cent. a d . Ed.: Meillier 1976a, 74-9; re-edited in SH 252-3. No. 207.1 Mertens-Pack3

23. P.Oxy. 2211 (= fr. 63-4; 66-7; 113e, 11-21; 114,11-14; 114a). 3rd cent. . Ed.: Lobel 1948, 15-21. No. 31 Pf., 210 Mertens-Pack3

24. P.Oxy. 2212 (= fr. 54i; 80, 1-21; 83-84; 114, 12-14; 138-57). Early 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Lobel 1948, 22-27 and 144. No. 11 Pf., 208 Mertens-Pack3 25. P.Oxy. 2213 (= ff. 75, 50-58; 77a; 78; 80, 3-24; 81; 85; 158-74). Early or middle 2nd cent. a d . Ed.: Lobel 1948, 28-35 and 144-5. No. 12 P f, 212 Mertens-Pack3

2W Nos. 15 and 34 are treated as one papyrus in 195 Mertens-Pack3, but they are in different hands (see also Norsa-Vitelli 1935,129).

Introduction

68

8.1.2

Book fragments and testimonia

From Aristophanes o f Byzantium onwards ancient scholars quoted from or referred to Callimachus’ works. Thanks to this tradition we have a large number o f book fragments from the Aetia. These book fragments are to a large extent brief quotations, which illustrate the use o f a certain word or stylistic device by Callimachus or draw attention to the fact that he men­ tioned a certain character or location vel sim. Thus fr. 5 is from a context which discusses Callimachus’ use o f the noun Ovoc, fr. 28 from a context about the connection o f personal pronouns with an article, fr. 37, 1 from a discussion o f Asbysta. There are also many testimonia that do not contain a direct quotation, but only say something about the Aetia, like fr. 8, which informs us that according to Callimachus Medea killed Apsyrtus in Colchis, or fr. 31 about Tripodiscus. Even so, these passages too are an important addition to the papyrus frag­ ments, because they can help to locate the fragments and stories in the Aetia, if they mention a specific book, and they add various bits o f other informa­ tion, for example, about Callimachus’ language and style or about his treat­ ment o f certain subjects.205 Another group of testimonia are passages in other authors which apparently were inspired by Callimachus. Their importance for the Aetia is sometimes considerable, as in the letters o f Aristaenetus which tell the stories o f Acontius and Cydippe (fr. 75b) and of Phrygius and Pieria (fr. 83b), but they have to be treated with great caution as they are literary works in their own right and were obviously not written with the purpose of giving later readers access to the Aetia.

8.1.3

Ancient scholarship and the Aetia

There are a number o f sub-literary papyri related to the Aetia, which shows that there were attempts at various levels to make the work accessible and that ancient scholarly interest in the Aetia was considerable. First of all there are remains of several kinds of commentaries:206 (1) Scholia in the margins of several papyri. These scholia range from the rather basic comments between the lines in the Lille papyrus of the Victory of Berenice of the 3rd century b c (fr. 60d, e, g, and i) and in the margins of P.Oxy. 2080 of the 2nd century a d (fr. 43a and c) to more scholarly comments in the margins of P.Oxy. 2258 of the 6th/7th century a d ( f r . llOe), where 205 For a survey and further discussion of the authors quoting and using Callimachus see Pfeiffer 2, xxx ff 206 For more detailed discussion see the commentary on the relevant fragments and Bastìanini 2006, 149 ff.

8. The text

69

material from other authors is quoted in order to clarify certain issues and which presents an early example o f the format o f text-with-scholia that became familiar in the time o f Photius;207 (2) Anonymous commentaries that are transmitted without the text o f the a d (fr. lb, 2d, 7a, 21a, and 23a), which are a kind of running commentary containing a mixture o f summaries and learned comments, including a source indication for the story o f the Charites at Paros in fr. 7a, 15 ff. and a list o f the Telchines in fr. lb, 3 ff.208 Other anonymous commentaries are lemmatic. The Scholia Londinensia of the 1st century a d (fr. Id and 2e) as well as the Scholia Berolinensia o f the 2nd century a d (ff. 21b) and the scholia in P.Oxy. 2262 o f the late 2nd century a d (fr. le and 2f-2j) explain and discuss problems in the text and contain parallels from other authors and various suggestions for inter­ pretation. The latter two suggest a fairly advanced level, whereas the London scholia are somewhat more basic;209

Aetia. These include the Scholia Florentina o f the 2nd/3rd century

(3) Commentaries by authors known to us by name. In this group the first commentary on the Aetia that we know o f is the commentary by Theon, a scholar o f the Augustan period, who wrote commentaries on a number of ancient authors including other Hellenistic authors such as Theocritus, Apol­ lonius Rhodius, Nicander, and Lycophron.210 It is not entirely clear whether Theon wrote a commentary on the whole o f the Aetia or only on Aetia 1-2, but it seems likely that he dealt with the whole o f the Aetia. Two o f his fragments have been explicitly related to his commentary on the Aetia: fr. 5 Guhl from his commentary on Aetia 1 (= Aetia ff. 42) and fr. 6 Guhl from his commentary on Aetia 2 (= Aetia fr. 53b). It was, however, argued plausibly by Bongelli 2000, 283 that ff. 7 Guhl with comments on αρμοί might derive from his commentary on Aetia 3.211 Another scholar who wrote a commen­ tary on the Aetia was Epaphroditus, a grammarian who was active in the second half o f the 1st century a d .212 We have remains o f his commentary on 207 See Pfeiffer 2, xxvn. 206 See on these commentaries Bastianini 2006,152 ff. 205 For a brief description of these scholia see also Bastianini 1996, 72. 210 The fragments of Theon’s work are collected by C. Guhl, Die Fragmente des Alexandrinischen Grammatikers Theon, Diss. Hamburg 1969, who discusses the fragments of his com­ mentary on the Aetia on pp. 6 f. See further on Theon C. Wendel, RE II 5.2,2054-9 s.v. Theon 9; Pfeiffer 2, xxvii and xxix f.; Cameron 1995,191 ff.; Bongelli 2000, 281 ff For the relevant passage in the Etymologicum Genuinum see the apparatus at 54, 4. For arguments that the comments on the name of Sicily in fr. Id, 1 ff. may also derive from Theon see Bongelli 2000,285 ff The fragments o f Epaphroditus’ work were collected by E. Liinzner, Epaphroditi gram­ matici quae supersunt, Bonn 1866 and recently by Braswell-Billerbeck 2007. See further Pfeiffer 2, x x v i i i ; S. Fornaro in Der Neue Pauly 3,1064 f. s .v . Epaphroditus [3] (with further references); Fabian 1992, 296 ff.

Introduction

8. The text

Aetia 2 in fr. 52, 53, and 53a and, if a suggestion by Lehnus 1994, 369 ff., that

Byzantine period the Aetia must have disappeared. From the 4th-5th century a d we have several papyri and i n the 4th we have evidence that the Aetia was a source o f inspiration for Gregory o f Nazianzen, while in the 5th Nonnus o f Panopolis and Aristaenetus show that they knew the work well and in the 5th/ 6th century Marianus rewrote the Aetia in iambic trimeters (T 2). Thanks to P.Oxy. 2258 we even know that the Aetia was still read in the 6th/7th century a d , but after that we lose track o f it and the last signs that people were still reading the Aetia are somewhat speculative. The iambic epigram in T 1 includes the Aetia in its catalogue o f Calli­ machus’ works and may be dated in the 9th/10th century a d or later (see Comm.), but the date is uncertain and it cannot be inferred with certainty that the Aetia was still available to the epigrammatist. Pfeiffer 2, xxxn is doubtful whether Eustathius in the 12th century a d still read the Aetia, but vdValk 1983, 367 ff. argues that, because o f the way in which Eustathius quotes ff. 1, 26, 28, 31 (and 36?) and ff. 2, 5 without evi­ dence of secondary sources in which he found these quotations, he must have read at least the first part o f the Aetia himself. An additional argument for Eustathius’ having access to the Aetia, also mentioned by Pfeiffer and vdValk, is that there are indications that Eustathius’ pupil Michael Choniates (the archbishop o f Athens, who died c.1220 a d ) also still knew the work. Michael’s knowledge o f the Hecale seems fairly certain216 and his knowledge of the Aetia may be inferred from Mich. Chon. Epist. 2 , 350, 12 ff. Lampros εν

Epaphroditus fr. 64 B-B about the Thessalian town Dryope was from his commentary on ff. 24-25d, is right, he would also have written a commentary on Aetia l.213 The work o f these two scholars has probably left its traces in the scholia and commentaries in the papyri, but the amount of material is too scanty to allow any conclusions to be drawn. Another important group of sub-literary texts related to the Aetia are the diegeseis.2'4 These texts reflect a special kind of semi-scholarly interest, as they seem to make the Aetia easily and quickly accessible for a wider audience or for practical purposes. They are short narrative summaries o f the contents of the aitia preceded by a quotation of the first line o f the story, a format which is familiar also from other kinds o f summaries, like those o f the plays o f Euripides in P.Oxy. 2455. The main source o f the diegeseis is P.Mil. Vogl. I 18 of the (lst)/2nd century a d , which contains the diegeseis o f most o f Aetia 3-4, but they also seem to be incorporated in the Scholia Florentina (on which see above) and we have remains of similar, but apparently somewhat longer, summaries in P.Oxy. 2263 o f the 2nd/3rd century a d (ff. 31a; 31g and 31h) and P.Mich. inv. 6235 of the 2nd/3rd century a d (ff. 190b). The relation between the various kinds o f diegeseis is not entirely clear, but it may well be that the short and simple diegeseis in P.Mil. Vogl. 1 18 were excerpts from earlier, longer, and somewhat more scholarly summaries.215

8.1.4

The last Byzantine readers

For late antiquity and the early Byzantine period we have ample evidence that the Aetia was still well known and well read, but at some time in the later 213 However, Braswell-Billerbeck 2007, 359 emphasize that the connection is uncertain. For other possible remains o f Epaphroditus’ commentary on the Aetia cf. Epaphroditus fr. 59 B-B = Hec. ff. 236, 2 (= 10, 2 Hollis) and fr. 701, passages about the origin of bronze and iron, which according to Pfeiffer and Hollis ad loc. might have been quoted by Epaphroditus in his com­ mentary on the Aetia (such quotations would seem at home in the commentary on e.g. fr. 110, 49 f. or 113e, 12 ff.); Braswell-Billerbeck 2007, 339 regard the attribution of this fragment as more likely than that of fr. 58 B-B (which they rightly reject). In other fragments o f Epaphro­ ditus there are no certain indications of a connection with his work on the Aetia, but it can­ not be entirely excluded either; cf. fr. 60 B-B = the context of fr. 70, with Braswell-Billerbeck 2007, 342 f.; fr. 61 B-B = Call. fr. 505-6, with Braswell-Billerbeck 2007, 346; fr. 65 B-B, which might be related to Call. fr. 599, with Braswell-Billerbeck 2007, 361. Attempts to connect other Callimachean fragments, like fr. 592 and 593, with this commentary have not been successful (see Pfeiffer on fr. 52 and 53; Massimilla 1996, 373; and for a recent discussion of fr. 593 S. Jackson, ‘Callimachus on Calaurea: A Fresh Look at F 593 Pf.’, M H 59,2002,55-60). 214 On the title and the use of the word δ ιή γ η α ε for this kind of summary see vRossumSteenbeek 1997,74 f. 215 See for this idea Maas 1937, 159 f.; Pfeiffer 2, xxvin; Lloyd-Jones apud Hollis 1992b, 115 n. 1. See further on the diegeseis Castiglioni 1937,146 ff; Maas 1937,155 ft; vRossum-Steenbeek 1997,74 ff.

71

t i c , κ α τ ά θεόν φιλεΐε, π ώ ς έ κ γειτόνω ν οίκων ούκ ηκουεαε η άκούεαε ούκ επεετραφαι θνηεκόντων ημών, ώεπερ φαεί τ ove παρ’ ύμΐν Δωδωναίουε Οελλούε δοΰπον άκούειν πόντου Ικαρίοιο, which recalls fr. 23,

δ ε , ε ίτ τ ε ρ

2 f., a passage which appears not to be imitated elsewhere or to have become part of the repertoire of anthologists, so that a secondary source is less likely.217 Other passages which suggest knowledge o f the Aetia are Mich. Chon. Theano 17 (2, 375 Lampros) τίε κεν επιτρύζω ν νεμεεήεηι ευκηε άοιδήι (cf. fr. 1,1) and 199 (2,382 Lampros) πάντα S’ άνατράπελα (cf. ff. 7c, 12),218 where the way in which Michael incorporates phrases from the Aetia in his own poetry suggests that he knew the work well.219 The books he

216 See Hollis 1990a, 38 ff 2,7 This passage was first adduced by Pfeiffer 1922, 113ff.; see also Pfeiffer 2, xxxn f. and on fr. 23,3. 218 Both adduced by Pfeiffer 1,499. m Bulloch 1985, 82 n. 1 observes that one cannot be certain that Michael knew the Aetia, because it is surprising that he never mentions having seen a manuscript of Callimachus and never ascribes his quotations to him (as he does with other poets). Hollis 1990a, 39 rightly regards this as unduly sceptical.

Introduction

72

8. The text

consulted in Constantinople and collected in his library at Athens were prob­ ably lost during the fourth crusade in 1204—5, after which Michael fled to Ceos.220

8.1.5

Modern editions

After the loss o f the Aetia in, presumably, the early 13th century, the first to show an interest in the lost works o f Callimachus was the Florentine poet and scholar Politian (1454-94) in the late 15th century, who on the basis of some testimonia was able to form a fairly accurate overall picture of the Aetia.221 Then the collection of the work’s fragments gradually took shape in the course o f a number of editions of Callimachus’ works. Important steps in this development were the edition by Nicodemus Frischlin and Henricus Stephanus in 1577, which included a small number o f fragments, the collec­ tion o f fragments which Richard Bentley contributed to the edition of Graevius in 1697, Schneider’s edition o f 1873,222 and finally the edition by Pfeiffer in 1949, which contained the book fragments and all the papyrus fragments then known arranged in accordance with the composition of the Aetia in four books. This edition gives a good picture o f the enormous pro­ gress in our knowledge o f the Aetia since the edition made by Schneider, as Herter 1954, 76 put it well when he wrote: ‘man hat auch selten ein solches Gefühl des Fortschrittes: wie unvergleichlich ausgiebiger ist das Material, mit dem wir heute schalten können, als die Trümmer, vor denen Schneider stand!’ Since Pfeiffer more papyri of the Aetia have been published and were collected by Lloyd-Jones-Parsons in the Supplementum Hellenisticum and incorporated in the editions of Massimilla 1996, d’Alessio 1996, Asper 2004, and Durbec 2006.

220 See L. D. Reynolds-N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars, Oxford 1974, 63; Bulloch 1985, 81 f,; Hollis 1990«, 40. 221 For a detailed discussion of Politian’s work on the Aetia see Harder 1989. 222 For a survey and discussion o f the older editions see Pfeiffer 2, x l i i i ff. On the accusations against Richard Bentley that he had plagiarized unpublished material of Thomas Stanley, dis­ cussed by Pfeiffer 2, x u v f., see now Lehnus 1991b. Various other earlier contributions to the scholarship on the Aetia are discussed by Benedetto 1993n (about the work o f Alphons Hecker on the prologue); Benedetto 1993b (about the work of earlier scholars, particularly Dutch scholars of the 18th cent., on the indirect tradition of the prologue), and G. Benedetto, 'll trattamento dei frammenti nell’edizione callimachea del 1761 attraverso la corrispondenza inedita di J. A. Ernesti con D. Ruhnkenius e L. C. Valckenaer’, in G. W. Most, Collecting Fragments / Fragmente sammeln, Göttingen 1997,95-110: Marinone 1989 (about Richard Bentley and the Lock of Berenice).

8.2

73

About the present edition

In this edition each aition is treated as a separate unity, as in the commentary, and the fragments are presented in the following order: (1) the text of the actual fragments, as far as possible in the order o f the story; (2) the text of summaries, diegeseis, and other testimonia which are relevant for the whole of the aition and can be related to it with reasonable certainty; (3) the text of the scholia with comments on individual lines. For (1) and (2) translations have been added to the text, unless it consists only o f brief notes in lexicons or scholia or when the lines contain just letters or single words. In order to be able to incorporate the new papyrus fragments and new views about the ordering o f the fragments as well as for the sake o f greater clarity I have partly rearranged and renumbered the fragments and given numbers to the testimonia and scholia, which were not numbered separately in Pfeiffer’s edition. I have, however, for the sake o f easy reference based the new numbers on Pfeiffer’s numbers of the fragments. If, for example, fr. 1 is fr. 1 Pfeiffer, then fir. la (etc.) is any fragment, testimonium, or scholium placed between fr. 1 and 2 Pfeiffer, i.e. either new (papyrus) fragments or fragments which have been relocated or renumbered in this edition. For easy reference in the case o f new fragments discovered before 1983 the numbers in the Supplementum Hellenisticum have been added (as in e.g. ff. 54 = SH 254). When fragments have been relocated or (re-(numbered in this edition the old number in Pfeiffer or an indication of the page in Pfeiffer is added (as in e.g. fr. 54c = ff. 177 Pfeiffer; ff. lb = Σ Flor. 1-15 (1, p. 3 Pfeiffer) ) and at the point where the reader would expect to find Pfeiffer’s fr. 177 he finds ‘fr. 177 Pfeiffer = fr. 54c’, so that looking up the Pfeiffer number will lead him quickly to the required fragment. The fragments, testimonia, and scholia are indi­ cated by Arabic numbers without further additions in the text, but for the sake of clarity the numbers are preceded by ‘fr.’ when they are referred to in the course o f the commentary (and by T for the small group o f testimonia preceding the text o f the Aetia). As far as the book fragments are concerned I have based the text and apparatus on the most recent or standard editions. In the case o f the Etymo­ logicum Genuinum I was able to profit from the results ofMassimilla’s inspec­ tion and to consult micro-films of the manuscripts A and B. I have checked the text of the papyrus fragments as carefully as possible against facsimiles or (digital) photographs, which were kindly placed at my disposal by the institutions where the papyri are kept or available through the internet. Where these proved inadequate and/or the papyri could be accessed easily I have inspected the originals.223 223

This applies to nos. 6 ,7,14-30,33-5, and 37 of the list in 8.1.1.

Introduction

74

In the text and apparatus o f the papyrus fragments I have followed the following system: •

sublinear dots indicate that a letter is considerably damaged, some­ times so much that palaeographically there may be more than one possible interpretation o f the traces: when there are good nonpalaeographical reasons for restoring a certain letter this letter is put in the text with a dot below, but when there are no cogent reasons for a specific choice only a dot is printed and the traces are described in the

•

apparatus; no dots are placed under letters which are somewhat damaged, but palaeographically certain or guaranteed because o f an overlap with a

•

book fragment; when there is a dot without letter and no description of a trace in the apparatus, this means that there is merely an indefinite trace or speck visible; deviations from the editio princeps, Pfeiffer, or the Supplementum Hellenisticum are recorded in the apparatus, unless they are only a matter o f sublinear dots, estimated numbers o f lost letters, or single letters when their presence or absence has no far-reaching implications;

•

•

•

suggestions and supplements which are obviously wrong or seem too fanciful are mentioned only when they may have some ‘diagnostic’ value; supplements and small corrections by the editio princeps are not men­ tioned in the apparatus, except when it is necessary for the sake of clarity (e.g. in cases where two papyri overlap or when the editors had

9. Nature and purpose of the commentary

75

new layout to the marginal scholia (with I indicating the line-ends in the papyrus). In the apparatus o f the papyrus fragments I have taken over the descriptions o f the traces o f the editio princeps, Pfeiffer, or Lloyd-Jones-Parsons when I agreed with them and found them sufficiently clear. When this was not the case I have given my own descriptions.224

9. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE COMMENTARY

In the commentary each aition is preceded by a short selective bibliography, which contains the most important contributions and may provide useful further reading. I then provide a general introduction on each aition and subsequently treat the text in detail in the line-by-line commentary. The purpose o f the commentary is to make the Aetia accessible to its readers at various levels, so that the reader will be enabled: (1) to know as far as possible what Callimachus has written; (2) to read and understand the text at a basic level; (3) to understand the Aetia as a work o f art; (4) to consider suggestions for the attribution o f meaning to (parts o f) the work.

some doubts); diacritical signs in the papyrus are recorded in the apparatus;

The purpose o f the commentary is responsible for its nature. The commen­ tary discusses longer passages or larger issues as well as individual words or phrases225 and contains the following elements (sometimes treated in isol­ ation, sometimes in combination with each other):

•

when two papyri overlap or touch I have not indicated the borderlines in the text in order to keep the presentation as uncluttered as possible; for these details the reader is referred to the editio princeps;

(1) constitution o f the text, including discussion o f problems o f textual criticism and the order and arrangement o f the fragments, i.e. everything related to the question: ‘what stood where in the AetiaV;

•

in the larger fragments I have, with some hesitation, generally adopted the system o f Pfeiffer and the Supplementum Hellenisticum to keep the layout of disticha also when the left part of the line is lost. This system has the advantage of keeping the reader aware of the metrical structure, but a drawback is that it is less easy to visualize how much room for supplements there really is at the beginning o f the lines;

(2) basic explanation o f the text, e.g. o f matters o f vocabulary, syntax, realia etc., but also of the larger structures into which the text is organized; this

•

•

in the text o f the scholia I have kept the layout o f the papyrus when the scholia were transmitted without the text, but I have sometimes given a

224 In order to keep the apparatus as clear and uncluttered as possible I have not indicated which descriptions are my own and which are by others. 225 Although often small units of text deserve a great deal of attention in the Aetia, the warnings in G. W. Most, The Measures o f Praise, Göttingen 1985,36 ff., concerning the ‘atomiza­ tion’ of a text into a series of lemmata to be commented on, have been borne in mind throughout.

76

Introduction

explanation is supported by a translation in prose o f the fragments and testimonia; (3) description o f literary techniques; this means that much attention is devoted to the stylistic aspects o f vocabulary, syntax, and metre; to matters like narrative technique, treatment of genre, intertextuality, and, more gener­ ally, Callimachus’ position in the literary and mythological tradition; also metapoetic aspects of the Aetia will be described under this heading;

Bibliography

(4) where possible an attempt is made to interpret the text within the framework of the literary, historical, and cultural background of the Aetia. References to parallels and secondary literature have been included only in so far as they serve the above-said purposes and help the reader to understand the Aetia.116 A survey of the reception of the Aetia in later Greek and Latin literature is not a purpose o f this commentary. Although this is an important object of research, incorporation of all or most reminiscences of the Aetia in later authors would make the commentary probably almost twice as big, but with­ out the benefit of doubling our understanding o f the Aetia. Therefore remin­ iscences in later authors are generally mentioned only when they are helpful for the constitution of the text (e.g. because they provide a parallel supporting a supplement), for illustrating and explaining an unusual word or phrase, or for the interpretation in general.

The bibliography includes (1) books and articles on the Aetia, including the first editions of the relevant papyri, and (2) books and articles which are quoted or referred to more than once. All these works are quoted by author’s name, year (with a, b, c, etc. added when there are several publications in one year), and page numbers. Publications on the Aetia which I have not been able to consult are marked by *. Publications which appeared in or after 2006 have not been included systematically. Well-known modern commentaries on classical authors have not been included in the bibliography. These works are referred to in the commentary by means of the name of the commentator and the passage he/she is discussing (e.g. Barrett on E. Hipp. 100). The following abbreviations have been used: Frisk

Der Kleine Pauly KG

LfrgrE LSI

Der Neue Pauly Pfeiffer

RE Schneider Schwyzer

226 I.e, the commentary is not intended as a Fundgrube and long lists of parallels preceded by a non-committal ‘cf.’ are generally avoided. For a rejection o f ‘the promiscuous and vague use o f ‘cf.’ see also Lyne 1978,4 f.; for a well-justified plea to ‘privilege clarity and intelligibility over scholarly display’ when commenting on fragments see S. Stephens, ‘Commenting on Frag­ ments’, in R. K. Gibson-C. Shuttleworth Kraus, The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, Leiden-Boston-Köln 2002, 67-88, esp. 85.

Frisk 1960-72 K. Ziegler-W. Sontheimer (et al.). Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike, München 1975 Kühner-Gerth 1898-1904 B. Snell (et al), Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos, Göttingen 1955H. G. Liddle-R. Scott-H. S. Iones, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 1968 H. Cancik-H. Schneider (et al), Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, Stuttgart 1996-2003 Pfeiffer 1949-53 A. F. Pauly-G. Wissowa (et al), Paulys Realencyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart-München 1894-1997 Schneider 1870-3 Schwyzer 1966-8

Acosta-Hughes, B., Polyeideia, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 2002. Acosta-Hughes, B. - Stephens, S. A., 'Aetia Fr. 1.5:1 told my Story like a Child’, ZPE 136, 2001,214-16. ------------ ‘Rereading Callimachus’ Aetia fragment Γ, CPh 97, 2002, 238-55. Ageno , F., ‘Callimaco, Chioma di Berenice, v. 45’, Aeg. 10,1929,153-79.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Albini, G., ‘Il carme LXYI di Catullo e il nuovo frammento di Callimaco’, RAIB 5,

Asper, M., Onornata allotria: Zur Genese, Struktur und Funktion poetologischer Metaphern bei Kallimachos {Hermes Einzelschriften 75), Stuttgart 1997. ----- ‘Gruppen und Dichter’, A & A 47, 2001, 84-116. ----- Kallimachos. Werke, Darmstadt 2004. Avallone, R., TI carme 66 di Catullo e la Chioma di Berenice di Callimaco’, Euphro­ syne 3, 1961, 23-48. Axelson, B., ‘Das Haaröl der Berenike bei Catull und bei Kallimachos’, in Studi. .. L.Castiglioni 1, Florence 1961,15-21. Baioni, M. G., ‘Ales equos: Catuli. 66, 54 e Callimaco 110 Pf, 52-54’, Aevum Antiquum 3,1990,163-7. Barbantani, S., Φ άτκ viκηφόροο, Milan 2001. ■-----‘Callimachus and the Contemporary Historical “epic” ’, Hermathena 173-4,

78

1930-1, 108-14. Albis, R. V., ‘Jason’s Prayers to Apollo in Aetia 1 and the Argonautica’, Phoenix 49, 1995,104-9. d’Alessio, G. B., ‘Apollo Delio, i Cabiri Milesii e le Cavalle di Tracia. Osservazioni su Callimaco frr. 114-15 Pf.’, ZPE 106,1995, 5-21. ----- Callimaco. Introduzione, traduzione e note . . . (1 Inni. Epigrammi. Beale, 2 Aitia. Giambi e altri frammenti), Milano 1996. ----- ‘Osservazioni su PSI Inv. 1923 [1]’, Comunicazioni dell’Istituto Papirologico ‘G. Vitelli ’6, Firenze 2005,10-12. ----- ‘Le Ώραi e le πέμφιγΐα fr. 43, 40-41 Pf. (= fr. 50 M.)’, in Bastianini-Casanova 2006, 101-17. Allen, A., The Fragments of Mimnermus, Stuttgart 1993. Altheim, F., Epochen der römischen Geschichte 2, Frankfurt 1935. ----- ‘Neue Forschungen zur römischen Geschichte: Kallimachos und die römische Geschichte’, WG 4 , 1938,306-17. Amb ü h l , A., ‘Callimachus and the Arcadian Asses: The Aitia Prologue and a Lemma in the London Scholion’, ZPE 105,1995, 209-13. ----- ‘Entertaining Theseus and Heracles: The Hecale and the Victoria Berenices as a Diptych’, in M. A. Harder-R. F. Regtuit-G. C. Wakker (edd.), Callimachus II (Hellenistica Groningana 7), Leuven-Paris-Dudley, Mass. 2004a, 23—48. ----- ‘Literarische Innovation als Verjüngung der Tradition: Kallimachos und die alexandrinische Dichtung’, in A. von Müller-J. von Ungern-Sternberg (edd.), Die Wahrnehmung des Neuen in Antike und Renaissance, Leipzig 2004h, 25^0. ----- Kinder und junge Helden, Leuven-Paris-Dudley, Mass. 2005. Ancelot, H„ Le Nouveau Callimaque, Thèse de licence Jury central beige 1943 (RBPh 23, 1944, 589).* Andor, J., ‘Die römische Episode bei Kallimachos’, AAntHung 1,1951,121-6. Andrews, N. E., ‘Philosophical Satire in the Aetia Prologue’, in M. A. Harder-R. F, Regtuit-G. C. Wakker (edd.), Genre in Hellenistic Poetry {Hellenistica Groningana 3), Groningen 1998, 1-19. Angjò, F., ‘Callimaco, Aitia, fr. 64,10 Pf’, in Martina-Cozzoli 2006, 57. ----- ‘Callimaco, Aitia, fr. 1,11-12 Pf. (= 1,11-12 M.)’, ZPE 160,2007, 32. Ardizzoni, A., ‘Eracle e Teodamante in Callimaco e in Apollonio Rodio’, RFIC 63, 1935,452-67. ----- ‘Sulla “Chioma di Berenice” (Callimaco fr. 110 Pf., Catullo LXVI 55-56)’, GIF 27,1975,198-200. ----- 'L’alato cavallo di Arsinoe e la chioma di Berenice (Callimaco e Catullo)’, in Scritti. . . S. Pugliatti 5, Milano 1978,83-90. Aricò G„ ‘Diviso vertice flammae’, RFIC 100, 1972, 312-22. Arnim, H. von, ‘Zum neuen Kallimachos’, SAWW164,1910,1-26 (Abhandlung IV). ----- ‘Ein neues Bruchstück der “Aitia” des Kallimachos von Kyrene’, IWS 5, 1911, 97-114. Arnott, W. G., ‘Callimachean Subtlety in Asclepiades of Samos’, CR 19,1969,6-8.

79

2002-3,29-47. ----- ‘Goddess of Love and Mistress of the Sea’, Ancient Society 35, 2005,135-65. Barber, E. A., ‘The New Fragments of Callimachus’, in J. U. Powell-E. A. Barber (edd.), New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature 2, Oxford 1929,1-8. ----- ‘The Lock of Berenice, Callimachus and Catullus’, in Greek Poetry and Life. Essays presented to G. Murray, Oxford 1936, 343-63 (= G. Pfohl, Die griechische Elegie, Darmstadt 1972, 434-58). ----- ‘Notes on the Diegeseis of Callimachus {Pap.Mil. 18)’, CQ 33,1939,65-8. ----- ‘The Fragments of Callimachus’, CR 1 ,1951a, 78-80. ----- Oxyrhynchus Papyri’, CR 1 ,1951h, 80-2. ----- ‘Callimachea Varia’, CR 5,1955,241-2. Barber, E. A.-Maas, P., ‘Callimachea’, CQ 44, 1950, 96 and 168. Barigazzi, A., ‘Mimnermo e Filita, Antimaco e Cherilo nel proemio degli Aitia di Callimaco’, Hermes 84,1956,162-82. ----- ‘Callimaco e il frammento astronomico sulla chioma di Berenice’, RhM 106, 1963, 214-29. -----‘Saghe sicule e beotiche nel simposio delle Muse di Callimaco’, Prom. 1, 1975α, 5-26. -----‘Note all “Aconzio e Cidippe” di Callimaco’, Prom. 1 ,1975h, 201-8. ----- ‘L’aition di Frigio e Pieria in Callimaco’, Prom. 2 , 1976a, 11-17. ----- 'L’aition callimacheo di Euticle di Locri’, Prom. 2, 19766, 145-50. -----‘Eracle e Tiodamante in Callimaco e Apollonio Rodio’, Prom. 2 ,1976c, 227-38. -----‘Call., Aet. Ili fr. 85,9’, Prom. 3,1977,254. -----‘Due note callimachee, fr. 178, 24-3Γ, in E. Livrea-G. A. Privitera (edd.), Studi in onore di Anthos Ardizzoni, Roma 1978α, 51-60. -----‘Callimaco fr. 79 Pf.’, Prom. 4, 1978b, 127. -----‘Callimaco e i cavalli di Berenice {Pap.Lille 82)’, Prom. 5,1979, 267-71. -----‘Per la ricostruzione del Callimaco di Lilla’, Prom. 6 ,1980α, 1-20. -----‘Callimaco fr. 96 Pf.’, Prom. 6,19806,106. -----‘Esiodo e la chiusa degli “Aitia” di Callimaco’, Prom. 7,1981,97-107. Ba r n e s , H. R., ‘The Structure of the Elegiac Hexameter . . . ’, in M. FantuzziR. Pretagostini (edd.), Struttura e storia dell’esametro greco 1, Roma 1995,135-61.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Barns, J. W. B., ‘113. 114’, in The Antinoopolis Papyri 3, London 1967, 9-19. Basta-Donzelli, G., ‘La seconda giovinezza di Callimaco (fr. 1, 32 ss. Pf.)’, in Studi . .. G. Monaco. I. Letteratura Greca, Palermo 1991, 387-94. Bastianini, G., ‘Κατά λεπτόν in Callimaco (Fr. 1, 11 Pfeiffer)’, in M. S. Funghi, ΟΔΟΙ ΔΙΖΗ ΣΙΟ Σ: Le vie della ricerca. Studi in onore di E Adorno, Firenze 1996,

----- ‘Reconstructing Berenice’s Lock’, in G. W. Most (ed.), Collecting Fragments/ Fragmente sammeln, Göttingen 1997, 78-94. Bissinger, Μ., Das Adjektiv M E F A C in der griechischen Dichtung, München 1966. Blech, M., Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen (R G W 38), Berlin-New York 1982. Block, E., ‘The Narrator Speaks: Apostrophe in Homer and Vergil’, TAPhA 112,1982, 7-22. Blomfield, C. J., Callimachi quae supersunt, Londini 1815. Blomqvist, J., On Adverbs in Callimachus . . . ’, in M. A. Harder-R. F. RegtuitG. C. Wakker (edd.), Callimachus (Hellenistica Groningana 1), Groningen 1993, 17-36.

69-80. ----- ‘Postilla a ESI Inv. 1923 [1]’, Comunicazioni dell’Istituto Papirologico 'G. Vitelli’6, Firenze 2005,19-20. ----- ‘Considerazioni sulle Diegeseis fiorentine (PSJXI1219)’, in Bastianini-Casanova 2006,149-66. ----- ‘1500. Callimaco, Victoria Berenices’, in Papiri della Società Italiana 15, Firenze 2008,177-82. Bastianini, G.-Casanova, A., Callimaco. Cent’Anni di Papiri, Firenze 2006.

Becker, 0„ Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im frühgriechischen Denken (Hermes Einzelschriften 4), Berlin 1937. Benedetto, G., ‘Una congettura di Augusto Rostagni (Call. fr. 1,11 Pf.)’, Quaderni di Storia 32,1990,115-37. ----- ‘Il Prologus Aetiorum di A. Hecker’, in M. A. Harder-R. F. Regtuit-G. C. Wakker (edd.), Callimachus (Hellenistica Groningana 1), Groningen 1993«, 1-15. ----- Il sogno e l’invettiva, Firenze 19936. ----- ‘Diptychum Callimacheum’, Annali dell’Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici 13, 1995-6, 105-25.

Benedetto, V. di, ‘Callimaco, fr. 2,4 Pf.’, RFIC123,1995,169-71. ----- ‘Posidippo tra Pindaro e Callimaco’, Prom. 29,2003, 97-119. Bennett, C., ‘Arsinoe and Berenice at the Olympics’, ZPE 154, 2005, 91-6. Bentley, R„ 'Callimachi fragmenta a Richardo Bentleio collecta’, in T. Graevius, Callimachi hymni, epigrammata etfragmenta 1, Ultrajecti 1697,303—429 and 434-8 (also printed in Ernesti 1761,1,413-580).

Bentz, M. - Mann, C., ‘Zur Heroisierung von Athleten’, in R. von den Hoff~S. Schmidt (edd.), Konstruktionen von Wirklichkeit, Stuttgart 2001, 225—40. Bergk, T., Anthologia Lyrica, Lipsiae 18682. Berranger, D., Recherches sur l’histoire et la prosopographie de Paros à l’époque archaique, Clermont-Ferrand 1992. Berselli, G., La Chioma di Berenice, Catania 1930.* Beyer-Rotthoff, Β., Untersuchungen zur Aussenpolitik Ptolemaios’ III, Bonn 1993.

Bickel, E., ‘Der Kallimachospapyrus “Die Locke der Berenike” und Catuli als Über­ setzer’, RhM 90,1941, 81-146. Binder, G., Die Aussetzung des Königskindes Kyros und Romulus (Beitr.z.klass.Phil. 10), Meisenheim am Glan 1964.

The Well-Read Muse: Present and Past in Callimachus and Hellenistic Poets (Hypomnemata 90), Göttingen 1988«. ----- ‘A Note on the New “Musenanruf” in Callimachus’ Aetia’, ZPE 74, 1988b,

B in g , P.,

273-5.

81

Blümner, H. B., Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern, Leipzig-Berlin 19122 (repr. Hildesheim 1969). Blumenthal, A. von, ‘6. Zu den Kallimachos-Diegeseis’, Hermes 71, 1936a, 458. ----- ‘Zu den Kallimachos-Diegesis III 34’, Phil. 91, 1936b, 115-16. Boedeker, D. - Sider, D., The New Simonides, Oxford 2001. Bolton, J. D. R, Aristeas of Proconnesus, Oxford 1962. Bongelli, R, ‘Note alla Victoria Berenices di Callimaco’, Acme 49.2,1996, 151-2. ----- ‘Frammenti del Commento di Teone a Callimaco’, in G. Arrighetti-M. Tulli (edd.), Letteratura e reflessione sulla letteratura nella cultura classica, Pisa 2000, 281-90. Bonnechère, R, Le Sacrifice humaine en Grèce ancienne, Athènes-Liège 1994. Bonner, C., ‘The Prenuptial Rite in the Aetia of Callimachus’, CPh 6,1911,402-9. Bopp, H., Inscia capta puella: Akontios und Kydippe bei Kallimachos und bei Ovid, Diss. Münster 1966. Borgogno, A., ‘Appunti sulla poetica di Callimaco’, GIF 39,1987,129-35. ----- ‘A proposito della vecchiaia di Callimaco’, Prom. 27,2001,217-18. Borgonovo, R, ‘Callimaco frr. 238 SH e 571 Pf.: per un aition “Attico” di Epops’, ZPE 110,1996, 49-55. Borgonovo, P. - Cappelletto, R, ‘Callimaco frr. 114 e 115 Pf.: Apollo “Poligonale” e Apollo Delio’, ZPE 103, 1994, 13-17. Bornmann, E, ‘Callimachea’, Maia 19,1967, 44—55. ----- Hymnus in Dianam, Firenze 1968. -----‘Il nuovo Callimaco del papiro di Lille’, A&R 23,1978«, 187-8. -----‘Zum Siegeslied des Kallimachos auf Berenike, PLille 79, c III 6 (= Fr. 176,5 Pf.)’, ZPE31, 19786, 35. -----‘La poesia di Callimaco sulla vittoria nemea di Berenice’, QuadFoggia 1, 1981, 95-111. Bossi, F„ ‘Callimachus PSorb. 2248b’, MCr 13-14,1978-9, 327-8. Bowra, C. M., Pindar, Oxford 1964. ----- Early Greek Elegists, New York 1969. Βraccesi, L., ‘Callimaco, i Peucezi e il sacco di Roma’, in L. Braccesi, Hellenikòs

Kolpos. Supplemento a Grecità adriatica (= Hesperia. Studi sul Grecità di Occidente 13), Roma 2001,107-14. Brandis, V,, ‘Zwei Dichter aus Kyrene’, Phil. 146,2002,172-8.

Bibliography

82

Braswell, B. K. - Billerbeck, M., The Grammarian Epaphroditus. Testimonia and Fragments, Bern etc. 2007. Bremer, J. M . - Van E rp Taalman Kip, A. M . - S lin g s , S. R., Some Recently Found Greek Poems, Leiden 1987. Bremmer, J. N., Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Leiden-Boston 2008.

Brink, K. O., ‘Callimachus and Aristotle: An Inquiry into Callimachus IJpòc Πραζίφάνην, CQ 40,1946, 11-26. Brinkmann, A., ‘Kallimachos Kydippe’, RhM 72,1917-18,473-8. Brown, Μ. K., The Narratives ofKonon, München-Leipzig 2002. Bruneau, P., Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à Vépoque hellénistique et à l’époque impériale, Paris 1970. Bühler, W., Die Europa des Moschos, Wiesbaden 1960. Bulloch, A. W., ‘A Callimachean Refinement to the Greek Hexameter’, CQ 20,1970a, 258-68. ----- ‘A New Interpretation of a Fragment of Callimachus’ Aefi'a, Antinoopolis Papyrus 113 ff. 1 (6)’, CQ 20, 1970b, 269-76. ----- Callimachus: The Fifth Hymn, Cambridge 1985. ----- ‘The Order and Structure of Callimachus’ Aetia 3’, CQ 56, 2006,496-508. Bundy, E. L., ‘The “Quarrel Between Kallimachos and Apollonios” Part I: The Epilogue of Kallimachos’ Hymn to Apollo’, CSCA 5,1972, 39-94. Burkert, W„ Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, BerkeleyLos Angeles-London 1979. ----- Homo Necans, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1983 (= Homo Necans, BerlinNew York 1972). ----- Greek Religion, Oxford 1985 (= Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, Stuttgart 1977). ----- The Orientalizing Revolution, Cambridge, Mass., 1992 (= Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur, Heidelberg 1984). Burton, J., ‘The Function of the Symposium Theme in Theocritus Idyll 14’, GRES 33, 1992, 227—45. Buttmann, P., ‘Über die Fabel der Kydippe’, in Denkschriften der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, München 1823-4, 199-216 (= Mythologus, oder gesammelte Abhandlungen über die Sagen des Altertums 2, Berlin 1829, 115-44).

Cahen, E., Callimaque et son oeuvrepoétique, Paris 1929. ----- ‘Les Fragments de Callimaque récemment découverts et les Δ ιργη cete’, in Association G. Budé, Congrès de Nice (24-27 avril 1935). Actes du Congrès, Paris 1935α, 103—4. ----- ‘L’oeuvre poétique de Callimaque: Documents nouveaux’, REG 48, 19356, 279-321. ----- Hymnes, Epigrammes, Fragments, Paris 1922; 19402; I9493. Cairns, E, ‘Propertius i.18 and Callimachus, Acontius and Cydippe’, CR S3, 1969, 131-4.

Bibliography

83

----- Tibullus: A Hellenistic Poet at Rome, Cambridge 1979. ----- ‘Acontius and his όνομα κουρβιον: Callimachus Aetia ff. 67.1—4 Pf.’, CQ 52, 2002, 471-7. Cameron, A., Callimachus and his Critics, Princeton 1995. Capovilla, G., Callimaco 1 and 2, Roma 1967. Cappelletto, R, ‘Le tradizioni antiche sulla fondazione di Taranto e la testimonianza di Callimaco (fr. 617 e 613 Pf„ 240-1 SH)’, Sileno 20,1994,175-91. ----- ‘Le “dee offese” nel primo libro degli Aitia di Callimaco’, RIL 129,1995,211-32. Casanova, A., ‘Cent’anni di papiri callimachei’, in Bastianini-Casanova 2006, 1-13. Casevitz, M., Le Vocabulaire de la colonization en Grec ancien, Paris 1985. Cassio, A. C., ‘L’incipit della Chioma callimachea in Virgilio’, RFIC101,1973,329-32. Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton 1971. Castiglioni, L„ ‘Lingua e stile del “Dìeghetés” ’, in A. Vogliano (ed.), Papiri della R. Università di Milano 1, Milano 1937,146-54. Cataudella, Q„ ‘Il prologo degli Aitia e Gregorio Nazianzeno’, RFIC 56, 1928, 509-10 (= Intorno ai lirici greci. . ., Roma 1972, 237-9). ----- ‘Sui nuovi frammenti di scolli agli Aitia di Callimaco’, RFIC 62, 1934, 55-66 (= Intorno ai lirici greci. . . , Roma 1972, 245-59). ----- ‘Ancora del proemio degli Aitia’, A&R 3.11,1943,41-4. Cazzaniga, L, ‘A Callimaco fr. 100,4 Pfeiffer’, SCO 3,1953,9-13. Cessi, C., ‘Sugli Αίτια di Callimaco’, Aeg. 9,1928,97-105. Chamoux, R, Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades, Paris 1953. Chantraine, P., La Formation des mots en grec ancien, Paris 1933. ----- Grammaire Homérique, Paris 1948-53. CiREsoLA, T., ‘Le due redazioni della Chioma di Berenice di Callimaco’, RIL 9 1 ,1957α, 123-36. ----- ‘La Chioma di Berenice di Callimaco e la poesia etiologica’, RIL 91, 19576, 483-504. ----- ‘Gli scoli della Chioma di Berenice di Callimaco nel Papiro 2258 della raccolta di Ossirinco’, RIL 92, 1958, 269-85. Clarke, M. L., ‘The Hexameter in Greek Elegiacs’, CR 5 , 1955,18. Clausen, W., ‘Catullus and Callimachus’, HSCPh 74, 1970, 85-94 (= Skiadas 1975, 388—400). ----- Virgil’s Aeneid and the Tradition of Hellenistic Poetry, Berkeley-Los AngelesLondon 1987. Clayman, D. L., ‘The Origins of Greek Literary Criticism and the Aitia Prologue’, WS 11,1977,27-34. ----- Callimachus’ Iambi, Leiden 1980. ----- ‘Callimachus’ Iambi and Aitia’, ZPE 74,1988, 277-86. C l a y o t . N . , Les Aitia de Callimaque, Thèse de licence Univ. de Liege 1935-6 (RBPh 15, 1936,1241).* C lùa S e r e n a , J. A., ‘Comparative Notes on Minor Episodes from Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica and Callimachus’ Fragments’, Athenaeum 92, 2004, 493-7.

Bibliography

Bibliography

84

CoDRiGNANi, G., ‘L’“aition” nella poesia greca prima di Callimaco’,

Convivium 26,

1958, 527-45. M. L, ‘Aconzio e Cidippe in Callimaco e in Ovidio’, RCCM4,1962,294-303. C o lo n n a , A., ‘Mimnermo e Callimaco’, Athenaeum 30,1952,191-5. Colonna, G., ‘Apollon, 1es Étrusques et Lipara’, MEFRA 96,1984,557-78. ----- ‘Nuove prospettive sulla storia etrusca tra Alalia e Cuma’, in Secondo Congresso Internazionale Etrusco. Atti 1, Roma 1989, 361-74. C o m a n , J., Coma Berenices, Bucarest 1936α.* ----- L’art de Callimaque et de Catulle dans le poème La boucle de Bérénice ( Tip. Univers. 41), Bucarest 1936b.* C o p p o l a , G., ‘Callimachus senex’, RFIC 58,1930, 273-91. ----- ‘Il prologo degli Aitia ed il commento di Epaphroditos’, R.A.Bologna 3.7,

C o le tti,

1932-3, 30-55. ----- ‘Poeti e Telchini’, SIFC 10, 1933, 327-38. ----- Cirene e il nuovo Callimaco, Bologna 1935. C o r b a t o , C., Riprese Callimachee in Apollonio Rodio ( Univ. di Trieste, 1st. di Filai.

Class. 3), Trieste 1955. C o r d a n o , E , ‘Ecisti a banchetto’, C o r t e , E d e l l a , ‘Callimaco e i

PP 39,1984, 366-8. Peucezii: AIHTHCEIC V 26-31’, Aeg. 21, 1941,

276-82. T., ‘Aspetti intertestuali nelle polemiche letterarie degli antichi. . . ’, QUCC

C o z z o l i,

83,1996, 7-36. C r a n e , G., ‘Tithonus and the Prologue to Callimachus’ Aetia', ZPE 66, 1986,269-78. C r o w t h e r , N. B., ‘Water and Wine as Symbols of Inspiration’, Mnem. 32, 1979, 1- 11. C u r r ie ,

B„ ‘Euthymos of Locri: A Case Study in Heroization in the Classical Period’,

JHS 122, 2002, 24-44. V., Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece, Oxford 1993. D a v ie s , M. - K a t h i r i t h a m b y , ]., Greek Insects, Oxford 1986. D e c k e r , W., Sport in der griechischen Antike, München 1995. D e l a g e , E., La Géographìe dans les Argonautiques d’Apollonios de Rhodes, Bordeaux-

D a sen ,

Paris 1930. ----- La Polémique littéraire dans les nouveaux fragments de Callimaque’, REA 42, 1940,93-101. D. J„ The Greek Particles, Oxford 19542. D e o n n a , W., ‘Le Groupe des trois Graces nues’, RA 5.31,1930, 274-332. D e s r o u s s e a u x , A. M., ‘Callimachea’, REG 53,1940,145-62. D e t t o r i , E., ‘Appunti sul “Banchetto di Poliis” (Call. fr. 178 Pf.)’, in R. PretagostiniE. Detttori (edd.), La cultura ellenistica, Roma 2004, 33-63. D e u b n e r , L., Attische Feste, Berlin 1932. ----- ‘Der Pharmakos von Abdera’, SIFC 11,1934,185-92. ----- ‘Kallimachos, Ox.Pap. 2080,74’, Phil. 49,1942,26-8. D i e h l , E., ‘Quaestiones Callimacheae tres’, Acta Univ. Latviensis 14,1927, 3-22. D i e t z l e r , A., Die Akontios-Elegie des Kallimachos, Diss. Greifswald 1933.

D

e n n is t o n ,

85

D iller, H., ‘Zu Kallimachos’, Hermes 90,1962,119-21. Dilthey, C, De Callimachi Cydippa, Leipzig 1863. Dittrich, E., ‘Callimachi Aetiorum Librum I . . . ’, JKPh Suppi. Band. 23, 1897, 167-219.

Donohue, A. A., Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture, Atlanta 1988. Dougherty, C., The Poetics of Colonization: From City to Text in Archaic Greece, Oxford 1993.

Dover, K. J., Greek Homosexuality, London 1978. Dubielzig, U., ‘Wie Kallimachos seine Gegner bezeichnet hat’, RhM 138, 1995, 337—46.

Dunand, F., Le Culte d’Isis dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée, I. Le Culte d’Isis et les Ptolémées, Leiden 1973. Durbec, Y., ‘La Rhétorique Apollinienne chez Callimaque, Aitia, ff. 75, 22-37’, ZPE 151, 2005a, 49-50. ----- ‘Notes à la Victoire de Bérénice de Callimaque, SH 254-268C’, Eikasmos 16, 2005 h, 161-4. ----- “‘KYON, K Y O N ”: Lectures métapoétiques d’une apostrophe’, REG 118, 2005 c, 600-4. ----- ‘Le Rapt de la boucle: Callimaque fr. 110, 50-78 Pfeiffer’, Eranos 103, 2005d, 73-7. ----- Callimaque: Fragments poétiques. Origines, lambes, Hécalè. . . , Paris 2006α. ----- ‘Callimaque, Aitia ff. 260A SH: une nouvelle interprétation’, ZPE 157, 2006b, 43-5.

Ebert, J., Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen,

Berlin 1972. ----- ‘Callim.fr. 383, 8ss. Pf.’, MCr 15-17,1980-2,151-2. Edwards, W. M., ‘The Callimachus Prologue and Apollonius Rhodius’, CQ 24,1930, 109-12.

Effe, B., Dichtung und Lehre: Untersuchungen zur Typologie des antiken Lehrgedichts (Zetemata 69), München 1977. Ehlers, W., Die Gründung von Zankle in den Aitia des Kallimachos, Diss. Berlin 1933.

Eichgrün, Ε., Kallimachos und Apollonios Rhodios, Diss. Berlin 1961. Ekroth, G., The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Periods, Liège 2002. Eldik, E. H. van, ‘Observantur nonnulla super fragmentis Callimacheis . . . ’, in Suspicionum Specimen, Zutphaniae 1764, 21-6. Ellis, R., ‘Notes on the Fragments of Callimachus in Grenfell and Hunt’s Oxyrhynchus Papyri: Part VII, pp. 25 sqq.’, Hermathena 16,1911,116-20. Erbse, Η., ‘Homerscholien und hellenistische Glossare bei Apollonios Rhodios’, Hermes 81,1953,163-96. Ernesti, J. A., Callimachi hymni, epigrammata et fragmenta . . . , Lugduni Bat. 1761. Fabbrini, D., ‘Callimaco, SH 260A, 8 e le sorti di Molorco in Marziale, IV 64 e Stazio, Silvae III 1 . . SIFC 3, 2005, 195-222.

Bibliography

86

Bibliography

‘Il banchetto di Poliis’, in K. Fabian-E. Pellizer-G. Tedeschi ( e d d .) , OINHRA TEUXH. Studi Triesti di Poesia Conviviale, Alessandria 1991,131-66. ----- Callimaco Aitia II, Alessandria 1992. F a k a s , C., Der Hellenistische Hesiod, Wiesbaden 2001. F a l t e r , O., Der Dichter und sein Gott bei den Griechen und Römern, Diss. Würzburg

F a b ia n , K o

1934. M., Ricerche su Apollonio Rodio, Roma 1988. ----- ‘Ätiologie’, in Der Neue Pauly 1,1996, 369-71. F a n t u z z i , M. - H u n t e r , R., Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry, Cambridge 2004 (= a revised and extended edition of Fantuzzi, M.-Hunter, R., Muse e Modelli,

Fa n t u z z i,

The Cults of the Greek States, Oxford 1896-1909. F e r g u s o n , J., Callimachus, Boston 1980. F e r n a n d e z - G a l i a n o , E ., Léxico de los Himnos de Callimaco 1-4, Madrid 1976-80. ‘Callimaco e la sincerità di Conone’, in Martina-Cozzoli 2006, 229-39.

Skurrile Riten in griechischen Kulten, Diss. Freiburg i.Br. 1931. F l ü c k i g e r - G u g g e n h e i m , D., Göttliche Gäste. Die Einkehr von Göttern und Heroen in der griechischen Mythologie {Europäische Hochschulschriften 237), Bern-Frankfurt

F l u c k , H .,

a.M.-New York 1984. Fo n tenro se,

]., Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and its Origins, Berkeley-Los

Angeles-London 1959. ----- ‘The Hero as Athlete’, CSCA 1,1968, 73-104. ----- The Delphic Oracle, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1978. F o r d , A., The Origins of Criticism, Princeton-Oxford 2002. F o w l e r , R. L., ‘The Rhetoric of Desperation’, HSCPh 91,1987, 5-38. ----- Early Greek Mythography, 1. Texts, Oxford 2000. F r a n k e l , E „ ‘Kallimachos und Catuli. Zu dem neuesten Funde’, Gnomon 5, 1929, 265-8.

F r a n k e l , H., ‘Der homerische und der kallimachische Hexameter’, in

Gargiulo, T., ‘L’imagine della bilancia in Callimaco fr. 1, 9-10 Pfeiffer’, QUCC 71, 1992,123-8.

86-90.

Gassner, ]., Kataloge im römischen Epos, Diss. München 1972. Geffcken, J., Timaios’ Geographie des Westens, Berlin 1892. Geissler, C., ‘Der Tithonosmythos bei Sappho und Kallimachos: Zu Sappho ff. 58 V., 11-12 und Kallimachos, Aitia ff. 1 Pf.’, Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 8, 2005.105- 14.

Gelzer, T., ‘Kallimachos und das Zeremoniell des Ptolemäischen Königshauses’, in J. Stagi (ed.), Aspekte der Kultursoziologie, Berlin 1982,13-30. George, E. V., Aeneid VIII and the Aitia of Callimachus (Mnem. Suppi. 27), Leiden 1974.

Giangrande, G., ‘Das Dichten des Kallimachos im mittleren und hohen Alter’, Hermes 96,1968,710-25, esp. 716 ff. (= Skiadas 1975, 319-40, esp. 328 ff). ----- ‘Sotades, fragmento 16 Powell, y Calimaco, fragmento 75.4ss. Pfeiffer’, Habis 35, 2004.105-

8.*

Gierth, L., Griechische Gründungsgeschichten als Zeugnisse historischen Denkens . . . , Diss. Freiburg 1971.

Gieseking, K., Die Rahmenerzählung in Ovids Metamorphosen, Diss. Tübingen Wege und Forme

frühgriechischen Denkens, München I9602,100-56. ----- Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums, München 19622. ----- Noten zu den Argonautika des Apollonios, München 1968. F r a s e r , P. M„ Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford 1972. F r i e d l ä n d e r , R , ‘Retractationes’, Hermes 64, 1929, 376-84 ( = Studien zur antiken Literatur und Kunst, Berlin 1969,314—18). F r i s k , H., Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg 1960-72. F r u e c h t e l , L, ‘Die Peuketier bei Kallimachos’, PhW61, 1941,189-90. F ü h r e r , R ., Formproblem-Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der frühgriechischen Lyrik {Zetemata 44), München 1967. F ü h r e r , T.,‘A Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachus’, AJPh 109,1988,53-68. ----- Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Chorlyrikern in den Epinikien des Kallimachos, Basel 1992. C., TI prologo e l’epilogo degli Aitia', SIFC 10,1933,231-46. ----- ‘Epimetron Callimacheo’, SIFC 11, 1934, 81-96.

G a l l a v o t t i,

----- ‘Nuovi testi letterari da Ossirinco’, Aeg. 22,1942,107-16. ----- ‘Auctarium Oxyrrhynchium’, Aeg. 33,1953,159-71. ----- ‘Uno scultore inesistente e i Dattili idei in Callimaco’, RFIC 40,1962,294-6. ----- ‘Marginalia’, RFIC 93, 1965,146-9; 442-5. ----- ‘Un “Aition” di Callimaco e un’iscrizione di Olimpia’, in Studi in onore di Adelmo Barigazzi 1, Roma 1986, 215-23. Gallazzi, G. - Lehnus, L„ ‘Due nuovi frammenti delle Diegeseis', ZPE 137, 2001, 1-18.

Garulli, V., ‘Posidippo in Schol.Flor. Call. Aef. ff. 1 Pf (PSIXI 1219)’, ZPE 154,2005,

Roma-Bari 2002). F a r n e l l , L. R.,

F e r r a r o , V.,

87

1964.

Gigante, M., ‘Callimaco Aet. III ff. 67,3 Pfeiffer’, SIFC 84,1991,208-16. Gigante Lanzara, V., Callimaco, Inni, Chioma di Berenice, Milano 1984. Glare, P. G. W. - Thompson, A. A., Greek-English Lexicon: Revised Supplement, Oxford 1996.

Goldhill, S., ‘An Unnoticed Allusion in Theocritus and Callimachus’, ICS 12, 1987, 1- 6 .

Gómez

i Cardò, R, ‘La ca^a de Motore (Callimac, fr. 177 Pf.)’, in J. ZaragozaA. Gonzales Senmarti (edd.), Homenatge a J. Alsina. . . , Tarragona 1992,1,191-7.* Gomme, A. W. - Andrewes, A. - Dover, K. ]., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides IV, Oxford 1970. Gow, A. S. F. - Page, D. L., Hellenistic Epigrams, Cambridge 1965. ----------- , The Garland of Philip, Cambridge 1968.

Graevius, T„ Callimachi hymni, epigrammata et fragmenta, Ultrajecti 1697. Grap, F., Nordionische Kulte, Roma 1985. Graham, A. J., Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, Manchester 1964.

Bibliography

88

Graindor, R, ‘Akontios et Kydippè. Nouveau fragment de Callimaque’, Musée Beige 15,1911,49-64.

Grenfell, B. R - Hunt, A. S., ‘14. Elegiacs’, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1, London 1898,37-8.

------------- , ‘1362. Callimachus, Aetia’, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 11, London 1915,

83-90. Griffiths, R T., Theocritus at Court, Leiden 1979. Gronewald, M., ‘Hellenistische Elegie: Kallimachos? POxy. 14 + PMich. Inv. 4761c’, ZEE 15,1974,105-16. ----- ‘Kallimachos, Aitia Fr. 7? (PBerol. Inv. Nr. 17057)’, ZPE 44,1981,179-80. ----- ‘Kallimachos, Aitia fr. 64,10 Pf.’, ZPE 157,2006,46. Gunning, R G., De Ceorum fabulis antiquissimis quaestiones selectae I, Diss. Amster­ dam 1912.

Gutzwiller, K., ‘Callimachus’ Lock of Berenice: Fantasy, Romance and Propaganda’, AJPh 113,1992,359-85. ----- ‘Callimachus and Hedylus: A Note on Catullus 66.13-14’, Mnem. 4.46, 1993, 530-31. ----- Poetic Garlands, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1998. Hall, J. M., Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge 1997. Hamdorf, F., Griechische Kultpersonifikationen der vorhellenistischen Zeit, Mainz 1964.

Hammond, N. G. L., Epirus, Oxford 1967. Handschnur, E., Die Färb- und Glanzwörter bei Homer. . . , Wien 1970. Hanell, K., Megarische Studien, Lund 1934. Hansen, R - Gorm Tortzen, C., ‘Berenikes Plokamos— Coma Berenices', MT2Q, 1973, 29-54.

Harder, Μ. A., Euripides’ Kresphontes and Archelaos, Leiden 1985. ----- ‘Some Thoughts about Callimachus SH239 and 253’, ZPE67,1987, 21-30. ----- ‘Callimachus and the Muses’, Prom. 14,1988,1-14. ----- ‘Politian and the Fragments of Callimachus’, Studi Umanistici Piceni 9, 1989, 77-83 (= Res Publica Litterarum 12, 1989, 77-83). ----- ‘Untrodden Paths: Where do they Lead?’ HSCPh 93,1990, 287-309. ----- ‘Insubstantial Voices’, CQ 42,1992, 384-94. ----- ‘Between “Prologue” and “Dream” (Call. if. la, 19 ff.)’, ZPE 96, 1993«, 11-13. ----- ‘Thanks to Aristaenetus . . . ’, in H. Hokwerda-E. R. Smits-M. M. Woesthuis (edd.), Polyphonia Byzantina: Studies in Honour of Willem J. Aerts, Groningen

1993b, 3-13.

----- ‘Aspects of the Structure of Callimachus’ Aetia', in M. A. Harder-R. F. RegtuitG. C. Wakker (edd.), Callimachus (Hellenistica Groningana 1), Groningen 1993c; 99-110. ----- ‘Travel Descriptions in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius’, in Z. von Martels (ed.), Travel Fact and Travel Fiction, Leiden 1994,16-29. ----- ‘“Generic games” in Callimachus’ Aetia’, in M. A. Harder-R. F. Regtuit-

Bibliography

89

G. C. Wakker (edd.), Genre in Hellenistic Poetry (Hellenistica Groningana 3), Groningen 1998, 95-113. ----- Tntertextuality in Callimachus’ Aetia’, F. Montanari-L. Lehnus (edd.), Cal­ limaque, Vandoeuvres-Genève, 2002«, 189-233. ----- ‘Wie ben ik? Rol en masker in Callimachus’ Aetia en Iambi’, Lampas 35, 20026, 399-416. ----- Review of Cameron 1995, in Mnem. IV 55,2002c, 599-608. ----- ‘Allowed to Speak . . . The Use of Direct Speech in Callimachus’ Hymns and Aetia’, Hermathena 173-4,2002-3,49-60. ----- ‘The Invention of Past, Present and Future in Callimachus’ Aetia', Hermes 131, 2003,290-306. ----- ‘Narrators, Narratees and Narrative in Callimachus’, in I. J. F. de JongR. Niinlist-A. Bowie (edd.), Narrators, Narratees and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature, Leiden 2004,63-81. ----- ‘Callimachus’, in I. J. F. de Jong-R. Nünlist (edd.), Time in Ancient Greek Literature, Leiden-Boston 2007a, 81-96. ----- ‘To Teach or not to Teach?’, in M. A. Harder-A. A. MacDonald-G. J. Reinink (edd.), Calliope’s Classroom, Paris-Leuven-Dudley, Mass. 20076, 23-48. Harriott, R, Poetry and Criticism before Plato, London 1969. Hauben, Η., ‘Arsinoé II et la politique extérieure de l’Egypte’, in E. van ’t Dack-R van Dressel-W. van Gucht (edd.), Egypt and the Hellenistic World (Proceedings of the International Colloquium Leuven 24-26 May 1982) (Studia Hellenistica 27), Lovanii 1983,99-127.

Häussler, R., Das historische Epos der Griechen und Römer, Heidelberg 1976-78. Hazzard, R. A., Imagination of a Monarchy, Toronto-Buffalo-London 2000. Hecker, A., Commentationes Callimacheae, Groningae 1842. ----- Commentatio Critica de Anthologia Graeca, Lugduni Bat. 1843. Hemberg, B., Die Kabiren, Uppsala 1950. Henrichs, A., ‘Kallimachos Fr. 17,8-10 und 18,8 Pf. (PMich. Inv. 3688)’, ZPE 4,1969,

23-30. ----- ‘Die beiden Gaben des Dionysos’, ZPE 16,1975n, 139—44. ----- ‘Philodem “De Pietate” als mythographische Quelle’, CronErc. 5, 19756, 5-38. ----- ‘Zur Meropis: Herakles’ Löwenfell und Athena’s zweite Haut’, ZPE 27, 1977, 69-75.

----- ‘Three Approaches to Greek Mythography’, in J. Bremmer (ed.), Interpretations of Greek Mythology, London-Sydney 1987, 242-77. Herescu, N. I., ‘Catulle traducteur du Grec et les Parfüms de Bérénice’, Eranos 55, 1957,153-70. Herter, H., ‘Telchines’, in REV2, 1934,197-224. ■ -----‘Bericht über die Literatur zur hellenistischen Dichtung aus den Jahren 19211935’, Bursians Jahresberichte 255,1937, 65-217. ----- Ovids Kunstprinzip in den Metamorphosen', AJPh 69,1948,129-48. ----- ‘Callimachus. Edidit Rudolfus Pfeiffer. . . ’, Gnomon 26,1954, 74-80. -----‘Die Haaröle der Berenike’, in Medizingeschichte in unserer Zeit. Festgabe . ..

Bibliography

90

E. Heischkel und W. Artelt. . . , Stuttgart 1971, 54-68 (= Kleine Schriften, München 1975,417-32 = Skiadas 1975,186-206). ----- ‘Kallimachos aus Kyrene’, in RE Suppl. 13,1973,184-266. Hertzberg, W. A. B., ‘Über die Anordnung von Kallimachos Aetia’, Zeitschriftfür die Alterthumswissenschaft ns 5,1847,133-6. Herzog, R., ‘Zum Schluss der Aitia’, BPhW 31,1911, 29-30. Hirzel, R., Der Eid, Leipzig 1902 (repr. New York 1979). G ., Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Grossen bis zur römischen Eroberung, Darmstadt 1994. Hollis, A. S., ‘Two Notes on Callimachus’, CR 22,1972, 5. ----- ‘Callimachus Aetia fr. 1,9-12’, CQ 28,1978,402-6. ----- ‘Teuthis and Callimachus. Aetia Book Γ, CQ 32,1982,117-20. ----- ‘The Composition of Callimachus’ Aetia in the Light of POxy. 2258’, CQ 36,

H

ölbl,

1986,467-71. ----- Callimachus Hecale, Oxford 1990«. ----- ‘Epops in the Erchian Sacred Calendar and the Aetia of Callimachus’, in E. M. Craik (ed.), Owls to Athens. Essays on Classical Subjects presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, Oxford 1990b, 127-30. ----- ‘Callimachus Aetia Fr.75, 58-59 Pf.’, ZPE 86,1991a, 11-13. ----- Ovid, Heroides 21,229-30 and Callimachus, ff. 67,3—4’, LCM 16.6,1991b, 90-1. ----- ‘The Nuptial Rite in Catullus 66 and Callimachus’ Poetry for Berenice’, ZPE 91, 1992a, 21-8. ----- ‘Teuthis in Callimachus’ Aetia (PMich. Inv. 6235), ZPE 92,1992b, 115-17. ----- ‘Attica in Hellenistic Poetry’, ZPE 93, 1992c, 1-15. ----- ‘Callimachus: Light from Later Antiquity’, in F. Montanari-L. Lehnus (edd.), Callimaque, Vandoeuvres-Genève 2002,35—57. Holmes, L., ‘Myrrh and Unguents in the Coma Berenices’, CPh 87,1992,47-50. Hopkinson, N., Hymn to Demeter, Cambridge 1984. ----- A Hellenistic Anthology, Cambridge 1988. Housman, A. E„ ‘Αίτια Καλλίμαχον {Pap.Ox. VII, p. 24-7)’, BPhW 30, 1910a, 476-7. ----- On the Aetia of Callimachus’, CQ 4 ,1910b, 114-20. Howald, E. - Staiger, E., Die Dichtungen des Kallimachos, Zürich 1955. Huber, G., Lebensschilderung und Kleinmalerei im hellenistischen Epos, Soloturn 1926.

Hughes, D. D., Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece, London-New York 1991. Hunger, Η., ‘Palimpsest-Fragmente aus Herodians Καθολική Προοωώία, Buch 5-7, Cod. Vindob. Hist. gr. 10’, JöBG 16,1967,1-33. Hunt, A. S., ‘Zur Kydippe des Kallimachos’, BPhW 30,1910a, 573—4. ----- ‘1011. Callimachus, Aetia and lambi’, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 7, London 1910b, 15-82. ----- ‘13. Epic Fragment’, in Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester 1, Manchester-London 1911,22-3. ----- ‘2079. 2080’, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 17, London 1927,45-72.

Bibliography

91

----- ‘A Note on the New Callimachus’, CR 42,1928,6. Hunter, R. L., ‘Winged Callimachus’, ZPE 76, 1989,1-2. ----- The Argonautica ofApollonius: Literary Studies, Cambridge 1993a. ----- ‘Callimachean Echoes in Catullus 65’, ZPE 96,1993b, 179-82. ----- ‘Callimachus Swings (frr. 178 and 43 Pf.)’, Ramus 25, 1996,18-26. ----- ‘The Poet Unleaved: Simonides and Callimachus’, in Boedeker-Sider 2001, 242-54. ----- Theocritus: Encomium of Ptolemy Philadelphus, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 2003. ----- ‘Sweet Nothings—Callimachus fr. 1, 9-12 Revisited’, in Bastianini-Casanova 2006a, 119-31. ----- The Shadow of Callimachus, Cambridge 2006b. Huss, W., Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit, München 2001. Hutchinson, G. Q, Hellenistic Poetry, Oxford 1988. ----- ‘The Aetia: Callimachus’ Poem of Knowledge’, ZPE 145, 2003,47-59. Huxley, G., ‘Xenomedes of Keos’, GRBS 6,1965,235-45. ----- ‘Two Notes on Hellenistic Poems’, GRBS 13,1972, 309-15. ----- ‘Arsinoe Lokris’, GRBS 21,1980a, 239-44. ----- ‘Bovrrópoc Apcivópc , JHS 100, 1980b, 189-90. Huys, M., Het verhaal van het te vondeling gelegde heldenkind in de tragedie van Euripides: een motievenstudie, Leuven 1988. Ian, F. de, De Callimacho Homeri interprete, Argentorati 1893. Iannucci, A., ‘Callimaco e la “discordia” degli ecisti di Zancle (Call. Aet. 2,43,73 Pf. = P.Oxy. 2080 coi. 2, 73)’, Sileno 24,1998, 173-9. ----- ‘Callimaco, Anacreonte e il “bere vino” (Callim. Aet. ff. 178, 11 s. Pf.; Anacr. fr. 56 Gent. = 2 W2)’, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Filologia . . . A. Rostagni, Bologna 1999,131-40.* Jackson, S., ‘Callimachus, Ister and a Scapegoat’, LCM 19,1994-7,132-5. ----- ‘Callimachus, Istrus and the Statue of Delian Apollo’, ZPE 110,1996,43-8. ----- ‘Callimachus: Coma Berenices: Origins’, Mnem. 4.54,2001,1-9. Jaillard, D., ‘A propos du fragment 35 de Callimaque’, ZPE 132,2000,143-4. Jockl, R., ‘Zu den “Aitia” des Kallimachos und dem ersten Gedicht des Bakchylides’, WS 37, 1915, 142-56. Jong, I. J. F. de, Narrators and Focalizers, Amsterdam 1987. Jost, M., Sanctuaires et Cultes d’Arcadie, Paris 1985. Kaesser, C, ‘Callimachus, fr. 1 Pf. on the Meaning of Song’, ZPE 150, 2004, 39-42. ----- ‘The Poet and the “Polis”: The Aefia as Didactic Poem’, in M. Horster-C. Reitz (edd.), Wissensvermittlung in dichterischer Gestalt, Stuttgart 2005,95-114. Kakridis, J. T„ ‘Zum neuen Kallimachos’, PhW 48,1928, 1214—15. ----- ‘JVeoc πάπvpoc τού Καλλίμαχου’, Hellenica 2, 1928—9, 201—3.* Kalinka, E., ‘Arsinoe in der Locke der Berenike’, AAWW 66, 1929, 267-9. -----Review of Ehlers 1933, in PhW 54, 1934,1219-20. ----- ‘Rudolf Pfeiffer: Die neuen Δ IHFHCEIC zu Kallimachosgedichten’, PhW 56, 1936,711-12.

Bibliography

92

Kambylis, A., Die Dichterweihe und ihre Symbolik, Heidelberg 1965. Kapp, I., ‘Callimachea’, Phil. 84,1929,173-8. Kappel, L, Paian, Berlin-New York 1992. Kapsomenos, S. G., ‘Zum Papyrus der AIHFHCEIC zu Gedichten des Kallimachos’, Byz.-Neugriech. Jahrbücher 16,1940,1-32. Kassel, R., ‘Kleinigkeiten zu den Kallimachos-Fragmenten’, RhM 101,1958,235-8. ----- ‘Nachtrag zum neuen Kallimachos’, ZPE 25,1977, 51. ----- ‘Dialoge mit Statuen’, ZPE 51,1983,1-12 (= Kleine Schriften, Berlin-New York 1991,140-53).

Kearns, E., The Heroes ofAttica, London 1989. Kegel, W. J. H. F„ Simonides, Groningen 1961. Keller, O., Die Antike Tierwelt 1-2, Leipzig 1909-13. Kenney, E. J., ‘Vergil and the Elegiac Sensibility’, ICS 8,1983,44-59. K e r k h e c k e r , A., ‘Ein Musenanruf am Anfang der Aitia des Kallimachos’, ZPE 71, 1988,16-24. ----- ‘Minima Callimachea’, ZPE 111,1996,26. ----- Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, Oxford 1999.

Kbyssner, Κ., Gottesvorstellung und Lebensauffassung im griechischen Hymnus, Stuttgart 1932.

Kidd, D. A., ‘Some Problems in Catullus LXVI’, Antichthon 4,1970,38-49. King, H., ‘Bound to Bleed: Artemis and Greek Women’, in A. Cameron-A. Kuhrt (edd.), Images of Women in Antiquity, London-Sydney 1983,109-27. Klein, T. M., ‘Callimachus’ Two Aetia Prologues’, ZAnt 26,1976, 357-61. Knaack, G., Analecta Alexandrino-Romana, Diss. Gryphswaldiae 1880. ----- ‘Zu den Aitien des Kallimachos’, Hermes IS, 1888,131—41 and 319-20. ----- ‘Notes on the New Callimachus and Menander’, CR 27,1913,120-1. Knox, P. E., ‘Wine, Water and Callimachean Polemics’, HSCPh 89,1985a, 107-19. ----- ‘The Epilogue to the Aetia', GRBS 2 6 ,1985 b, 59-65. ----- ‘The Epilogue to the Aetia: An Epilogue’, ZPE 96,1993,175-8. Koenen, L., ‘Ägyptische Königsideologie am Ptolemäerhof’, in E. van’t Dack-P. van Dessel-W. van Gucht (edd.), Egypt and the Hellenistic World (Proceedings of the International Colloquium Leuven 24-26 May 1982) (Studia Hellenistica 27), Lovanii 1983,143-90. ----- ‘Corrections to D. L. dayman “Callimachus. Iambi and Aitia” (ZPE 74, 1988, 277-86)’, ZPE 77, 1989, 292. ----- ‘The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure’, in A. W. Bulloch et al. (edd.), Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley 1993, 25-115.

Koenen, L. - Luppe, W. - PagXn , V., ‘Explanations of Callimachean αίτια , ZPE 88, 1991,157-64. --------------------, ‘Corrigendum’, ZPE 91, 1992,60. Köhnken, A., ‘Schlusspointe und Selbstdistanz bei Kallimachos’, Hermes 101, 1973, 425-41. ----- ‘Hellenistic Chronology: Theocritus, Callimachus and Apollonius’, in T. D.

Bibliography

93

Papanghelis-A. Rengakos (edd.), A Companion to Apollonius Rhodius, Leiden 2001, 73-92. ----- ‘Apoll-Aitien bei Kallimachos und Apollonios’, in D. Accorinti-P. Chuvin (edd.), Des Géants à Dionysos. Mélanges offerts à F. Vian, Alessandria 2003, 207-13.

Körte, A., ‘Literarische Texte mit Ausschluss der Christlichen’, APE 5, 1913, 531-72 (esp. 543-6). ----- ‘Zu attischen Dionysos-Festen’, RhM 71,1916, 575-9. ----- ‘Literarische Texte mit Ausschluss der Christlichen’, APF 7, 1924, 114-60

(esp. 120-1). ----- ‘Ein neuer Kallimachosfund’, F&F 4,1928, 318-19. ----- ‘Literarische Texte mit Ausschluss der Christlichen’, APF 10, 1932, 19-70 (esp. 30-41). ----- ‘Literarische Texte mit Ausschluss der Christlichen’, APF 11, 1935«, 220-83 (esp. 225-36). ----- 'Κ Α Λ Λ ΙΜ Α Χ Ο Y AIH TH C EIC , Hermes 70,1935b, 120. ----- ‘Literarische Texte mit Ausschluss der Christlichen’, APF 19, 1939, 78-132 (esp, 87-9).

Körte, A. - Händel, R, Die hellenistische Dichtung, Stuttgart I9602. Koster, S., Antike Epostheorien, Wiesbaden 1970. Kranz, W., ‘Sphragis’, RhM ns 104,1961, 3-46 and 97-124. Krevans, N., The Poet as Editor, Diss. Princeton 1984. ----- ‘POxy. 2258 B Fr. 2: A Scholion to Callimachus’ Victoria Berenices!’, ZPE 65, 1986,37-8.

----- ‘Invocation’ at the End of the Aetia Prologue’, ZPE 89,1991,19-23. ----- ‘Fighting against Antimachus: The Lyde and the Aetia Reconsidered’, in M. A. Harder-R. F. Regtuit-G. C. Wakker (edd.), Callimachus (Hellenistica Groningana 1), Groningen 1993,149-60. ----- ‘Callimachus and the Pedestrian Muse’, in M. A. Harder-R. F. Regtuit-G. C. Wakker (edd.), Callimachus II (Hellenistica Groningana 7), Leuven-Paris-Dudley, Mass. 2004,173-83.

Kühner, R. - Gerth, B„ Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, II. Satzlehre, Hannover-Leipzig 1898-1904.

Kuhlmann, P„ ‘Akontios und Kydippe bei Kallimachos (67-75 Pf.2) und Ovid (epist. 20-21): Eine romantische Liebesgeschichte?’, Gymn. 112, 2005,19-44. K u i p e r , W, ‘Uit Kallimachos’ ouderdom’, Hermeneus 1,1928-9, 82. ----- ‘De Callimachi fragmento nuperrime reperto’, SIFC 7,1929,127-9. Lange, G., De Callimachi Aetiis, Lipsiae 1882. Lapp, E, De Callimachi Cyrenaei tropis etfiguris, Bonn 1965. Larson, J., Greek Nymphs, Oxford 2001. Lattimore, R., Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs, Urbana 1962. L a u m o n ie r , A ., Les Cultes indigènes en Carie, P a r is 1 9 5 8 . Lavagnini, B., La chioma di Berenice, Pisa 1929.* ----- ‘Callimaco e la chiusa degli “Aitia”’, SIFC 12,1935,111-18.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Lee, G. Μ., ‘Callimachus’ Coma Berenices (Catullus LXVI, 57-8)’, Ziva Antika 22,

----- ‘La polivalenza simbolica dell’opposizione asino/cicala nel prologo degli Aitia di Callimaco (fr. 1. 29 ss. Pf )’, Sem.Rom. 4,2001, 245-52. Lenchantin, M., ‘Catullo e la Chioma di Berenice di Callimaco’, S1FC 7, 1929, 113-26.

94

1972,98.

Lefkowitz, M. R., The Lives of the Greek Poets, Baltimore 1981. Legrand, P.-E., ‘Notes alexandrines, 1: Sur Γ élégie’, REA 13,1911, 1-32. Lehmann-Hartleben, K., Die antiken Hafenanlagen des Mittelmeeres (Klio Beiheft 14), Wiesbaden 1923 (repr. Aalen 1963).

Lehnus, L., ‘Pindaro Fr. 168 (b) Snell-Maehler e Callimaco Victoria Berenices Fr. B II 24 Livrea’, Anagennesis 1,1981, 249-52. ----- ‘Minima Maasiana’, Maia 38 ( n s 3), 1986, 249-52. ----- Bibliografia Callimachea 1489-1988, Genova 1989. ----- ‘Callimaco Suppi. Hell. 252, 2’, ZPE 8 0 ,1990a, 16. ----- ‘Notizie Callimachee Γ, RFIC118,1990b, 26-32. ----- ‘Notizie Callimachee IV, Paideia 45, 1990c, 277-92. ----- ‘Callimaco Fr. 1, 7 Pf.’, ZPE 86,1991a, 9-10. ----- ‘Callimaco Redivivo tra Th. Stanley e R. Bentley’, Eikasmos 2 ,1991b, 285—309. ----- ‘Callimaco fr. 1, 5 Pf.’, ZPE 89,1991c, 24. ----- ‘Ancora su Callimaco P. Mich. inv. 6235’, ZPE 91, 1992,20. ----- T due Dionisi (PSI 1219 ff. 1, 3-4)’, ZPE 97, 1993a, 25-8. ----- ‘Callimaco tra la polis e il regno’, in G. Cambiano-L. Canfora-D. Lanza (edd.), Lo Spazio letterario della Grecia Antica 12, Roma 1993b, 75-105. ----- ‘Epafrodito fr. 27 L., Erodoro e Callimaco’, Sileno 20,1994, 369-73. ----- ‘Riflessioni cronologiche sull’ultimo Callimaco’, ZPE 105,1995a, 6-12. ----- ‘Callimaco fr. 76 Pf. tra E. A. Barber e Paul Maas’, Acme 48.3, 1995 b, 155-8. ----- ‘Notizie Callimachee ΙΙΓ, Acme 49,1996,145-9. ----- ‘Verso una nuova edizione dei frammenti di Callimaco’, in R. Pretagostini (ed.), La Letteratura Ellenistica, Roma 1998,21—44. ----- Nuova bibliografia callimachea (1489-1998), Alessandria 2000α. ----- ‘Notizie Callimachee IV’, in M. Cannatà Fera-S. Grandolini (edd.), Poesia e religione in Grecia. Studi in onore di G. Aurelio Privitera II, Perugia-Napoli 2000b, 379-84. ----- ‘Notizie Callimachee V’, Acme 54, 2001,283-91. ----- ‘Posidippean and Callimachean Queries’, ZPE 138,2002α, 11-13. ----- ‘Callimaco primo e dopo Pfeiffer’, in F. Montanari-L. Lehnus (edd.), Callimaque, Vandoeuvres-Genève 2002b, 1-33. ----- ‘Two Notes on Callimachean Fragments’, ZPE 142,2003, 31-3. ----- ‘A Callimachean Medley’, ZPE 147, 2004α, 27-32. ----- ‘Argo, Argolide e la storiografia locale in Callimaco’, in P. A. Bernardini (ed.),

La città di Argo, Roma 2004b, 201-9. ----- ‘Contributi inediti di Paul Maas al testo di Callimaco: un rapporto preliminare’, in R. Pretagostini-E. Detttori (edd.), La cultura ellenistica, Roma 2004c, 425-36. ----- ‘Prima e dopo al κατά λεπτόν, in Bastianini-Casanova 2006α, 133-47. ----- ‘Nota sulle osservazioni di Lobel a Vitelli a proposito delle Diegeseis', QS 63, 2006b, 213-19.

Lelli, E„ ‘Callimaco, Aitia fr. 1. 3—4 Pf.’, Sem.Rom. 3, 2000,73-6.

95

----- ‘Ribruscola Callimachea’, Athenaeum 23, 1935, 101-12. Leo, F., ‘Zur Kydippe des Kallimachos’, NGG 1910, 56-60. Leschhorn, W., Gründer der Stadt, Stuttgart 1984. Leumann, M„ Homerische Wörter, Basel 1950 (repr. Darmstadt 1993). L évèque , R , ‘Les Poètes alexandrines et Rome’, IH 22,1960, 47-52. Lightfoot, J., Parthenius of Nicaea, Oxford 1999. L ilja , S., The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity, Helsinki-Helsingfors

1972. ----- Dogs in Ancient Greek Poetry, Helsinki 1976. Livrea, E., ‘Nota al nuovo Callimaco di Lille’, ZPE 32,1978, 7-10. ----- ‘Der Liller Kallimachos und die Mausefallen’, ZPE 34,1979α, 37-42. ----- ‘Teuthis once again’, ZPE 34,1979b, 43-5. ----- ‘Callimachi fragmentum de muscipulis (177 Pf.)’, Papyrologia Florentina 7, 1980α, 135-40. ----- ‘Polittico Callimacheo: Contributi al testo della Victoria Berenices', ZPE 40, 1980b, 21-6. ----- (et al.), ‘Il nuovo Callimaco di Lille’, Maia 3 2,1980c, 225-53. ----- T cavalli di Berenice’, in Studi. . . A. Colonna, Perugia 1982,199-202. ----- ‘Supplementum Hellenisticum. Edd. Lloyd-Jones/Parsons’, Gnomon 57, 1985, 592-601. ----- ‘Callimaco e la Beozia’, ZPE 67, 1987,31-41. ----- ‘POxy. 2463: Lycophron and Callimachus’, CQ 39, 1989,141-7. ----- Studia Hellenistica 1, Firenze 1991. ----- ‘Callimaco e gli anelli dei Cabiri’, ZPE 101,1994, 33-7. ----- ‘Callimaco, fr. 114 Pf., il Somnium ed il Prologo degli Aitia’, Hermes 123, 1995, 47-62. ----- ‘Callimaco e gli asini’, SIFC 3a.l4,1996,56-8. ----- ‘Callimachus Senex, Cercidas Senex ed i loro critici’, ZPE 119,1997,37—42. ----- ‘Callimaco e gli Iperborei a Deio’, ZPE 120,1998α, 23-27. ----- ‘Callimaco: tre nuovi frammenti?’, ZPE 120,1998b, 28-34. ----- ‘La tomba di Simonide da Callimaco a S. Saba’, ZPE 156,2006α, 53-7. ----- ‘Un’eco Callimachea in Giovenale’, ZPE 156, 2006b, 58-9. ----- ‘Il mito argonautico in Callimaco: L’episodio di Anafe’, in Bastianini-Casanova 2006c, 89-99. Lloyd-Jones, H., ‘Callimachus fr. 30 Pf.’, Gioita 41,1963a, 68-70. ----- ‘The seal of Posidippus’, JHS 83,1963b, 75-99. ----- ‘POxy. 14 + PMich. inv. 4761: A Fragment of Callimachus, Aitia', ZPE 2 6 ,1977α, 55-6. ----- ‘Callimachus fr. 46; An Addendum to PSorbonne Inv. 2248’, ZPE 26, 1977b, 57-8.

Bibliography

Bibliography

----- Supplementum Supplementi Hellenistici, Berlin-New York 2005. Η. - P a r s o n s , P. ]., Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin-New York

McLennan, G. R., ‘The metrical form of the hexameter in Callimachus’, QUCC 17,

96 L l o y d -J o n e s ,

1983. E., ‘Callimachea’, Hermes 70,1935, 31-45. ----- ‘2167. 2168. 2169. 2170. 2173’, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 18, London 1941,

Lobel,

47-56 and 66-7. ----- ‘2208. 2209. 2210. 2211. 2212. 2213. 2214. Additions and Corrections [to 2079. 2080. 2167. 2212. 2213]’, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 19, London 1948, 1-38 and 144-9. ----- ‘2258. 2260. 2261. 2262. 2263’, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 20, London 1952,

1974,63-5. ----- Hymn to Zeus, Roma 1977. M c N a m e e , K., ‘The Long and the Short of Callimachus Aetia fr. 1, 9-12’, BASP 19, 1982, 83-6.

Macurdy, G. H„ Hellenistic Queens, Baltimore 1932 (repr. Chicago 1985). Maehler, H., Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum bis zur Zeit Pindars (Hypomnemata 3), Göttingen 1963. ----- Die Lieder des Bakchylides, 1. I-II. Die Siegeslieder, Leiden-New York-Köln 1982 (repr. 1997).

Magnani, M., ‘Callim. Aet. III fr. 64, 9 s. Pf. e la Sylloge Simonidea', ZPE 159, 2007,

69-129. Lo c h n e r -H L o e h r , }.,

97

üttenbach,

E, Die Pelasger, Wien 1960.

Ovids Mehrfacherklärungen in der Tradition aitiologischen Dichtens,

Stuttgart-Leipzig 1996. L o h s e , e . , ‘Die Kunstauffassung im VII. Idyll Theokrits und das Programm des Kaliimachos’, Hermes 94,1966, 413-25. ----- ‘Der Aitienprolog des Kaliimachos als Reproduktion der Wirklichkeit’, A&A 19, 1973,20-43.

L o m b a r d o , S. - R a y o r , D.,

Callimachus: Hymns, Epigrams, Select Fragments, Baltimore

1988.

Lopez Caballero, J. A., ‘Los Aitia de Calimaco y la logografia jonia’, in Actas del VIII congreso espaftol de estudios cldsicos 2, Madrid 1994,101-6.* L o r a u x , N., The Invention of Athens, Cambridge, Mass. 1986. L u p p e , W., ‘Zum Anfang des Liller Kaliimachos’, ZPE 29,1978α, 36. ----- ‘OòSelc eiSev άματροχιάο (Kaliimachos Fr. 383.10 Pf.)’, ZPE 31, 1978b, 43—4. ----- ‘Kaliimachos, Aitien-Prolog V.7-12’, ZPE 115,1997,50-4. L u p p i n o , A., ‘Esegesi Catulliana e Callimachea’, RFIC 36,1958, 337-49. L u z z a t t o , M. ]., Tzetzes lettore di Tucidide. Note autografe sul Codice Heidelberg Palatino Greco 252, Bari 1999. L y n e , R. O. A. M., Ciris: A Poem attributed to Vergil, Cambridge 1978. L y n n , J. K., Narrators and Narration in Callimachus, Diss. New York 1995, M a a s , R, ‘Callimachea’, Hermes 60, 1925, 259 (= Kleine Schriften, München 1973, 84-5). ----- ‘The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Part XVII’, DLZtg 49,1928,128-31. ----- ‘Neue Papyri von Kaliimachos Α ίτια , Gnomon 10,1934α, 162-5. ----- ‘Διηγήοίΐο di poemi di Callimaco . . . a cura di M. Norsa e G. Vitelli’, Gnomon 10,19346,436-9. ----- ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, JHS 55,1935, 261. ----- ‘Διηγψ ΐΐο di poemi di Callimaco. Excursus Ι-ΙΙΓ, in A. Vogliano (ed.), Papiri della R. Università di Milano 1,1937,155-71. ----- ‘IJpoLKioc, Aeg. 31,1951, 313-16. ----- ‘Hephthemimeres im Hexameter des Kaliimachos’, in Festschrift . .. B. Snell München 1956,23—4 (= Kleine Schriften, München 1973,92-3). ----- Greek Metre, Oxford 1962.

13-22.

Magnelli, E., Review of Fabian 1992, in RFIC 122,1994,473-82. ----- ‘Spigolature Callimachee’, A&R 4 0 ,1995a, 102-9. ----- ‘Le norme del secondo piede dell’esametro nei poeti ellenistici e il comporta­ mento della “parola metrica” ’, MD 35,19956,135-64. ----- Review of Massimilla 1996, in RFIC125,1997,445-59. ----- ‘Quelle bestie dei Telchini’, ZPE 127,1999, 52-8. ----- ‘Callimaco, SH 260A.10: un Eracle (quasi) Euripideo?’, ZPE 143, 2003, 37-8. ----- ‘Callimaco, fr. 75 Pf., e la tecnica narrativa dell’elegia ellenistica’, in A. KoldeA. Lukinovich-L. Rey (edd.), Κορυφαίωι àvhpl. Mélanges offerts à André Hurst, Genève 2005,203-12. ----- ‘Callimaco fr. 63 Pf: ambiguità sintattiche e autenticità’, in Bastianini-Casanova 2006,47-55.

Mainoldi, C., L’Image du loup et du chien dans la Grèce ancienne, d’Homère à Platon, Paris 1984.

Mair, A. W. - Mair, G. R., Callimachus and Lycophron; Aratus, London-New York 1921.

Malkin, L, Religion and Colonisation in Ancient Greece (SGRR 3), Leiden 1987. ----- ‘Ein neues Bruchstück aus den Aitia des Kaliimachos’, Hermes 53,1918,148-79. Manakidou, F., Beschreibung von Kunstwerken in der hellenistischen Dichtung (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 36), Stuttgart 1993. Manfredini, A., ‘La Chioma di Berenice’, RSC 23,1975,231-65. Manteuffel, G., ‘Studia Callimachea’, Eos 41.1,1940-6, 73-108. M a r c o , M. di, ‘Callimaco, Aitia, fr. 64, 9-10 Pf.: una nuova proposta’, in MartinaCozzoli 2006, 53-6.

V. d e , De scholiis in Sophoclis tragoedias veteribus (Atti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie della Classe di Scienze Mor., Stor. e FU. VI 6.2), [sine loco] 1937.

M arco,

----- ‘Frammenti di Teopompo, Teofrasto, Callimaco’, SIFC 2.3a, 1984,193-201. e r t e n s , R , ‘L e s p a p y r u s d e C a ll i m a q u e ’, i n M . C a p a s s o et al. ( e d d .) , Miscellanea Papyrologica (Papyrologia Fiorentina 19), F ir e n z e 1990,409-27. Marinone, N., T dati astronomici e la chiusa della “Chioma di Berenice” ’, in Scienza e tecnica nelle letterature classiche, Genova 1980α, 125-63.

M arcotte, D. - M

Bibliography

98

----- 'Conone, Callimaco e Catullo 66,1-6’, Orpheus n s 1,19806, 435—40. ----- ‘Catullo 66, 66 e il frammento di Diofìlo’, in Letterature Comparate. Studi . . . E. Paratore, Bologna 1981, 347-56. ----- ‘I profumi di Berenice da Callimaco a Catullo’, Prom. 8,1982,1-20. ----- Berenice da Callimaco a Catullo, Roma 1984 and Bologna 19972. ----- 'Richard Bentley e la Chioma di Berenice. . . ’, in Mnemosynum. Studi in onore di A. Ghiselli, Bologna 1989, 383-91. M a r t i n a , A . - C o z z o l i , A. T., Callimachea 1, Roma 2006. M a s s i m i l l a , G., ‘Nuove letture nel secondo libro degli Aitia di Callimaco (POxy. 2080 = fr. 43 Pf.)’, ZPE 81, 1990«, 17-21. ----- ‘I primi due libri degli Αίτια di Callimaco nell’ Etymologicum Genuinum’,

SIFC 3 .8 ,1990b, 180-91.

----- ‘Precisazioni ecdotiche e testuali ad alcuni papiri degli Aitia di Callimaco’, SIFC 3.9,1991,71-3. ----- ‘Callimaco fr. 115 Pf.’, ZPE 95,1993,33-44. ----- ‘L’invocazione di Callimaco alle Cariti nel primo libro degli Aitia (fr. 7, 9-14 Pf.)’, in Proceedings of the XXth International Congress of Papyrology, Copenhagen 1994, 322-5. ----- Callimaco Aitia. Libro primo e secondo, Pisa 1996. ----- ‘Gli ultimi due libri degli Αίτια di Callimaco nell’ Etymologicum Genuinum’, SIFC 3. 16,1998,159-70. ----- ‘Il leone nemeo nella Victoria Berenices di Callimaco’, in R. PretagostiniE. Dettori (edd.), La cultura ellenistica, Roma 2003,19-31. ----- ‘Considerazioni su PSI inv. 1923 [1]’, Comunicazioni dell’Istituto Papirologico

‘G. Vitelli’6, Firenze 2005,13-18. ----- ‘Il sepolcro di Simonide (Callimaco, fr. 64 Pf.)’, in Martina-Cozzoli 2006«, 33-52. ----- ‘I papiri e la tradizione indiretta medievale negli Aitia’, in Bastianini-Casanova 20066,31-45. ----- ‘Theudotus of Lipara (Callimachus, fr. 93 Pf.)’, in D. Obbink-R. Rutherford (edd.), Culture in Pieces, Oxford (forthcoming). M a t t h e w s , V. J., ‘Antimachus in the Aitia Prologue: A New Supplement’, Mnem. 4.32, 1979,128-37. ----- Antimachus of Colophon, Leiden-New York-Köln 1996. ----- ‘From Coma to Constellation: Callimachus, Catullus and Catasterism’, Eranos 102, 2004,47-57. M a y e r , R., ‘Geography and Roman Poets’, G6-R 33, 1986,47-54. M a y s e r , E., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit I. Laut- und Wortlehre, Berlin 19382 (repr. 1970); II. Satzlehre, Berlin 1926-34 (repr. 1970). M a z z a r i n o , S., Il pensiero storico classico, Bari 19723. M e i l l i e r , C., ‘Nouveaux fragments de Callimaque: PSorbonne Inv. 2248’, REG 89, 1976α, 74-9. ----- ‘Callimaque (P.L. 76d, 78abc, 79, 82, 84, 11 le). Stésichore (?) (P.L. 76 abe)’, CRIPEL 4, 19766, 255-360.

Bibliography

99

----- ‘Callimaque, Aitia Fr. 1, v. 7, et l’unité probable des fragments 1 (invective) e 2 (sogne)’, REG 9 2 ,1979α, 164-5 (= ZPE 33, 1979,39-40). ----- Callimaque et son temps, Lille 19796. ----- ‘Papyrus de Lille, Callimaque, Victoria Berenices (Suppl.Hell. 254-258): Éléments de commentaire sur la divinité de Bérénice’, CRIPEL 8,1986, 83-7. M e i n e k e , A., Analecta Alexandrina, Berolini 1843. ----- Callimachi Cyrenensis hymni et epigrammata, Berolini 1861. M e l o n i , D., ‘Le “orme degli altri”: ripresa di metafore pindariche nel prologo dei Telchini di Callimaco e loro finalità nei poeti augustei’, Schol(i)a 2.1, 2000α, 5-19. ----- ‘Il ruolo delle Muse e la funzione del sogno nel frg. 2 Pfeiffer degli “Aitia” di Callimaco’, Schol(i)a 2.3,20006, 7-24. M e r k e l b a c h , R., ‘Literarische Texte unter Ausschluss der christlichen’, APF16,1958, 82-129. ----- ‘Kallimachos, Aitia fr. 178,11-12’, ZPE 1 , 1967a, 96. ----- ‘Kallimachos, Locke der Berenike 69-76’, ZPE 1,19676,218. ----- ‘Eine Notiz zu Kallimachos Fr. 178, 20’, ZPE 5,1970,90. M e t t e , H. J., ‘Z u Pap. Sorbonne 2248 (Kallimachos)’, ZPE 29, 1978, 252. M e y e r , D., ‘Die Einbeziehung des Lesers’, in Μ. A. Harder-R. F. Regtuit-G. C. Wakker (edd.), Callimachus {Hellenistica Groningana 1), Groningen 1993a, 161-75. ----- ‘“Nichts Unbezeugtes singe ich”: Die fiktive Darstellung der Wissenschaftstradierung bei Kallimachos’, in W. Kullmann-J. Althoff (edd.) Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur, Tübingen 19936, 317-36. M il l e r , A. M„ From Delos to Delphi, Leiden 1986. M il l e r , J. E, Callimachus and the Augustan Aetiological Elegy’, ANffWII 30.1,1982, 371—417. Η. J. Μ., ‘181. Unknown’, in Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the British Museum, London 1927,148-50. M i n e u r , W. H., Callimachus. Hymn to Delos (Mnem. Suppl. 83), Leiden 1984. M o r e l , W., ‘Die Gründung von Messina’, Italien 3, 1931, 334-5. M o r g a n , J. D„ ‘The Origin of Molorc[h]us’, CQ 42,1992, 533-8. M r a s , K., ‘Die in den neuen A ιηγήοαο zu Kallimachos’ Aitia erwähnten Kultbilder der samischen Hera’, RhM 8 7,1938α, 277-84. ----- ‘Zu den neu gefundenen Aiqyqceic des Kallimachos (Frg. 105 Schn.)’, WS 56, M il n e ,

19386,45-54.

M ü l l e r , C. W„ Gleiches zu

1965.

Gleichem: Ein Prinzipfrühgriechischen Denkens, Wiesbaden

----- Erysichthon: Der Mythos als narrative Metapher im Demeterhymnas des Kallima­ chos, Stuttgart 1987. -----‘Wanted! Die Kallimachosforschung auf der Suche nach einem einsilbigen Substantiv’, ZPE 122,1998, 36-40. -----‘Zum Aitienprolog des Kallimachos’, RhM 145,2002, 237. M ü l l e r , W„ ‘Bruchstücke . . . griechischer Literatur, No. 7: Epische Dichtung?’, in

Bibliography

Bibliography

100

Festschrift zum 150-jährigen Bestehen des Berliner Ägyptischen Museums, Berlin 1974, 399.

Murray, J., ‘The Metamorphoses of Erysichthon’, in M. A. Harder-R. F. RegtuitG. C. Wakker (edd.), Callimachus II (Hellenistica Groningana 7), Leuven-ParisDudley, Mass, 2004, 207—42. Murray, P., ‘Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece’, JHS 101,1981, 87-100. Myers, K. S., Ovid’s Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Metamorphoses, Ann Arbor 1994.

Nappa, C., ‘Callimachus’ Aetia and Aeneas’ Sicily’, CQ 54, 2004,640-6. Narducci, E., ‘Nota a Callimaco, ff. 178 Pf. w. 11-12’, Maia 24,1972, 61-2. Natalucci, N., ‘11P.Oxy. 2262 e la conclusione del Prologo degli Aitia’, in I. Andorlini et al. (edd.), XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Firenze, 23—29 agosto 1998), Firenze 2001,1025-31. Nauta, R. R., ‘Callimachus’ Sacrifice to Apollo Lykios (Fragment 1.21-24)’, in J. Dijkstra-J. Kroesen-Y. Kuiper (edd.), Myths, Martyrs and Modernity: Studies in the History of Religions in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer, Leiden-Boston 2010, 167-77.

Negri, M., ‘Nuovi contributi esegetici al P.Oxy. XXVI 2451 B fr. 14 col. I . . . ’, in B. Palme (ed.), Akten des 23. Internationalen Papyrologen-Kongresses, Wien 2007, 461-7.

Negro, A., ‘Una nota su Callimaco, ff. 1,33-35 Pfeiffer’, AALig 54,1997, 527-32.* Nelis, D., ‘Patterns of Time in Vergil: The Aeneid and the Aetia of Callimachus’, in J. P. Schwindt (ed.), La Représentation du temps dans la poésie augustéenne, Heidelberg 2005,71-83.

Neumann, R, Das Verhältnis des Genitivs zum Adjektiv im Griechischen, Münster 1910.

Nicastri, L., ‘Catullo traduttore del Πλόκαμοί: Il problema dei w. 79-88’, AFLN 12, 1969-70, 5-29. Nilsson, Μ. P., Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung, Stuttgart 1906 (repr. Darmstadt 1957). ----- Geschichte der griechischen Religion, München 1955-61. N inck, M., Die Bedeutung des Wassers im Kult und Leben der Alten, Leipzig 1921 (repr. Darmstadt 1960).

N isetich, E, The Poems of Callimachus, Oxford 2001. Nitikinski, O., Kallimachos-Studien, Frankfurt a.M.-Berlin (etc.) 1996. Noack, E, ‘Zu den Oinotropen bei Kallimachos’, Hermes 28,1893,146-50. Nock, A. D., ‘Notes on Ruler Cult, I-IV’, JHS 48, 1928,21—43. Norsa, M. - Vitelli, G., ‘Da papiri della Società Italiana’, BSAA 28,1933,123-32. ------------ Aipyr/ceLc di poemi di Callimaco in un papiro di Tebtynis, Firenze 1934. ------------ ‘1217. 1218. 1219’, in Papiri della Società Italiana 11, Firenze 1935,

Leipzig 1998. O hly , D., ‘Die Göttin und ihre Basis’, MDAI(A) 68,1953,25-50.

Ophuijsen, J. M. van, ‘Callimachus’ ware geschiedenis van Akontios en Kydippe’, Lampas 21, 1988, 92-9. Otto, W. E, Die Musen, Darmstadt 1954. Ozbek, L., ‘Callimachus, Victoria Berenices (?). PSI inv. 1923’, in Comunicazioni dell’Istituto Papirologico 'G. Vitelli’6, Firenze 2005,3-9. Page, D. L., Sappho and Alcaeus, Oxford 1955. ----- Further Greek Epigrams, Cambridge 1981. Papathomopoulos, T.,‘/7pòc TeXyivec, Tetramena 50,1993,3517-19.* Pardini, A., ‘Aconzio non era πολύκροτοι, SIFC 3.9, 1991, 57-70. Parke, H. W., The Oracles of Zeus, Oxford 1967. Parke, H. W. - Wormell, D. E. W., The Delphic Oracle, Oxford 1956. Parsons, Ρ. J., ‘Papyri from Antinoopolis’, CR 20,1970, 86-7. ----- ‘Callimachus: Victoria Berenices’, ZPE 25, 1977,1-50. Pasquali, G., ‘Il nuovo frammento della Cydippe di Callimaco’, A&R 14, 1911, 165-81. ----- ‘Rome in Callimaco’, SIFC 16,1939, 69-78. Penna, A. la, ‘Estasi dionisiaca e poetica callimachea’, in Studi.. .A. de Falco, Napoli 1971,227-37. ----- ‘Callimaco e i paradosi dell’ imperatore Tiberio . . . ’, SIFC 80, 1987,181-5. Pepe, L., ‘La Chioma di Berenice e il nuovissimo Callimaco’, GIF 3,1950, 193-9.* Petrovic, I. - Petrovic, A., ‘Stop and Smell the Statues’, MD 51,2003,179-208. Pfeiffer, R., Callimachi fragmenta nuper reperta. Editio Minor, Bonnae 1921. ----- Kallimachosstudien, München 1922. ----- Callimachi fragmenta nuper reperta. Editio Maior, Bonnae 1923. ----- ‘Ein neues Altersgedicht des Kallimachos’, Hermes 63, 1928, 302—il (= Ausge­ wählte Schriften, München 1960, 98-132). ----- 'BepevLKpc Πλόκαμοί , Phil. 87, 1932, 179-228 (= Skiadas 1975,100—52). ----- Die neuen Δ ipypceic zu Kallimachasgedichten (SBAW10), München 1934a. ----- ‘Zum Papyrus Mediolanensis des Kallimachos’, Phil. 89,1934h, 384-5. ----- ‘Neue Lesungen und Ergänzungen zu Kallimachos-Papyri’, Phil. 93, 1938, 61-73. ----- Callimachus, Oxford 1949-53. ----- ‘The Image of the Delian Apollo’, JW I 15,1952, 20-32 (= Ausgewählte Schriften, München 1960, 55-71). ----- History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford 1968.

Philippson, A. - Kirsten, E., Die griechischen Landschaften, Frankfurt a.M. 1950-59. Pintaudi, R., ‘Note di Edgar Lobel alle Diegeseis di Callimaco’, QS 63, 2006,187-211. Platt, A., ‘Notes on the New Callimachus’, CQ 4 , 1910a, 112-13. ----- On the New Callimachus’, BPhW 30,1910h, 477. ----- ‘A Restoration of Callimachus’, CQ 5,1911,41.

129-49.

Nünlist, R., Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung,

S tu ttg art-

101

Pohlenz, M., ‘Ad Callimachi Cydippam’, Hermes 54,1919, 442. ----- ‘Kallimachos’ Antwort an die Kritik’, NGG 1929, 150-5 (= Kleine Schriften 2, Hildesheim 1965, 59-64).

Bibliography

Bibliography

----- ‘Kallimachos’ Aitia’, Hermes 68,1933, 313-27 (= Kleine Schriften 2, Hildesheim

Ragone, G., ‘Callimaco e le tradizioni locali della Ionia asiatica’, in Martina-Cozzoli

102

1965, 44-58). ----- ‘Der Römer Gaius bei Kallimachos’, Phil. 90,1935,120-2. Poliakoff, M., ‘Nectar, Springs and the Sea: Critical Terminology in Pindar and Callimachus’, ZPE 39,1980,41-7. Pollard, Birds in Greek Life and Myth, London 1977. Pomeroy, S., Women in Hellenistic Egypt, New York 1984. Pontani, E, ‘The First Word of Callimachus’ Aitia’, ZPE 128,1999, 57-9. Porson, R., Adversaria, Lipsiae 1814. Powell, J. U., On a New Fragment of Callimachus’ Aitia’, CR 28,1914,88. ----- ‘Callimachus and Others’, CQ 22, 1928,113. Powell, J. U. - Barber, E. A., New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature, Oxford 1921.

Preller, L. - Robert, C., Griechische Mythologie (1. Theogonie und Götter, 2. Die griechische Heldensage), Berlin 1894-1926. Pretagostini, R„ Ricerche sulla poesia alessandrina, Roma 1984. ----- ‘L’incontro con le Muse sull’ Elicona in Esiodo e in Callimaco: modificazioni di un modello’, Lexis 13,1995α, 157-72. ----- ‘L’opposta valenza del “tuonare di Zeus” in Callimaco e in Plutarco’, in L. Belloni et al. (edd.), Studia classica I. Tarditi oblata, Milano 1995b, 1,617-24. ----- ‘La poetica callimachea nella tradizione papiracea: il frammento 1 Pf. (= 1 M.)’, in Bastianini-Casanova 2006α, 15-27. ----- ‘Un agglomerato di similitudini: A proposito di Eracle in Callimaco, Aitia ff. 23 Pf.’, in Martina-Cozzoli 2006b, 59-69. Prinz, E, Gründungsmythen und Sagenchronologie, München 1979. Prioux, E„ Regards Alexandrias, Leuven-Paris-Dudley, Mass. 2007. Puech, A., ‘Acontios et Cydippé’, REG 23,1910, 255-75. Puelma, M., ‘Die Vorbilder der Elegiendichtung in Alexandrien und Rom’, MH 11, 1954,101-16. ----- ‘K allim ach o s-In terp retatio n en ’, Phil. 101, 1957, 90-100; 247-68 (= G. Pfohl, Die griechische Elegie, Darmstadt 1972,459-72; Skiadas 1975,43-69). ----- ‘Die Aitien des Kallimachos als Vorbild der römischen Amores-EIegie 1 & 2’, MH 39, 1982, 221^16; 285-304. Pulbrook, M., ‘The Aetia of Callimachus’, in M. Pulbrook, Studies in Greek and Latin Authors, Maynooth 1987,75-95 (= Maynooth Review 13,1988,44-64). Putnam, M. C. J., ‘Catullus 66.75-88’, CPh 55,1960,223-8. Raalte, M. van, ‘Greek Elegiac Verse Rhythm’, Glotta 66, 1988,145-78. Raccuia, C., ‘Callim. Aetia 2, Frg. 43 Pfeiffer: Considerazioni sul culto detl’ecista a Zancle’, in B. Gentili-A. Pinzone (edd.), Messina e Reggio nell’antichità: storia, società, cultura, Messina 2002,477-93. Race, W. H„ The Classical Priamelfrom Homer to Boethius (Mnem. Suppi. 74), Leiden 1982.

Radici-Colace, P., ‘Il nuovo Callimaco di Lille, Ovidio e Stazio’, RFIC 110, 1982, 140-9.

103

2006,71-113.

Rauch, J. C, Kallimachos’Fragmente der Aitia, Programm Rastatt 1860. Ravert, G., Les Aitia de Callimaque, Thèse de Licence Univ. de Louvain 1942.* Reece, S., The Stranger's Welcome, Ann Arbor 1993. Reed, J. D., Bion of Smyrna. The Fragments and the Adonis, Cambridge 1997. Rehm, B., ‘Catull 66,1 und der neue Kallimachosfiind’, Phil. 89,1934,385-6. Reinsch-Werner, Η., Callimachus Hesiodicus. Die Rezeption der hesiodischen Dichtung durch Kallimachos von Kyrene, Berlin 1976. Reitzenstein, E„ ‘Zur Stiltheorie des Kallimachos’, in Festschrift. . . R. Reitzenstein, Leipzig-Berlin 1931, 23-69.

Reitzenstein, R., ‘Inedita poetarum Graecorum fragmenta Γ, in Index Lectionum in Academia Rostochiensi 1890-1, 3-18. ----- Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika, Leipzig 1897 (repr. Amsterdam 1964).

Rengakos, A., ‘Homerische Wörter bei Kallimachos’, ZPE 94, 1992, 21-47. ----- Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter, Stuttgart 1993. ----- Apollonios Rhodios und die antike Homererklärung, München 1994. Rice, E. E., The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphos, Oxford 1983. Richardson, N. J., The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford 1974. ----- ‘Pindar and Later Literary Criticism in Antiquity’, PLLS 5 , 1985, 383-401. Richardson, S., The Homeric Narrator, Nashville 1990. Richter, M. - Parsons, P. J., ‘4427. Callimachus, Aetia III fr. 75.11-15’, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 64, London 1997,114-16. Richter, W., Die Landwirtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter {Arch. Horn. H), Göttingen 1968.

Rijksbaron, A., The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek, Amsterdam 1994.

Robertson, N., ‘Melanthus, Codrus, Neleus, Caucon: Ritual Myth as Athenian History’, GRBS 29, 1988,201-61. ----- ‘The Betrothal Symposium in Early Greece’, in W. J. Slater (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context, Ann Arbor 1991, 25-57. ----- Festivals and Legends: The Formation of Greek Cities in the Light of Public Ritual, Toronto-Buffalo-London 1992. ----- ‘Callimachus’ Tale of Sicyon (SH 238)’, Phoenix 53,1999, 57-79. Rohde, E., Psyche, Freiburg-Leipzig-Tübingen 18982 (repr. Darmstadt 1961). Romm, J. S., The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought, Princeton 1992. Roscher, W. H., Die Sieben- und Neunzahl im Kultus und Mythus der Griechen, Leipzig 1904. Rosen, R. M. - Farrell, J., ‘Acontius, Milanion and Gallus . . . ’, TAPhA 116, 1986, 241-54.

Rosenmeyer, P. A., ‘The Unexpected Guest: Patterns of xenia in Callimachus’ “Victoria Berenices” and Petronius’ Satyricon’, CQ 41,1991,403-13. -----‘A Cold Reception in Callimachus’ Victoria Berenices’, CQ 43,1993,206-14.

Bibliography ----- ‘Love Letters in Callimachus, Ovid and Aristaenetus . . MD 36, 1996, 9-31. Rosokoki, A., Die Erigone des Eratosthenes, Heidelberg 1995. Rossi, L., ‘La “Chioma di Berenice”: Catullo 66, 79-88, Callimaco e la propaganda di corte’, RFIC 128.3,2000, 299-312. Rossi, L. E., ‘L’atlante occidentale degli Aitia di Callimaco: mito e modi di lettura’, in

Mito e storia in Magna Grecia. Atti del trentaseiesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia (Taranto 4—7 ottobre 1996), Napoli 1997,69-80. Rossum-Steenbeek, M. E. van, Greek Readers’ Digests?, Leiden 1997. Rostagni, A., Ibis, Firenze 1920. ----- ‘Nuovo Callimaco 1. Il prologo degli Α ίτια , RFIC 6,1928,1-52 (= Scritti Minori II.l, Torino 1956,259-310). ----- T nuovi frammenti di commento agli Aitia e la polemica letteraria di Callimaco’, REICH, 1933,189-210 (= Scritti Minori IL1, Torino 1956,311-31 and Skiadas 1975, 21-42 (German translation) ). ----- ‘Nuovi frammenti callimachei nel contesto degli Aitia’, RFIC 12,1934α, 67-70. ----- ‘Le nuove Διηγηεειε e l’ordinamento dei Carmi di Callimaco’, RFIC 12,1934Ò, 289-312.

Ruijgh, C. ]., Autour de ‘te épique’, Amsterdam 1971. Rüsten, J. S., Dionysius Skytobrachion (Papyrologica Colonìensia 10), Köln 1982. Rutherford, I., Pindar’s Paeans, Oxford 2001. Sanchez Ortiz de Landaluce, M., ‘ “Acontio y Cydippa” y los Aitia de Calimaco: la tipologia del aition, Habis 22,1991,143-50.* ----- ‘“Acontio y Cidipa” y la novela griega: un nuevo anälisis de motivos literarios recurrentes’, in Actas del Vili congreso espanol de estudios cldsicos (Madrid, 23-28 de septiembre de 1991) II, Madrid 1994,423-28.* ----- ‘Estudio linguistico del aition “Acontio y Cidipa” de Calimaco (Frs. 67-75 Pf.)’, ExcPhilol 4-5,1994-5, 77-106.* ----- Έ1 Aition “Acontio y Cidipa” de Calimaco (frs. 67-75 Pf.): hipótesis de reconstrucción’, ExcPhilol 6,1996, 53-67.* Sanctis, G. de, ‘Callimaco e Messina’, AAT 63,1928,112-17 (= ‘Gli ecisti di Messina e Callimaco’, Scritti Minori 1, Roma 1966,43-8). ----- ‘Wilhelm Ehlers: Die Gründung von Zankle . . . ’, REICH, 1933, 531-3. ----- ‘Callimaco e Orazio Coelite’, RFIC 63, 1935,289-301. Sbardella, L., Filita, Roma 2000. Scandroglio, L., ‘Callimaco e Teogene di Ico’, Sungraphe 5,2003,181-9.* Schmid, B., Studien zu griechischen Ktisissagen, Freiburg 1947. Schmidt, K. F. W., ‘The Oxyrhynchus papyri Part X I. . . ’, GGA 180,1918,81-126. Schmitt, R., Die Nominalbildung in den Dichtungen des Kallimachos von Kyrene. . . , Wiesbaden 1970. Schmitz, T. A., ‘ “I hate all common things”: The Reader’s Role in Callimachus’ Aetia Prologue’, HSCPh 99,1999,151-78. Schneider, O., ‘De locis quibusdam Callimachi lacunosis’, Phil. 6 , 1851a, 494-559. ----- Prolegomena in Callimachi Αιτίων fragmenta, Gothae 1851b. ----- Callimachea 1-2, Lipsiae 1870-3.

Bibliography

105

Schubart, W., Das Buch bei den Griechen und Römern, Leipzig 19613. Schwarzenberg, E., Die Grazien, Bonn 1966. Schwinge, E. R., Künstlichkeit von Kunst (Zetemata 84), München 1986. Schwyzer, E., Dialectorum Graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora, Lipsiae 19233. ----- Griechische Grammatik, München 1966-8. Scodel, R., ‘Wine, Water and the Anthesteria in Callimachus fr. 178 Pf.’, ZPE 39, 1980a, 37—40. ----- ‘Hesiod Redivivus’, GRBS 2 1 ,1980b, 301-20. Secci, E., ‘Tradizioni cultuali tirreniche e pelasgiche nei frammenti di Callimaco’, SMSR 30,1959, 83-107. Seiler, H., Die primären griechischen Steigerungsformen, Hamburg 1950. Seiler, M. A., FIOIHCIC ΠΟΙΗ€ΕΩ€. Alexandrinische Dichtung Κ Α Τ Α Λ Ε Π Τ Ο Ν in strukturaler und humanethologischer Deutung, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1997. Selden, D„ ‘Alibis’, CSCA 17,1998,289-420. Sell, H., ‘Kallimachos fr. 67, 20 f.’, RhM 107,1964, 370-1. Serrao, G., ‘Note esegetiche ai due prologhi degli Αίτια callimachei (ffr.1-2 Pf.)’, SemRom 1,1998,299-311. ----- ‘Un’interferenza concettuale in Call. fr. 1, 9-10 Pf.’, in M. Cannatà FeraS. Grandolini (edd.). Poesia e religione in Grecia: Studi in onore di G. Aurelio Privitera, Napoli 2000, 2, 625-30. Sevieri, R., ‘Riproduzione e rivisitazione: Applicazione interpretativa di strategie encomiastiche pindariche nella Victoria Berenices di Callimaco’, Acme 50.1, 1997, 61-78. Sicking, C. M. J. - van Ophuijsen, J. M., Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage, Leiden 1993. Sickle, J. van, Order in Callimachus and Virgil (Aitia III/IV I Liber Bucolicon)', in Actes du Vile Congrès de la FIEC1, Budapest 1984, 289-92. Sier, K., ‘Von der Ähre zur Zikade: Die Komposition des kallimacheischen Aitienprologs’, ZPE 122,1998, 21-35. Sijpesteijn, P. J. - Worp, K. A., ‘Literary and Semi-Literary Papyri from the Vienna Papyrus Collection: Lists with Works of Classical Authors and Unidentified Literary Text’, CE49,1974, 324-31. Simon, E., ‘Archäologisches zu Spende und Gebet’, in F. Graf (edd.), Ansichten griechischer Rituale, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1998, 126—42. Sistakou, E., ‘Kallimachos als Homererklärer’, WS 115, 2002,145-73. Skiadas, A. D., “Άρτεμιε ΛευκαΒία, Έττετηριε ΛευκαΒικών Μελετών 1, 1971, 11-19. ----- Kallimachos, Darmstadt 1975. Smotrytsch, A. P„ ‘Zur Frage der literarischen Kritik im Prologe der Aitia des Kallimachos’, in Miscellanea. . . A.Rostagni, Torino 1963, 249-56. Spanoudakis, K„ ‘Callimachus fr. 1, 9-12 again’, ZPE 121,1998, 59-61. -— ‘Poets and Telchines in Callimachus’ Aetia-prologue’, Mnem. 4.54,2001,425-41. ----- Philitas of Cos, Leiden-Boston-Köln 2002.

Bibliography S p i r a , A., 'Die Locke der Berenike. Catuli c. 66

und Kallimachos fr. 110 Pf.’, in J. Cober (effli.) (edd.), Dialogos. .. if. Patzer-, Wiesbaden 1975,153-62. S t e p h e n s , S., ‘Egyptian Callimachus’, in F. Montanari-L. Lehnus, Callimaque, Vandoeuvres-Genève 2002,235-70. ----- 'Linus Song’, Hermathena 173-4,2002-3,13-28. ----- Seeing Double, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 2003. S t i n t o n , T. C. W., ‘Si credere dignum est: Some Expressions of Disbelief in Euripides and Others’, PCPhS 22, 1976, 60-89. S t o r c k , K. C , Die ältesten Sagen der Insel Keos, Diss. Giessen 1912. S t r o u x , J., ‘Erzählungen aus Kallimachos’, Phil. 89,1934, 301-19. S t u a r t , D. R., 'The Prenuptial Rite in the New Callimachus’, CPh 6,1911, 302-14. S w i d e r e k , A., 'La Legende des Hyperboréens chez Callimaque’, JJP 4,1950,341-7. ----- ‘La Structure des Aitia de Callimaque à la lumière des nouvelles découvertes papyrologiques’, JJP 5,1951, 229-35. ----- ‘Kallimach, Elegia Telchinów’, Meander 7,1952, 335.* ----- ‘La Conception de la tradition populaire dans Ies Aitia de Callimaque’, Eos 46.1, 1952-3, 49-58. S y n d i k u s , Η. R, Catuli: Eine Interpretation. Zweiter Teil. Die grossen Gedichte (61-68), Darmstadt 1990. S z a s t y n s k a -S i e m i o n , A., Victoria Berenices (254-269 Lloyd-Jones-Parsons) as a ‘Victory Ode’, Eos 76, 1988, 259-68.

Vorschlag eines Lexikons zu den Aitia des Kallimachos, Buchstabe ‘Alpha’ (Studien zur klass. Philologie 23), Frankfurt a.M.-Bern-New York 1986. ----- ‘Diana Lucina (un problema de Calimaco)’, Nova Tellus 9-10,1991-2, 9-20. T h o m a s , R. F., ‘Callimachus, the Victoria Berenices and Roman Poetry’, CQ 33,1983,

T a p i a Z u n i g a , P. C ,

92-113. ----- ‘Proteus the Sealherd (Callim. SH fr. 254,6)’, CPh 81,1986, 319. T h o m p s o n , d ’A . W., A Glossary of Greek Birds, Oxford-London 1936 (repr. 1966). TissoL, G., ‘An Allusion to Callimachus’ Aetia 3 in Virgil’s Aeneid 1Γ, HSCPh 94, 1992, 263-8. T ö c h t e r l e , K., ‘Die μεγάλη γυνή des Mimnermos bei Kallimachos’, RhM 123,1980, 225-34. T o n d r i a u , J., ‘Princesses ptolémaiques comparées ou identifiées à des déesses’, BSAA 37,1948,12-33. T o r r a c a , L., Il prologo dei Telchini e l’inizio degli Aitia di Callimaco, Napoli 19732. T r é h e u x , J., ‘La Réalité historique des offrandes hyperboréennes’, in G . E. MylonasD. Raymond (edd.), Studies. .. D. M. Robinson 2, Saint Louis 1953, 758-74. T r i p o d o , R, Callimaco-Catullo: La Chioma di Berenice, Roma 1995.* T r y p a n is C. A., Callimachus: Aetia, Iambi, Lyric Poems . . . , L o n d o n - C a m b r i d g e , Mass. 1958. ----- (ef. al.), Callimachus. Aetia, Iambi, Lyric poems. . . , Cambridge Mass. 1975. T s a n t s a n o g l o u , K., New Fragments of Greek Literature from the Lexicon of Photius, Athens 1984, ----- ‘Callimachus Aetia fr. 1. 7-12. Once Again’, ZPE 163, 2007, 27-36.

Bibliography

107

Jublajulkaiser O. E. Tudeer, Helsingfors 1920,142-52.* T u e i x e r , M. A., ‘Weh-Read Heroes Quoting the Aetia in Aeneid 8’, HSCPh 100, 2000, T u d eer , L. O. T., ‘Kallimakhoshoksen Aififl-Kirjan uusita fragmenteista’, in

361-80. T u r n e r , E. G., The Typology of the Early Codex, Philadelphia 1977. ------- P a r s o n s , P. J., Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (BICS Suppl. 46), London 1987. U e b e l , R , ‘Literarische Texte’, APE 21,1971,167; 22-3,1974,321; 24-5,1976,191. U r s o , G., ‘I Peucezii alle porte di Roma: nota a Callimaco διηγήεειε V 25-32’, Aevum Antiquum 11,1998, 351-61. U s e n e r , H„ Götternamen Frankfurt a.M. 1948. V a l c k e n a e r , L. C., Elegiarum Fragmenta, cum elegia Catulli Callimachea (ed. I. Luzac), Lugduni Bat. 1799. V a l k , M. v a n d e r . Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, Leiden 1963-4. ----- ‘Eustathius and Callimachus’, GRBS 24,1983, 367-73. V a l v e r d e S ä n c h e z , Μ., El aition en las Argonduticas de Apolonio de Rodas, Murcia 1989. V e s s e y , D. W. T. C., Statius and the Thebaid, Cambridge 1973. V ia n , F., La Guerre des géants, Paris 1952. V i t e l l i , G., ‘Frammenti della “Chioma di Berenice” di Callimaco in un papiro della Società Italiana’, SIFC 7, 1929o, 3-12. ----- ‘1092. Dalla “Chioma di Berenice” di Callimaco’, in Papiri della Società Italiana 9, Firenze 1929b, 148-52. ----- ‘Nuovi frammenti degli Aitia di Callimaco’, ASNP II 3,1934,1-12. V o g l ia n o , A., ‘Il nuovo proemio di Callimaco’, BFC 34, 1928, 201-11. -----‘18. AIHTHCEIC di poemi di Callimaco’, in Papiri della R. Università di Milano 1, Milano 1937, 66-145. Vox, O., ‘Sul genere grammaticale della Chioma di Berenice’, MD 44, 2000,175-81. V r a n e k , C., ‘Hymne à Apollon: Akontios et Kydippe’, ZJKF 12,1970,1-6.* W a c k e r n a g e l , J., Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer, Göttingen 1916. ----- Vorlesungen über Syntax, Basel 1920-4. W a k k e r , G. C., Conditions and Conditionals, Amsterdam 1994. -----‘The Discourse Function of Particles . . . ’, in M. A. Harder-R. F. RegtuitG. C. Wakker (edd.), Theocritus (Hellenistica Groningana 2), Groningen 1996, 247-63. W a l l a c e , P. W., ‘Hesiod and the Valley of the Muses’, GRBS 15,1974, 5-25. W a l t o n , F. R., ‘The aition of Euthycles’, in G. E. Mylonas-D. Raymond (edd.), Studies ■. .D.M. Robinson 2, Saint Louis 1953,602-6. W e b e r , G., Dichtung und Höfische Gesellschaft, Stuttgart 1993. W e h r l i , R, ‘Apollonios von Rhodos und Kallimachos’, Hermes 76,1941,14-21. W e n t z e l , G., ‘Mythographische Miszellen, 2. Die Oinotropen bei Kallimachos’, Phil. 51,1892,46-64. W est, M. L„ ‘Notes on Newly Discovered Fragments of Greek Authors’, Maia 20, 1968,195-203.

Bibliography ----- Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus, Berlin-New York 1974. ----- Greek Metre, Oxford 1982. West, S., ‘Venus Observed? A Note on Callimachus, ff. 110’, CQ 35,1985,61-6. Wifstrand, A., ‘Till den nya Kallimachosdikten Oxyrh. Pap. 2079’, Eranos 27, 1929, 116-18. ----- Von Kallimachos zu Nonnos, Lund 1933. ----- ‘Till det senaste Kallimachosfyndet’, Eranos 32,1934, 137—41. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, ‘Pausaniasscholien’, Hermes 29, 1894,240-8. ----- ‘Ein neues Bruchstück der Aitia des Kallimachos’, Hermes 46,1911,471-3. ----- ‘Neues von Kallimachos’, SPAW7,1912, 524-50, ----- ‘Neues von Kallimachos 2’, SPAW 9 , 1914,222-44. ----- ‘Leseffüchte 152—170’, Hermes 54, 1919, 46-74 (esp. 72 = Kleine Schriften 4, Berlin 1962,310-11). ----- Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos, Berlin 1924. ----- ‘Die griechische Heldensage IT, SBAW 1925, 214—42 (= Kleine Schriften V 2, Berlin 1937, 85-126). Wilkes, J„ The Illyrians, Oxford-Cambridge, Mass. 1992. Williams, E, Callimachus: Hymn to Apollo. A Commentary, Oxford 1978. ----- Τη and out of the rut: Callimachus fr. 1.25-28 and Anniceris of Cyrene’, ZPE 110,1996, 40-2. Wimmel, W, ‘Philitas im Aitienprolog des Kallimachos’, Hermes 86, 1958, 346-54 (= Skiadas 1975, 70-80). ----- Kallimachos in Rom (Hermes Einzelschriften 16), Wiesbaden 1960. Wouters, A., ‘Dichters in het laboratorium: De hellenistische poezie in haar context’, Kleio 24.2,1995, 57-82. Zanfino, A., ‘Callimaco visto da Strabone’, RAAN 54,1979,19-25. Zänker, G., Realism in Alexandrian Poetry, London-Sydney etc. 1987. Zetzel, J. E. G., On the Opening of Callimachus, Aetia ΙΓ, ZPE 42, 1981,31-3. Ziegler, K., De precationum apud Graecos formis quaestiones selectae, Diss. Vratislaviae 1905. ----- ‘Zu Kallimachos’, BPhW 55,1935,1401—8. ----- ‘Kallimachos und die Frauen’, Antike 13,1937,20—42. ----- ‘Ein Freund des Kallimachos?’, Hermes 80,1952,255-6. ----- Das hellenistische Epos, Leipzig 1934 (repr. 1966). Zipfel, C., Quatenus Ovidius in Ibide Callimachum . . . secutus sit, Lipsiae 1910. Zwierlein, Ο., ‘Weihe und Entrückung der Locke der Berenike’, RhM 130, 1987, 274-90.

Text and Translation

Testimonia Τ 1 = test. 23,1 sqq. Pfeiffer

υμνώ (sc. Hymnos, Hecalen) . .. καί των μεγίετων Αιτίων την τετράδα.

(7)

I sing o f .. . and o f the four books of the most impressive Aetia. Epigramma iambicum, quod ex hymnorum archetypo Ψ exscripsisse videntur hyparchetypi α et y. Servaverunt Π (fol. 245v) sub Homeri hymnis ante Call. h. 1 (ed. C. Nigra, ‘Inni di Callimaco . . . ’, RFIC 20, 1891, 194-232 (pp. 209 sq.) ) et anonymus Bernensis in fronte Callimachi hymnorum editionis Vascosanianae (1549) e codice ab a derivato (post H. Hagen, Catalogus codicum Bernensium, Bern 1875 ('Hildesheim - New York 1974), 520 iterum ed. R. Reitzenstein, ‘Die Inhaltsangabe im Archetypus der Kallimachos-Handschriften’, Hermes 26, 1891, 308-14 (p. 308) )

Ύ 2 - test. 24 Pfeiffer M aptavóc . .. Ρωμαΐοε μεν το άρχαΐον .. . καί πατρίκιοε γεγονώε, το επιφανεετερον, κατά τον βαειλεα Αναετάειον (491-518 p.Chr.). εγραφε βιβλία τοεαΰτα- .. . Μετάφραειν Καλλίμαχου Έκάληε, ύμνων καί των Αιτίων καί επιγραμμάτων εν ίάμβοιε γΖωι (= 6810). Marianus, a Roman o f old .. . and a patrician, o f rather great distinction during the reign o f Anastasius. He wrote so many books:. . . a reworking of Callimachus’ Hecale, Hymns, Aetia, and Epigrams in 6810 iambic trimeters. Sud. μ 194 Adler s.v. Mapiavóc 1 μεν A V: γάρ G M

II

1-2 τώ ν επιφανεετάτω ν Gutschmid (teste Adler)

Callimachi Aetia T 3 = te s t 25 Pfeiffer Καλλίμαχοε το κάθαρμα, το ηαίγνιον, 6 ξύλιvoc νοΰεαίτιοε ό γράφαε Αίτια Καλλίμαχον. Callimachus, the outcast, the plaything, the wooden mind, guilty, the man who wrote the Aetia of Callimachus. 1-2 AP 11, 275 (IO, p. 168 Aubreton = FGE 53 sq.) (Apollonio grammatico attribuit; Apollonio Rhodio attribuit lemmatista in margine ad AP 7, 41 et 42; sine nomine poetae P!) II 2 Eust. ad Od. 1,349 (1,66,1 sqq. Stallbaum) ίετέον δε ότι αίτιον dei παρ’ Ό μηρω ι, το την αιτίαν τού γινομένου εχον. οι δε μεθ’ Χ)μηρον καί επ ί υπευθύνων την ληβιν τιθεαειν dic δηλοί ό γράφαε το 'α ίτιοε 6 γράφαε α ίτια Κ α λλίμα χο υ’, ηγουν ύπεύθυνοε καί κολάεεωε άξιοε 2 Κ α λλίμα χου : Κ α λλίμα χο ε R.Bentley, ‘Epistola ad Millium’, in J.Millius (ed.), Joannis Antiocheni cognomento Malalae Historia Chronica, Oxonii 1691, 71 (sic etiam Page FGE 54, sed vide Lehnus 1990c, 291 sq.)

T 4 = test. 25a Pfeiffer

non hic Centauros, non Gorgonas Harpyiasque inuenies: hominem pagina nostra sapit. sed non uis, Mamurra, tuos cognoscere mores nec te scire: legas Aetia Callimachi. Here you will not find Centaurs, not Gorgons and Harpies: our pages taste o f man. But you, Mamurra, do not want to learn about your own habits or to know yourself: you may read Callimachus’ Aetia. Martial. 10,4, 9 sqq. (Lindsay)

Testimonia 1-10

2-3 ή ΚαλλιμάχουΎβιε καί τα Α ίτια Dionysius Salvagnius, Miscella, Lugduni Bat. 1661,47 ad Ov.Ib.57 in codice suo ‘pervetusto’ (sed adhuc ignoto; vide Pfeiffer ad ff. 396) se legisse contendit II 4 έγκ ειτα ι παιείν J.Davies, Μ. Tullii Ciceronis libri de divinatione et de fa to . . . , Cantabrigiae 1721, ad Cic. De Div. 2, 64: απαειν L

T 6 = test. 27 et 1, p. 11 Pfeiffer d μεγα Βαττιάδαο εοφοΰ περίπυετον δνειαρ, ·?

C5

5

\

\ ' J

«

η ρ €τ€ον κ€ραων ονο eAecpavroc e^c* τοία γάρ άμμιν εφηναε, άτ ου πάροε άνερεε ΐδμεν, άμφί τε άθανάτουε άμφί τε ήμιθεονε, εντε μιν εκ Αιβύηε άναείραε εΐε Έλικώνα ηγαγεε εν μεεεαιε Πιερίδεεει φερω ν αί δε οί εΐρομενωι άμφ’ ώ γυγίων ηρώων Αίτια καί μακάρων εΐρον άμειβάμεναι. Ο great and widely known dream o f the clever Battiad, truly you were o f horn and not o f ivory; for such things you showed us, which we men did not know before, about the immortals and about half-gods, when you lifted him up from Libya and brought him to Mt. Helicon, placing him in the middle o f the Pierian Muses; and they told him in answer to his questions the Aetia about the ancient heroes and the blessed gods.

And we could find many tens o f thousands of things said in an enigmatic way by philosophers and poets .. ., for the poet Euphorion and the Aetia o f Callimachus and the Alexandra o f Lycophron and works similar to those are a school in which to learn the art o f interpretation for the sons of grammarians. Clem. Alex. Strom. 5, 8, 50 (2, 360, 22 sqq. Stählin)

5

5

Adesp. A P7,42 (2,32,10 sqq. Stadtmüller) I 1-2 Sud. o 333 Adler s.v. δνειαρ· δνειρον ‘α —έηε’ I respicit Eust. ad Od. 19, 562 (2,219,33 sq. Stallbaum) ώνόμαεέ τιε δνειαρ καί αυτό το δνειρον, οίον, δνειαρ κεράτω ν ούδ’ έλέφαντοε δν eie τά Κ αλλίμαχου αίτια inscr. Br. Il I dì PI \ Β ατλάδαο Sud. A II 2 κεράτων Eust. I εηε P Sud.: εφυε PI, δν (pro èóv) Eust. Il 3 ΐδμεν A ΡΙΜ: ίεμεν C (c super δ imponens) ΡΙε II 4 ιήμι^θεουε C: ήιθεονε ? A " Il 6 peccate P PlM: Movcaic PlE (de aliis lectionibus et correctionibus vide Stadtmüller)

T 5 = test. 26 Pfeiffer καί μύρια in i μυρίοιε εϋροιμεν αν ΰπό re φιλοεόφων υπό τε ποιητών αίνιγματωδώε είρημενα . . . Ευφοριών γάρ 6 ποιητηε καί τα Καλλί­ μαχου Αίτια καί ή Αυκόφρονοε Αλεξάνδρα καί τα τούτοιε παραπληεια γυμνάειον etc εξηγηειν γραμματικών εκκειται παιείν.

113

T 7 = test. 27 et l,p . 11 Pfeiffer non inflati somnia Callimachi the dream o f the not bombastic Callimachus Prop. 2,34, 32 (p. 85 Barber) inflatis (inflantis W o.) omnia O. corn F4, P2 (m.rec.)

Callimachi Aetia T 8 = test. 83 Pfeiffer

ά μάκαρ, άμßpocίηιcι cvvécrie φίλτατ€ Movcaic, χαί pe καί civ Ät8cw δώμαα, Καλλίμαχε. Ο blessed one, dearest fellow-guest o f the ambrosian Muses,

Fragmenta

Callimachus, greetings also in the house of Hades. adesp. AP 7, 41 (2,32, 8 sq. Stadtmüller) fort, respicit ad Aetia 1-2 II 1 a C: a ? A ‘c, ώ PI I άμβροείηιει PI: άμβροείηι P II 2 άίδεω C: άϊδεω A“

T 9 (novum)

1-1 e In Telchinas

μεν τωι γεγονε θηεαυροε ΰττνου Βώρον, ούκ εν θαυμαετοΐε άγω- ούδ’ et t i c , καταδαρθών αμουεοε, έπειτα εντυχών δναρ rate Movcaic καί τα μεν είπών, τα δε άκούεαε, ττοιητήε εετι δεξιόε, ώεπερ ό καθ' ημάε χρόνοε ηνεγκεν, ουδέ τούτο τών λίαν εετι παραδόξων.

eu e r e et

5 Therefore, if the gift of sleep is a treasury for someone, I do not regard it as a reason for surprise; not even if someone, after he has gone to sleep unacquainted with the Muses and subsequently has met the Muses in a dream and has said some things and heard other things, is a clever poet, such as our time has produced— not even that is too much of a miracle.

Synes. Π ερί ενυπνίων 4 (p. 150, 19 sqq. Terzaghi) fort, respicit ad Aetia 1-2; vide Cameron 1995, 369 sq. et Hollis 2002, 37 sqq. II 2 καταδραθών A ο II 4-5 ώεπερ . . . παραδόξων om. ο, add. ο2: fort, delendum esse censet Hollis 2002,38 II 4 χρόνοε· χώ ροε Cameron 1995, 370 n. 35

T 10 (novum)

Α ίτ ια ι ( ν ) Έκάλη

Aetiorum liber primus

α _ [.]

Καλ(λ)ιμ'ά' (χου) Ύ μ(νοι) [Έπ]ιγράμ[ματα]

RVindob.Gr. inv. 39966 (ed. Sijpesteijn - Worp 1974, 324ff; vide etiam R. Otranto, Antiche liste di libri su papiro, Roma 2000,9-15) 2 post Α ίτίω (ν) solum a, i.e. numerus libri I, dispici potest

1 = fr. 1 Pfeiffer Π ο λλά κμ μοι Τελχΐνεε επιτρύζουειν —βάλλειν . "Ομηροε Sé 'θύου’ (Od. 5,60) τού θυμιάματοε

2j = fr. 2d (2, p. 106 Pfeiffer)

5 fort, βάλλειν I (εν π υ ρ ί) Pfeiffer

]At[

]ωτ[

6 = fr. 6 Pfeiffer

] .c . [

] exto[ οι δ’ eveK Εύρυνόμτη Τιτ-ηνιάε είπαν ετικτεν P.Oxy. 2262 fr. 5 (vide ad 2f) I i[ aut hasta sinistra alterius litt. Θ (?)

3 -7 b

II

others said that Titanian Eurynome bore them II

3 ] potius ω quam ο I

[

pars sinistra litt, e vel

4 o[ vel c[

Gratiae

3 = fr. 3 Pfeiffer __ ].τ α [............................. kójc av[ic αυλών ιρέζειν καί ετεφέων evade τώι Παρίωΐι . . . why does it please the Parian to sacrifice without flutes and wreaths? 1 P S I 1219, 21 (= fr. 7a, 1) I! 2 Heph. 52, 15sqq. Consbruch τού Sé τριεκαώ εκαευλλάβου Suo εχηματα- ποτέ μεν πρώ τοε ό δάκτυλοε ‘νήιδεε of Μ ούεηε ουκ εγενοντο φίλοι (fi. 1 , 2 ), ποτέ Sé δεύτεροε ‘ρεζειν— Π α ρ ίω ί 1 __ ], τ: α vel λ, tum τ (vix ι vel p) I ]_ : fort, α, A vel χ, pars hastae vert, (ut ι, p, γ), mox fort, ante κ lacuna unius litt. I άν[ιε αυλών suppi. Maas 1937, 160 (v[ certum, non τ[): [τώι εφ' άτερ α υ λ ώ ν ] iam Schneider 1851a, 537 et 2, 648 (ad ff. 49la), init, e.g [πρώτον μέν Xapirecciv ενήτπετε] Maas 1934a, 163 II 2 εΰα δε Heph. A

Σ Τ II. 18, 398—399b (4, 513, 82 sqq. Erbse) επαναλαμβάνει, ώε τη ε Χ ά ρ ιτοε μητρόε οΰεηε Εΰρυνόμηε- ‘οί— ετικ τεν I A.D. Conj. 239, 3 sqq. Schneider επ ίμ εμ π το ι οΰν οι τά ε (ευν)ταξειε παραευγχεοντεε, ών εετι Κ αλλίμαχοε- 'οί - Τ ιτηνιάε’, ‘εινεκεν8ιηνεκεε’ (fr. 1, 3)· φερεται γά ρ 6 εύν&εεμοε επί το ‘ήνυεα’, καί 8εον τώ ι οΰνεκα καταχρήεαεθαι

6 ο"δε' με κ Σ 11. (οί Sé μεκ V), οΰδ’ ενεκ A.D. Α, οί δ’, ενεκ EI.Bast, apud G.H.Schaefer, Gregarii Corinthii et aliorum grammaticorum libri de Dialectis Linguae Graecae, Lipsiae 1811,899 I είπαν ετικτε Σ II. (vide Erbse)

Callimachi Aetia 7

fr. 3-7b Gratiae t /

\ / M *»\ / ] C>L7>T >ocTjAiijyya>v ò cuev αAeupa peei, eAAare vw ,j e LAcjyotci LSj’ ivu/i-qcacd^i Ai7rcócLac Xetpipc èjU.Lofc, iva μ ο μ πουλύ /aeVaiCttjV eroe .. ] vene, [ . . ] . [ ........ }υρο€^φ[ ......... ] cSt, Aet[ . ,.].€ ω ν .χόι>'. [,. J .c a r a [........ ] c ϋ .ω μ ο ..[ ]eyapa{ e ., κεινεπυκ[

= fr. 7 , 1-18 Pfeiffer + SH 249A verso

]νλ[ ]ναι ]κατ€ κάλληr ]f γάλα, [ ] ] ν η € '{

}0oc[

]

5

]

]. ο, [ ].Agccat ]rgreAe[..........]ου ]ec ùveiμον[€€] LaijC από κόλπου μητρόε ’Ε λειθυίηjC rjA0erLe /3jο^υλοιμένη^α,

10

ev Sè Π άρω ι κάλλη τ μ καί αιόλα ßevSe’ ΐχουοαμ . . . undressed, like you came from your mother’s womb when Eileithyia was willing, but on Paros with colourful outer garments and shining chitons

137

10

1-17 (fin.) P.Oxy. 2167, fr. 2 col. I 1-14 (ed. Lobel 1941, 47-51 et 183) cum addendis (ed. Lobel 1948, 147) II 7-16 PSI 1217A, fr. 1, 1-10 (ed. Vitelli 1934, 1-4; Norsa-Viteiii 1935, 129-33) II 8 fort. PSI 1217B fr. 1+2 (ed. Vitelli 1934, 4-7; Norsa-Vitelli 1935, 129-33) in marg. infer. ]τατ£λο[ _]_'Αόψο[ ( 0 supra alteram litt, τ scr.; vestigia atramenti etiam supra primam litt, A) (vide etiam Lobel 1935, 35) II 5-11 (fin., sed 5 -8 vestigia incertissma) P. Berol. inv, 17057 verso (ed. Müller 1974, 399; denuo ed. Gronewald 1981, 179-80) = SH 249A verso II 9-10 Σ Τ II. 22, 80c (5, 283, 33 sqq. Erbse) (de κάλποε et μαζόε) τα γεννήεαντα κα'ι θρέφαντα μέρη- ‘ώ ε-βουλομένηε’ II 9 fort, respicit Sud. α 2380 Adler s.v. 'άνείμονεε'· άνίματοι, άνευ ίματίω ν (ut monet A. S. Hollis per litteras) Il 11 EtCen. AB β 100 (2,428, 8 sqq. Lasserre-Livadaras) s.v. βεύδεα- r à [μάτια- Κ αλλίμαχοε ‘εν - έχουεα ι- εημαίνει Sè τà ■ποικίλα rj πορφυρά [μάτια (vide etiam Massimilla 1990b, 183); = EtSym. β 86-7 (2,428, 16 sqq. Lasserre-Livadaras) s.v. βεύδεα et EM 195,47 sqq. Gaisford s.v. βεΰδοε (= ß 124 (2,429,24 sqq. Lasserre-Livadaras) s.v. (βεύδεα) (lemma om. P S Ο M, βεΰδοε R glossis 124 et 125 in unam coniunctis) ) II 3 ευνεθη]κατε κάλληi e.g. Pfeiffer I ληι- P II 4 a_ [: hasta vert., μ]εγάλαι[ vel sim. Massimilla II 5 _[ laeva pars litterae rotundae, fort, ο II 6 }θ potius quam ]e II 7 ] cauda lineae descendentis a laeva I ante A cauda lineae descendentis a laeva: vestigia in q quadrare videntur II 8 6 vel 7 litt, desunt I ]ταθ’ eAe[. )] λόφου ? Pfeiffer e PSI 1217B, έετα τ (vel - θ ’) Maas 1934α, 164 et apud Pfeiffer 1,499 I in fine fort. ]ou etiam in P.Berol. II 9 fort, αχίτω ν)εε Maas 1934a, 164 I άνείμον[εε] Vitelli II 10 εϊλειθυίηε Σ II, cori. Maas (teste Erbse) I ηλθετε I.Bekker, Scholia in Homeri Iliadem, Berolini 1825-27, ad II. 22, 80: ηλθετο Σ Τ I μενηε: fort. ]gevr)[ in P.Berol. excludi non potest (Jpeyafd.. j, legit Gronewald 1981, 180, qui censet ]μενη[ legi non posse) Il 1 1 εν Sè Π άρω ι om. EtSym., init. τεν EM I κάλλεα Schneider 2,422 (ad fr. 155), unde κάλλη Pfeiffer: καλά codd. I βεύδ’ έχουεαι EtGen., EM II

15

. . . and oil always drips from your locks, be gracious now, and wipe your shining hands upon my elegies, so that they will remain for many years 12 Σ AR 1, 1297 (117, 13 sqq. Wendel) οετλιγγεε- α ί λαμπηδόνεε- εν άλλοιε (fort, εν A lrioic Wendel) Sè εημαίνει ή λεξιε τουε βόετρυχαε- 'α π '-ρ έει. τούτο δε φηειν Ήρωδιανοε εν τώ ι β ' τή ε Καθόλου ( 1 , 44, 4 Lentz)· ‘παρά μεν Ά πολλω νίω ι (?) καί Φ ιλίται (fr. 28 Sbardella) διά τού a I EtGen. AB δ ετλ ιγγ εε (δετλιγεε Β )· . . . εημαίνει δε καί τρίχαε, ώε παρά Κ αλλιμάχω ι εν πρώ τω ι Α ιτίω ν, οΐον- ‘ά π’—ρ εει) (vide etiam Massimilla 1990b, 183); £ EM p. 636, 1 1 sqq. et EtSym. cod. V apud Gaisford l.c. I EtOr. 116, 29 sq. Sturz δ ετλιγγεε- at τρίχεε. Κ α λλίμ α χο ε εν α' Α ίτιω ν- ‘αίεν-ρεει II 13-14 Σ BDP Pi. Ν. 4, 10 (3, 65, 10 sqq. Drachmann) ώε εάν γ ε χω ρίε Χ αρίτω ν γρ ά φ η τα ι ό ΰμνοε, άπόλω λε καί εεβεεται, εάν δε μετά Χ αρίτω ν, μένει πράε αιώνα feuSta· καί Κ αλλίμαχοε- ‘ελλατε—ετοε’ II 14— 18 (init.) PSI 1217Β fr. 1+2,1-5 (ed.: vide ad 8 ) 12 init, εετα τ Maas 1934α, 164, υγρόν Maas apud Pfeiffer I, 499 (ut iam L.C.Valckenaer (1752), in I.A.H.Tittmann, D.Ruhnkenii, L.C.Valckenaerii . . . ad LA.Ernesti Epistolae, Lipsiae 1812,48; vide etiam Valckenaer 1799,205), αβρόν Massimilla ad loc. I ό ετιλίγγω ν EtGen. A I S’ om. E M et EtGen. A I αλιφα[_]ερει P (Le. αλειφα[φ]ερει aut αλειφα[ρ]ερει per errorem) Il 13 èAAare Σ Pi. Β, ελλάτε Σ Pi. P, ελλά γ ε Σ Pi. D I ελλέγοιει Σ Pi. P I S’: γ ’ Σ Pi. D I ενιεκηφα\ P, superscr. corrector αεθ [ (ante ac0[ litterae φηε neque legi neque excludi pos­ sunt), ένιφήεαεθαι Σ Pi. P“, ενίφαεαεθαι Σ Pi. D I λεπώ εαε Σ Pi. P II 14 εμοΐε om. Σ Pi. Β in lacuna I πολύ μένουειν Σ Pi. (correxerat iam Valckenaer ; vide Valckenaer 1799, 276) I in fine ίτερ ο ε Σ Pi. P II 15 έν]νεπ’ ? Lobel 1935, 35 I , [ v vel μ I ] [ vest.vert. I φ[ vest.vert., mox p vel c I fort. 8 t|JA Pfeiffer: 7r]upòc ώε φ[άει ε]ϊδιε λεί[τω ρ satis audacter Barber 1955,241, fort. tSJAJA Massimilla (qui ante t vestigia atramenti dispexit) II 16 fort. ]y potius quam χ I ν :ω potius quam ου, sed omnia incerta I v: vel ρ (νωχόρ ? Lobel 1935, 35, νουχόυ ? Pfeiffer) I _[ in ora fort. vest. vert. I ]_ cauda lineae descendentis a laeva: κ]ωε dubitanter Lobel 1935, 35 I ατα[: vel ay a[ II 17 [ vest. vert. I o: vel ω I . , [ vest, incerta; hasta vert. + laeva pars litt, rotundae vel una litt, (π vel η); apex litt.triang. Il 18 ]e : sup. pars. litt, (o vel α potius quam i); v vel λ I π υ κ inceri, (π λ η excludi non potest)

fr. 7,19 -3 4 Pfeiffer = 7 c

fr. 7c-21d Argonautarum reditus et ritus Anaphaeus 7λ =

ς

Flor. 21-37 (Ι,ρ. 13 Pfeiffer)

__ ].τα [...................... ].. κώε ay[ic αυλών (fr. 3, 1) ζητ]εί 8(ià) riva [αιτίαν èv Πάρ]ωι χοορίε αύ[λοΰ κ(α'ι) ετεφάναυ rate Χ[ά]ριει θ[ύου]ει. Μίνωι [τ]ώι Δ [toc «(at) Ευρώ­ π η θαλαεεοκρατο(ύν)τι κ(αί) rate Χάρ[ι]ειν èv Π[άρωι θύοντι Ά[ν]8ρόγεω τοΰ παιδάε θάνατοί άπηγγ[ελλε5 το. ό 5(e) ούτε τ(ών) Χαρίτ(ων) τ(ήε) θυείαε ήμόληεεν, άλ[λ’ εθυεεν, οΰτ€ τοΰ παιδοε τον θάνατον παρενόμ[ηεεν, τον 8’ αύλητ{ην) επεεχε κ(αι) τον ετεφανον ά[ιτεθετο· κ(αι) οντωε π(αρά) rote Παρ[ίο]ιε το εθοε εμεινε- τ[αυ­ τά re ο(υν) ττ(αρά) Κλειοΰε φηειν άκη[κ·ο]€να[ι] «(αί) π(ερί) τ(ήε) [τ(ων) 10 Χαρίτ(ων) γενεεεωε ώε Διονύ[εον] είεί κ(αί) Κορων[ίδοε νύμφηε Ναξίαε, αύτοε προ[ε]ιπών aie παρ’ [ole μ(εν) ΐετορο(ΰν)ται Ήραε και Διόε ε[ΐν]αι, παρ’ ο[ΐ\ε 8(ε) Ε[ύρυν]όμηε τ(ήε) Ωκεανού κ(αί) Διόε, παρ’ οΐε 8(ε) Ε[ύάνθηε τ(·ήε) Ουρανού κ(αι) Δ toc. τ(ην) 8’ ΐετορίαν ελαβεν π[(αρά) Άγιου 15 «■(at) Ζΐερ«υλου. (εετι) «(at) π(αρά) Άριετοτελει ε[ν] τήι Παρίω[ν πολιτεί[αι. . . . w hy. . . without flutes He asks for what reason people sacrifice to the Charites at Paros without flutes and wreaths. When Minos, the son of Zeus and Europa, was lord of the seas and sacrificed to the Charites at Paros he was told about the death of his son Androgeos. He neither neglected the sacrifice to the Charites, but sacrificed all the same, nor did he act unlawfully in respect to his son’s death, but he made the flute-player stop and put off the wreath. And thus this habit was kept by the people o f Paros. He says that he heard these things from Clio and also heard about the birth o f the Charites, that they were born o f Dionysus and the Naxian nymph Coronis, after he himself had first said that according to some they are said to be children o f Hera and Zeus, according to others o f Eurynome, the daughter o f Oceanus, and Zeus, according to others ofEuanthe, the daughter o f Uranus, and Zeus. He took this story from Agias and Dercylus. It is also told in Aristotle’s work about the constitution o f the Parians. P S I1219, fr. 1 , 21-37 (ed. Norsa-Vitelli 1933,123-32; 1935,139-49) 3 μείνω P II 4 χαρ[_ ]ct P II 6 S' [ejovre P II 9 εμεινεν Norsa-Vitelli, sed vestigia in τ melius quadrant II 9-10 [ταΰ]1τα re Pohlenz 1933, 314: de [ταΰ]Ιτα Sé vel τάδε (pro rare P) cogitaverant Norsa-Vitelli 1933 II 11 ]eici pro ε] ici recte scripsit Massimilla II 12 aùròc (φάεκεt), ττροειπών e.g. Norsa-Vitelli II 13 ϊετοράται P (vide etiam Bastianini 2006, 153 sq. n. 24) I ε[?ν]αι pro [efvjai recte scripsit Massimilla II 14 τ'δω κεανου (fort. S del.) P II 15-16 vide FgrH 305 F 8 (= test, lb et fr. 8 Fowler) Il 15 ΐετορίαν P II 16-17 vide Arist. ff. 566 et 611, 25 Rose II 17 ποΑειτει[ P

139

7 b ~ Σ m arg. dext. ff. 7 Pfeiffer

7,11

1]μ ά τια

7, 12

β [ο ετρ ]ύ χω ν

P.Oxy. 2167, fr. 2 col. 1 1-14 Σ marg. dext, (ed.: vide ad fr. 7,1-17 (fin.) )

7c-21d Argonautarum reditus et ritus Anaphaeus 7c = fr. 7 ,1 9 -3 4 Pfeiffer Κ ώ ε δ ε , θ ε α ί ,_. [ . . . ] μ ε ν ά ν η ρ ’Α ν α φ α ΐ ο ε ε π ’ a t’c [^ p o f c ή δ ’ ε π ί 8 υ [ ε φ η μ ο ι ε ) Λ ί ν δ ο ε ά γ ε ι θ υ ε ίη ν , Ύ1. [ . . ] τ7)ν ε. [.......... τ ] ο ν Ή ρ α κ λ ή α ε ε β ίζ τ μ ; ___ε π ι κ , [___ ] ω ε η ρ χ ε τ ο Κ α λ λ ι ό π η ·

And why, goddesses, does a man at Anaphe sacrifice with insults and Lindos with shameful words, . . . (when it ?) honours Heracles? . .. Calliope began: 1-16 (fin.) PSI 1217A, fr. 2 (ed. Vitelli 1934, 1-4; Norsa-Vitelli 1935, 129-33) I PSI 1217B, ff. 1, 6-13 (init. vers. 1 - 8 ) + ff. 2 (fin. vers. 2-8) (ed. Vitelli 1934, 4-7; N orsaVitelli 1935, 129-33) II 1 PSI 1219, ff. 1, 38 (= Σ 21a, 1) I Epim. alph. κ 147 (2, 446, 44sqq. Dyck) Κών· ‘και Κών Εύρυπύλοιο πάλιν’ (IL 2 , 677) η ευθεία Κώε (κακώε cod.)' ά τ όνοε περιεπώμενοε· οΰδεν άλλο eie ωε θηλυκόν περιεπάται η μόνον το Κώε, 1 -8

ο ευμπεπτωκεν ούδετερωι τώι κώε και επιρρηματι ττευετικώι Ίωναε· ‘κώε (κακώε cod.) δε θεαι II

κ α τά

touc

νεωτερουε

Inter 7, 18 et 7c, 1 nullus versus deest II 1 κώε: κακώε Epim.alph. I vest, atramenti in linea; mox fort, pars superior litterae u : θ[ύων] (Vitelli 1934, 5) vel θ[ύει] Norsa-Vitelli 1935, 132, Φ[οίβωι] Maas 1934a, 164 (vestigiis et spatio non convenit, ut iam Norsa-Vitelli 1935, 132), Λ{υκίαιι\ Maas apud Pfeiffer, Αυ[κίωι] vestigiis et spatio convenire videtur I in fine επ’ aicfyci Vitelli 1934,5, επαιε[χροιε Maas 1934a, 164, επ’αίε[χροΐε Körte 1935a, 226 η. 4 et Norsa-Vitelli 1935,132 II 2 επί δυ[εφήμοιε Norsa-Vitelli 1935,132, επί βλ[αεφήμοιε Lobei 1935, 35 (vestigiis non convenit), ετι 8υ[εφήμωε] Barber 1955, 241 II 3 , ( _] ante lacunam fort, hasta vert., ( vestigia incerta: φ ά[ρο]την e[cöovra τ]όν N orsaVitelli 1935, 132, ε[ρδουεα Maas 1934a, 165, -ήδιετην ε[ΰθ’ η γε τ]όν Barber 1951α, 79, ηδιετ’ ψ ε[εθοντα τ]άν Barber 1955, 241 I εεβίζει Maas 1934α, 164, init. fort. η[ν M.P.Cuypers per litteras II 4 vest.incerta I [ vest, vert.: part, in -ό]ωε’ Norsa-Vitelli 1935, 132 sq. (m on­ ente Coppola, qui cogitat de ε’ττί/χε[ιδιό]οκ’), fort. τ]ώε Pfeiffer (adv. etiam Vitelli 1934,5) Il

Callimachi Aetia “Αί^Χήτην ιΑ νάιφην re, Αακωνίδι yet τονα. Θιήρηί, π]ρώτ[ον ivi μ]νήμηί κάτθεο καί Μινναε, a ιρχμενοε cocj ήρωεε απ’ Αίήταο Κυταίου auric ic άρχαίηνι επΧεον Αίμονίην ]ev, δ δ’ ώc ιδ ε ν εργa θυγατρ[οε ] εΧεξε τ ά δ ε ]tcq[.. ]. εθνοε Ίήονεε αΧΧαμενε... [ ]πάντα δ’ άνατράπεΧα cp. , . [ ε^οιήεαντό μ€ φόρτον cov[ ]. ν δ εφε φέρει ‘First commit to your memory Aegletes and Anaphe, the neighbour o f Laconian Thera, and the Minyans, beginning how the heroes sailed from Cytaean Aeetes back to ancient Flaemonia . . . and when he saw what his daughter had done . . . he spoke as follows:

fr. 7c-21d Argonautarum reditus et ritus Anaphaeus 5

141

αΰτανδ[ρον ] TiXioc tcrio καί Φàcίc [ποταμών ·ήμ€]τδρων ßaciXevc

15

.. . let the Sun be my witness and Phasis, the king o f our rivers 10

15 fort, respicit Hsch. a 8363 Latte ‘αύτανδρον’· εύν aùrofc roic άνδράειν Berol. inv. 17057,1 recto (= ff. 7d, 1) (vide Gronewald 1981, 180 n. 3)

15

II

16 fort. =

15 αΰτανδ[ρον dubitanter suppl. Wilamowitz 1912, 546 II 16 post φαειε fort, vestigia tenuissima, ut Lobel 1935, 36; ποταμώ ν suppl. Ed.Schwartz apud Pfeiffer 1921, 13, [πατέρων ήμε]τέρω ν Wilamowitz 1912, 545 I Ιςιλει«:· PSI 1217Α

5

10

7d

= SH 249A recto

και. [ a£e.[ πικ[ του[

«AAL Π 5 et 7-8 Str. 1, 2, 39, 46C, 2sqq. (1, p. 112sqq. Radt) λέγετα ι πολλά τεκμή ρια τή ε τε Ίάεοναε ετρατείαε καί τή ε Φρίξου, τή ε δ ’ Ίάεονοε καί τώ ν επιδιω ξάντω ν Κ όλχω ν και μέχρι τή ε Κ ρ ή τη ε και τή ε Ίτα λία ε καί τού i’A jS p io v ών ένια καί ό Κ αλλίμαχοε έπιεημαίνεται τό τε μεν 'Ά ίγλή τη ν -Θ ή ρ η ι λέγω ν ' ά ρχμενοε-Α ίμονίην’, τό τε δε περί τώ ν Κ ολχω ν ‘ο ίΠ όλαε’ (fr. 11, 1—4) II 5 Str. 10, 5, 1, 484C, 19sqq. (3, p. 270 Radt) περί δε τη ν Κρήτην είεί νήεοι Θήρα μεν ή τώ ν Κυρηναίων μητρόπολιε, άποικοε Λακεδαιμονίω ν, καί πληείον τα ύ τη ε Α νάφη, εν ήι το τοΰ Α ίγ λ ή το υ Ά πόλλω νοε ιερόν. (λέγει δέ καί Κ α λλίμα χο ε τό τε μεν οΰτω ε Ά ίγ λ ή τ η ν -Θ ή ρ η ι, τό τε δέ τή ε θ ή ρ α ε μνηεθείε ’μ ή τη ρ εύίππου πατρίδοε ήμετέρηε' (fr. 716, 2)) I fort, respicit Hsch. α 1736 Latte Ά ίγ λ ή τ η ν ’· επίθετον Άπόλλω νοε II 11-16 P.Berol. 11521,8-13 (= r 2 1 b ,8-13) (ed. Wilamowitz 1912,544-7) Il 13 £ L S . Ant. 1036 (p. 267, 9sqq. Papageorgios) κ ά μπεφ ό ρτιεμ α ι■ π επ ρ α γμ ά τευμ α ι (ex scholio sequente huc retraxit Brunck; de M R vide de Marco 1937, 198), προδέδομαι, φόρτοε γεγένημ α τ 'έποιήεαντό μ ε φόρτον’ Κ αλλίμαχοε II 5 Θήραι Str. 10, 5, 1 (corn Korais et Meineke teste Radt) Il 6 suppl. Norsa-Vitelli 1935, 132 I μινναε- PSI 1217A II 7-8 in marg. sin. vestigia atramenti, fort, schol. aut fin. vers, columnae praecedentis II 7 άρχμενοε Str. 1, 2, 39 C: άρχόμενοε AB I αιήταο PSI 1217B Il 8 vi PSI 1217B I de marg. infer. PSI 1217B vide comm. ad ff. 7, 8 II 9 Ά φυρτοε δ’ έθνηιεκ]εν e.g. Vitelli 1934,5, Μ ηδείη θ’ αμ’ έφευγ]εν e.g. Barber 1951«, 79 II 10 αίνωε δ’ ώ ργίεθη, δεινά δ’] e.g. Vitelli 1934, 5 I τάδε· PSI 1217Α II 11 ]κα[ ] vest. sup. partis litt. (fort, v), fort. jca[icóv] Pfeiffer I . [ sup. pars hastae vert. (=. [ inf. pars hastae vert, in PSI 1217A, v non quadrat); pars lineae hor. (?); vest, incerta PBerol.: k t [ vel ρξ [ excludi non possunt, fort. έρ[ξαν Vitelli 1934, 7, fort. εκτα[ν Pfeiffer II 13 co. . [ post co inf. pars hastae vert.; vest, ine.: εονε[θε Barber-Maas 1950, 168 I φορτίον Σ Ant. R (teste De Marco) II 14 εού[μενοι Wilamowitz 1912, 545, εοΰ[εθε Barber-Maas 1950, 168 (qui et alia suppl. e.g.) I ]. y sup. pars hastae vert., fo rti (potius quam ο), νήιο]ν Pfeiffer 1921, 13, νήι]ον Mas­ similla, fort, potius -e]_iv II

5

μηδειη[ €χθραπ. [ P. Berol. 17057 (ed. Müller 1974,399 η. 7; Gronewald 1981,179-80) 1 [pars laeva litterae a vel φ (ob positionem fort, potius α): fort. = fr. 7 c, 16 καί ψ ιά ειε Gronewald 1981, 180 η. 3 II 2 fort. Άξει[νοε Gronewald 1981, 180 η. 3 II 3 de πικ[ρόε vel sim. cogitat Müller II 6 Μ ηδείη vel μ η δ’ είη (ε“η[ε, ε “η[ν) Müller II 5 ]_ [ linea ad dext. ascendens, pars litterae χ vel accentus in 6 (i.e. μηδείη) Il 7 supra Θvestigia duarum litt, dispexit Massimilla; non video I in fine q[ vestigiis bene convenit

8 = fr. 8 Pfeiffer παρά την icriav γάρ àvetXe τον Άφυρτον (sc. Medea), η 4πΙ τώι βωμώι τήε 'Αρτόμιδοε, ώε [teat] ΆποΧΧώνιόε (4, 452 sqq.) φηειν, ή επ’ οίκου εν τήι πατρίδι, ώε ΚαΧΧίμαχοε. For she killed Apsyrtus at the hearth. She either killed him at the altar o f Artemis, as Apollonius says, or at home in her own country, as Callimachus says. Σ AB E. Med. 1334 (2, 211,11 sqq. Schwartz) ad κταυούαι γά ρ δή còv κάειν 1-2 ή-φ η ειν om. A Schwartz I év om. A

II II

2 επ ’ οίκου Schwartz; εποικον AB, del. Wilamowitz apud 3 ώε Κ αλλίμαχοε om. A

fr. 7c—21d Argonautarum reditus et ritus Anaphaeus 9 = fr. 9 Pfeiffer (a) . . . ούδείε δε ίετορεΐ διά τούτου (se. flumen Ister) τούc ’Α ργο­ ν α ύ τ α είεπεπΧευκεναι eie την ημετεραν ΘάΧαεεαν εξω Τιμαγητου (FHG 4, 519 ff. 1 Μ), du ηκοΧούθηεεν ΑποΧΧώνιοε. ό μεν γάρ €κύμνοε αύτούε διά Τανάιδοε πεπΧευκεναι επί την μεγάΧην θάΧαεεαν, εκεΐθεν δε eie την ημετεραν θάΧαεεαν εΧηΧυθεναι. καί 7ταρεκβοΧεύεται, ώε αρα εΧθόντεε επί την ήπειρον οί üpyovaürai επί ετρωτηρων εκόμιεαν την Α ργώ , μεχριε οΰ επί ΘάΧαεεαν παρεγενοντο. Ήείοδοε (fr. 241 MW) Si διά Φάειδοε αύτούε είεπεπΧευκεναι Χεγει. Έκαταΐοε (FGrH 1 F 18b) Si ( . . . Άρτεμίδωροε (vide Σ AR 4, 257—62b) Si) εΧεγχων αυτόν ίετορεΐ μη εκδιδόναι etc την ΘάΧαεεαν τον Φάειν. ουδέ διά Τανάιδοε επΧευεαν, άΧΧά κατά τον αυτόν πΧοΰν, καθ’ ον καί πρότερον, ώε €οφοκΧήε εν €κύθαιε (F 547) ίετορεΐ καί ΚαΧΧίμαχοε- (. . .) αυτών (sc. Colchorum) τούε μεν eie τον Ά δρίαν πεπΧευκόταε μη εύρεΐν τούε Άργοναύταε, τούε δε διά των Κυανεων πετρών επί την Κέρκυραν, ένθα κάκεΐνοι (sc. Argonautae) τότε ηεαν.

( b ) . . . δ ι αφωνοΰει δε οί περί τού εκπΧου τών Αργοναυτών τού εκ ΚόΧχων γεγραφότεε. ( . . . ) ώε καί ΚαΧΧίμαχοε· φηεί δε ’ΑποΧΧώνιοε νποετρεφαι αύτούε έναντιωε ΚαΧΧιμάχωι.

5

(c ) τών ΚόΧχων οί μεν δ ι ά τών Κυανεων πετρών επΧευεαν [ώε καί ΚαΧΧίμαχοε· φηεί δε ’ΑποΧΧώνιοε ύποετρεφαι αύτούε εναντίωε ΚαΧΧιμάχωι], ά λ λ ο ι δε μετά ΆφύρτουΤετρον εεχον.

(b) The people who have written about the return o f the Argonauts from Colchis give different versions. ( . . . ) as Callimachus also says, but Apollonius says that they returned along a different route than in Callimachus. 10 (c) Some o f the Colchians sailed through the Cyanean rocks [ . . . ] , others aimed for the Ister with Apsyrtus. (b) Σ AR 4, 301-2 (282, Argonautae)

12

sqq. Wendel) ad 302 Ίετροιο μύγαν ρόον είεαφίκοντο (sc.

(c) Σ AR 4, 303-6a (282, 15 sq. Wendel) ad 303 sqq. ΚόΧχων 8’ α ντ άλλοι μύν . .. άλλοι δ’

15

(a) No one says that the Argonauts sailed to our sea along that river, apart from Timagetus, whom Apollonius followed. For Scymnus says that they sailed along the Tanais to the big sea and came from there to our sea. And he tells in a digression that the Argonauts, when they had come to the mainland, carried the Argo on cross-beams until they came to the sea. Hesiod says that they sailed along the Phasis. Hecataeus . . . , but Artemidorus contradicts him and says that the Phasis does not flow into the sea. And they did not sail along the Tanais, but along the same route as before, according to Sophocles in the Scythae and Callimachus;. . . of them the ones who sailed to the Adriatic did not find the Argonauts, but the ones who went through the Cyanean rocks to Corcyra, where they too were at that time, did. (a) Σ AR 4, 282-9lb (280, 17 sqq. Wendel) ad 284 Ίετρον μιν καλύοντεε

143

II

(a), 1 τούτου HF: τούτω ν L, τού Ίετρο υ Ρ II 2 την ημετεραν ΘάΧαεεαν L: τον Ά δριατικάν κόλπον Ρ II 7 ετρω τηρω ν L: εαυροτηρων Ρ II 8—13 Ήείοδοε— ΚαΧΧίμαχοε L: om. Ρ II 9 εκπεπΧευκεναι Schneider 2, 80 II 8-9 suppi. H.Hollander, De Hecataei Milesii descriptione terrae, Diss. Bonn. 1861, 21 (teste Wendel); traditum def. W.Aly, Volksmärchen, Sage und Novelle bei Herodot und seinen Zeitgenossen, Göttingen 1921, 119 n. 2 II 11-14 (οί δε Χεγοντεε ότι) oùSè .. . ΚαΧΧίμαχοε, (τεκμήριον ποιούνται) των (ΚόΧχων) τούε μεν . . . Fränkel 1968, 475 II 12 fort. εκπΧευεαι Keil II 13 post ΚαΧΧίμαχοε interpunxit F (i.e. J.Lascaris): post ίετορεΐ interpunxit L I lacunam indicavit Keil: fort, (oc φηει) vel (λόγων) I οθεν καί τω ν €κυθών τούε pro αυτών τούε coniecit F (i.e. J.Lascaris, Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica, Florentiae 1496,136) II

(b) , 2 (. . .) fort, laudatur opinio de reditu per Bosporum, e.g. (οί μεν Xéyovci . . . ) Il 2-3 ó>c—ΚαΧΧιμάχωι e ff. 9(c), 2 sq. huic scholio adiecit C.Wendel, ‘Argonautensage und Geographie’, Schles.fhb. 3, 1924, 41-65 (ρ. 64) (φηει-ΚαΧΧιμάχωι huc pertinere viderunt Wilamowitz apud E.Fitch, De Argonautarum reditu quaestiones selectae, Diss.Gottingae 1896, 27 et 1924,2,169; Pfeiffer 1922,48 sqq.) (c) , 1-3 [ώ ο-Κ αλλιμάχωι] transposuit post fr. 9(b), 2 γεγρ α φ ά τΐο ■ ( . . . ) Wendel Il 3 εεχον Wilamowitz in suo editionis Keilianae exemplo (teste Wendel ad Σ AR 4, 303-6a): εΐχον codd.

10 = fr. 10 Pfeiffer μαετύοε άΧΧ’ οτ εκαμνον άΧητύι but when they grew tired by the wandering o f their search Σ AR 1, 1353 (122, 1 sqq. Wendel) μαετεύοντεε- ζητοΰντεε· εξ οΰ καί μ α ετυε ή ζή τη α ε. ΚαΧΧίμαχοε· ‘pacTuoc—άλητυι’ οθεν καί μα ετοί καλούνται διά το άναγκαίωε ζητεΐεθαι υπό τών παίδων I fort. = fr. I l , 1 I Σ Β AP 7, 468, 6 (2. 1, ρ. 325 Stadtmüller) μαετεύειν γάρ το ζητεΐν εξ οΰ μ α ετύε ή ζήτηειε- ΚαΧΧίμαχοε' ‘μαετύοε άΧΧοτ άΧΧητύΐ 1 0 άλλ’ ο τ’ vEldik 1764,24 et F.Jacobs, Animadversiones in epigrammata Anthologiae Graecae . . . , II 2, Lipsiae 1800, 145: άλλοτε codd., def. Schneider 2, 502 I εκαμνον om. Σ Β AP I άΧΧητύι Γ ΒAP

Callimachi Aetia

fr. 7c-21d Argonautarum reditus et ritus Anaphaeus

145

12 = fr. 12 Pfeiffer

11 = fr. 11 Pfeiffer

........ ß..i.]a.py[ Φ α ιη κ ω ν Ιγ ό ν ο ν [ τ] θ ' . [

c [

ε ε μ ό ν ά γ ω ν ε τ ε ρ ο ι ε ι. [ . ] . [ . ] ......... [

ο l ιμ ε ν ε π ’ Ί λ λ υ ρ ικ ο ΐο π ό ρ ο υ ε χ ά ε ε α ν τ ε ε ε ρ ε τ μ ά A à La π ά ρ α ξ α ν θ ή ε Ά ρ μ ο ν ί η ε ο φ ιο ε a c iT v p o v ε κ τ ί ε ε α ν τ ο , τ ό μ ε ν “Φ υ γ α δ ώ ν ά ” κ ε ν ί ε π ο ι

e /e n e e Κ ε ρ κ [ υ ] ρ α ΐ ο ν ε δ ε θ λ ιο ν , ε ν θ [ ε ν ctv’ a t m e 5

Γ ρ ^ α ι κ ό ε , ά τ ά ρ κ ε ίν ω ν γ λ ώ ε ε ό ν ό μ η ν ε “Π ό λ α ε ”.

ε τ ά ν τ ε ε Ά μ ^ ^ τ ί ν τ ί Υ toiKiC\_au Ώ ρ ι κ ί η ν .

5

κ α ί τ α μ έ ν cuLc η μ ε λ λ ε μ ε τ ά χ ρ ό ν ο ν ε κ τ ε λ ε ε ε θ α ι

οίδ[ some relaxed their oars on the coast o f the Illyrian Sea near the stone of fair Harmonia, the snake, and founded a city, which a Greek would call Phygadon, whereas in their language it was called Polae. 1-7 init. ROxy. 2167, fir. 2 col. II 1-7 (ed. Lobel 1941, 47-51) Il 1 fort. = fr. 10 II 3-6 Str, 1, 2, 39, 46C, 2sqq. (1, p. 112 sqq. Radt) λέγετα ι πολλά τεκμή ρια τή ε τε Ιάεονοε ετρατείαε και τή ε Φρίξου, τή ε δ’ Ιάεονοε καί τω ν έπιδιω ξάντω ν Κ όλχω ν και μέχρ ι τήε Κ ρ ή τη ε κα'ι τή ε Ίτα λία ε κα'ι τού Ά δ ρ ίο ν ών ενια καί ό Κ α λλίμα χοε επιεημαίνεται τό τε μεν 'Ά ίγλ ή τη ν -Θ ή ρ η ι’ (fr. 7 c, 5 ) λέγω ν 'άρχμενοε-Α ιμονίην (fr. 7c, 7 sq.), το τέ δε περί τών Κ όλχω ν ‘ο ί-Π ό λα ε’ II 5 -6 Str. 5, 1, 9, 215C, 32 sqq. (2 , p. 18 Radt) ή δε Π άλα ιδρυται μεν εν κόλπω ι λιμενοειδεΐ νηείδια έχοντι εΰορμα κα'ι εύκαρπα, κ τίεμα δ’ έετ'ιν άρχαΐον Κ όλχω ν τώ ν ε π ί τη ν Μ ήδειαν έκπεμφθέντω ν, διαμαρτόντω ν Βέ τή ε πράξεω ε κα'ι καταγνόντω ν εα υ τώ ν φ υ γ ή ν 'τό-Γ ρα ικόε', ώε Κ α λλίμα χοε εΐρηκεν, ‘άτάρ—Π ό λα ε’ I respicit Σ ssV Tz. Lyc. 1022 (316, 23 sqq. Scheer) Π άλαι δε πόλιε Η πείρο υ υπό Κ όλχω ν κτιεθείεα τώ ν καταδιω ξάντω ν τη ν Μ ήδειαν κα'ι μ η καταλαβόντω ν αυτήν κα'ι διά φόβον Α ίήτου ενταύθα κατοικηεάντω ν και κτιεάντω ν την πόλιν, ή τιε τή ι Κ ολχίδι φωνήι Π άλαι καλείται εημαίνοντοε τού όνόματοε τούε φυγάδαε ώε φηει Κ αλλίμαχοε 1 μ[ vestigiis convenit II 2 pars infer, hastae vert, curvatae, fort. μ[ II 3 Ίλλυρικοΐο: ίλλυριίω A, ’Ι λλυριοίο A.Meineke, Vindiciarum Strabonianarum, Berolini 1852, 5 I εχάεεαντεε Hecker 1842, 45 sq.: εχάεαντεε codd. Il 4 δφιοε: τάφιον coni. Bentley ad fr.civ II 5 μεν “Φ υγαδώνά” κ’ Radt: μέν φυγάδω ν τιε Str. 1, 2, 39 (ubi κεν pro μέν Korais teste Radt), μέν φυγάδω ν κεν Str. 5, 1, 9 ACpc ( - κέν Β, - μεν C“ ), κεν 'φυγάδω ν τιε Pfeiffer li 7 οι sup. partes litt.

. . . he founded a settlement on Corcyra, from where they moved again and settled in Orician Amantine. But these things were to be thus fulfilled after some time 1-7 P.Oxy. 2168 verso, 1-7 (ed. Lobel 1941, 51-2) II 5 St. Byz. 1, 12 Billerbeck s.v. 3 Ά βα ντίε· ή Εύβοια . . . το Ά β α ντία θηλυκόν, δπερ κατά βαρβαρικήν τροπήν τού β είε μ Ά μ α ντία ελέχθη . .. Κ αλλίμαχοε δε Ά μαντίνην (Xylander: μαντίνην R Q Ρ Ν), ώε Λεοντίνην, αυτήν έφη· κα'ι ‘Ά μαντίνην-Ώ ρικίην’ et 1 , 176 Billerbeck s.v. 253 Ά μαντία’Ι λλυριών μοίρα, π λη είον’Ω ρικού και Κερκύραε, εξ Ά βάντω ν τώ ν άπό Τροίαε νοετηεάντων ώικιεμένη. Κ αλλίμαχοε 'Ά μαντίνην αυτήν φηειν I Σ AR 4, 1174—5b (308, 21 sqq. Wendel) χερνήεοιο’ .. . τα ύ τη ν οι κατοικοΰντεε μ ετά Ιλίου άλωειν ( . . . ) οι μέν Ά βα ντεε ( . . . ) ‘Ά μαντίνην ώ ικιεαν (de scholiis corruptis et lacunosis vide Wendel ad loc.; C. Wendel, Die Überlieferung der Scholien zu Apollonios von Rhodos, Berlin 1932, 94; Pfeiffer ad ff. 12, 5) II 6 AR 1, 1309 καί τα μέν ώε ήμ ελλε μ ετά χρόνον έκτελέεεθαι et Σ ad loc. (118, 26 sqq. Wendel) Κ αλλιμάχου ό ετίχοε- κοινόν δέ αμάρτημα πάντων τώ ν μ εθ ’“Ομηρον ποιητώ ν, τά άπο ευμφωνου άρχόμενα ρήματα κατά τον ένεετώ τα χρόνον διά τού η έκφέρειν επί τού παρατατικού 1 litt, prima: vestigium rotund, in ora et pars hastae vert, descendentis infra lineam, fort, φ; sec.: infima pars litt, a vel A; mox partes infer, hastarum vert. (fort. 3 litt.):, πρ vel. πυ in vestigia quadrare videtur; fort, δ (vel a vel v); β satis certum; vest, duarum litt, (hasta vert.; litt, rotund.) vel unius litt, η I potius apy quam αφν II 2 . [ infer, pars litt.rotundae; vest, incerta: ευ[νήμονεε Frankel 1968, 579 η. 272, qiiod in vestigia quadrare videtur; possis etiam ευνοϊκοί usquam in 1 vel 2 (sed non post εγένον[τ]o; vide comm.) II 3 έεμόνά P I i [ linea hor. supra i, mox infima pars hasta obliquae I ].[ vest, incerta I ] [ hasta vert.; litt, rotund, (superior pars litt, o vel c ?); hasta vert. descendens infra lineam (ι, φ, p); vest, tenuissima in ora II 4 έκτειεε P, ε ante i dei. corrector, qui etiam signa alio atramento addidit I κορκ[ ]paiov P, o ante p del. et ε suprascr. corrector I εδεθλιον P I in fine άν’ αΰτιε vel έκείνοι e.g. Pfeiffer II 5 ετάν Ρ I ]ντίνηνώκιε[ nihil nisi apices litt, et accentus et i supra co add. Ρ: ώκηεαν St.Byz. R Q P Ν I Ώ ρικήν St.Byz. R

fr. 7c~21 d Argonautarum reditus et ritus Anaphaeus

147

15 = fr. 15 Pfeiffer

13 = fr. 13 Pfeiffer

(a) Άπολλόδωροε δε επιτιμάι Καλλιμάχωί, ευνηγορών rote περί τον Έρατοεθενη, διότι καίπερ γραμματικόε ών παρά την 'Ομηρικήν ύπόθεειν καί τον εζωκεανιεμόν τών τόπων, περί οΰε την πλάνην φράζει, Γαύδον καί Κόρκυραν ονομάζει. (b) επιτιμάι δε και τοΐε περί Οικελίαν την πλάνην λεγουει καθ’Όμηρον την Όδυεεεωε .. . · καί τοΐε μεν άλλοιε ευγγνώμην είναι, Καλλιμάχωί δε μη πάνυ μεταποιουμενωι γε γραμματικήε, δε την μεν Γαύδον Καλυφούε νήεόν φηει (fr. 470), την δε Κόρκυραν Οχερίαν. (a) Apollodorus supports Eratosthenes and his followers and criticizes Callimachus, because, although he is a grammarian, he uses the names Gaudos and Corcyra, in defiance o f the idea that in Homer the location of the places where he situated the wanderings was in Oceanus.

άμφίδυμοε Φαίηζ the Phaeacian . . . with two entrances Σ D.P. 493 (GGM 2, 449, 36sqq.) — Κ ερκυραι δε δύο ε ’ιείν, ή μεν λεγομενη νυν Φ αιακίε .. . και δύο λιμεναε εχει ή Φαιακίε, τον μεν Αλκινόου, τον δε Ύ λλου- διό φηει Κ αλλίμαχοε- ‘άμφίδυμοε Φ αίαξ’ I Σ AR 4, 983d (301, 8 sqq. Wendel) . . . νήεοε Κ έρκυρα■ αυτή προτερον €χερία εκαλείτο, αμφιλαφή δε τον λιμένα είρηκεν τον αμφοτέρωθεν πρόεορμον εχοντα, ον Κ α λλίμα χοε ‘άμφίδυμον’ εΐπεν . . . ίετορεϊ δε περί τού λιμενοε τώ ν Φαιάκων Ά πολλω νίδηε εν τώ ι Π ερίπλω ι τή ε Ε ύρώ πηε (FHG 4 , ρ. 309) I Hsch. α 4001 Latte s.v. ‘άμφ ίδυμοε’· εξ έκατερου μερουε εΐεδυειν εχων Φ αίηξ Schneider 2 , 546 ad fr. 336, qui addit (λιμην) ante άμφίδυμοε, ut finis sit versus praecedentis: Φ αίαξ codd.

16 = fr. 16 Pfeiffer

(b) He also criticizes those who situate the wanderings of Odysseus in Homer around Sicily . . . and says that the others may be forgiven, but Callimachus not at all, because, while pretending to be a grammarian, he says that Gaudos is the island of Calypso and Corcyra is Scheria. (a) Apollod. FGrH 244 F 157d (apud Str. 1, 2, 37, 44C, 25 sqq. (1, p. 110 Radt) ) (b) Apollod. FGrH 244 F 157 (apud Str. 7, 3 , 6 , 299C, 19 sqq. (2, p. 260 Radt) )

II

(a), 1 post Κ α λλιμά χω ί vestigia 2 litterarum in A (‘eras. vid. γ ε Niese ms) I τον om. ed.pr. II 3 ove Heyne: öS ABC I Γαύδον Casaubonus: καΰνον codd. I Κόρκυραν a: κόρκυραν A (alii codd. alia) Il (b), 1 επιτιμ ά ι Casaubonus: επιτείναι codd. II 3 γ ε Xylander: τε codd.

λάληθρον την Αργώ λεγει· λάληθρον δε επειδή, φαειν, etc τήε φηγού τήε iv Δωδώνηι ζάλον είχε φωνήεν καί Καλλίμαχοε φωνήεεεαν αυτήν εκά Aece. He says that the Argo was talkative; talkative because, as they say, it had a piece o f wood with a voice from the oak in Dodona and Callimachus called it ‘gifted with a voice’. Σ s Lyc. 1319 (371,25 sqq. Scheer)

17 = fr. 17 Pfeiffer + SH 250-251 14 = fr. 14 Pfeiffer Corcyra . . . Homero dicta Scheria et Phaeacia, Callimacho etiam Drepane Corcyra . . . called Scheria and Phaeacia by Homer and also Drepane by Callimachus Plin. N H 4, 52 (1, 320,19 sqq. Ian-Mayhoff)

T O ..Ü . [,]δ. [

τείρεα δεκρ[ άπταίετουί ου μεν θην[

5

άλλ’ ec άδελ[;; lacuna non capit οι vel sim.); secunda litt, c inter duo puncta posita et a superscripta est: 0_ Άδρα[νιτώ ν τε πολίχνην Hunt, [ή]δ’ vel [of] δ’ Άδρα[νον Maas 1928, 130, οΒ Αδρα[νου πτολίεθρον Ehlers 1933, 21, οίδ’ Άδρα[νοίο πολίχνην Pfeiffer 1938, 65, [οί]δ εδρα(νον Massimilla I ] [ vestigia tenuissima II 51 dispexit et suppi. Pfeiffer 1938, 62 sq. (infimae partes'litterarum royc extant, ο[ι] legi non potest): άτάρ[ο]υε (ουε) πα[ρε\ναεεαν H unt II

Νιεαΐοι Μ εγαρηζε, εχω δ’ Εύβοιαν ενιεπε[ΐν φιλατο κα[ί] κεετ[ο]ΰ [δ]εεπότιε η ν ’Έρυκα· ταων ούδεμιήι γά[ρ οτ]ι c 7 ro [rè ] τεΐχοε εδειμε νωνυμνι νομιμ·ηγ ερχ[ε]τ’ εττ είλαττίγηγ.” clic εφαμην- Κλειώ δε το [ δ ]ευτερον ηρχ[ετο μ]ύθ[ου χειρ’ επ άδελφειήε ώμον ερειεαμενηλαοε ο μεν Κυμτηε, ο δε Χαλκιδοε, ον Π ερί’ήρτηε η γα γε και μεγάλου λημα Κραταιμενεοε, Τρινακρίηε εττεβηεα[ν], ετείχιεεαγ δε ττόληα αρτταεον οιωνών ούχί φυλα[εεόμενοι] εχθιετον κτίετηιειν, ερωιδιό[ε εΐ μ η εφε]ρπει· και γαρ ό βαεκαίνει πύργον ε[γειρόμεν]ον γεω δαΐται κ α μ s ειτάρτα διην^εκεε εΰτε1 βάλωνται, ετεινεα και λευράε οφρα τάμ[ωειν ó ]8 o tic .

185

55

60

gs

from Nisa, sent away as colonists, and I can tell about Euboea and about Eryx, which the mistress o f the strap loved; for in none o f these towns the man who once built its wall comes to the usual sacrificial meal anonymously.” 55 Thus I spoke, and Clio began to speak for the second time, resting her hand upon her sister’s shoulder: ‘People, partly from Cumae, partly from Chalcis, led by Perieres and the wilful and mighty Crataemenes, set foot on Trinacria, and they built a wall around the town 60 without heeding the harpasos, which of the ominous birds is the one most hateful to colonists, if it is not accompanied by the heron; for he casts a spell on the walls which are being erected when the surveyors throw down the ropes across the length o f the streets in order to mark the alleyways and the wide roads. 65 53, f° rt· respicit 27 A II. 3, 371 (1, 424, 60 sqq. Erbse) πολύκεετοε- . . . καί ό τή ε Ά φ ροδίτηε κεετοε απο το ύ τ ο ν τή νυν τούτον ιμάντα . . . I ποίκιλαν’. (II. 14, 219 sq.) ό Sé Κ αλλίμαχοε ωε ονομα κύριον τού ίμάντοε τον κεετον άκδάχεται II 55 fort, respicit Et.Sym. a 693/94 (1,362,3 sqq. Lasserre-Livadaras) s.v. ά μ ο θ εί·.. . νωνυμνι II 64 EtGen. AB s.v. γαιοδόταιοια ρχιτεκτονεε η οικοδόμοι (Schneider: -νόμοι codd.)· Κ α λλίμ α χο ε· ‘γα ιη δόται-β ά λω ντα ι’ (Α α λλιμαχοε-βαλω νται’ om. β). γίνετα ι Sé (γίνεται δά om. A) παρά τό δαίειν (Bentley » , “ VII,: codcH ° εημρίνει το μερίζειν, οί τη ν γη ν (οί την γη ν om. A ) διαμερίζοντεε, ο εετι οιαγραφοντεε ειε οικήματα (vide etiam Massimilla 1990&, 186); = EM 223 18sao s v γαιοδόται II ’ ' ' 52 δ Ρ II 5 3 ήν Ρ II 54 ούδεμιήι Wilamowitz apud Maas 1928, 130: ούδεμίη Mum ^ Il 55 νωνυμνι dispexit Maas 1928, 130 (-η Hunt) Il 57 χειρ Ρ II 60 ετειχιεεαν Massimilla 1990a, 18 sq.: ετείχιζον Hunt II ' 62 κ τίεταιειν Hunt: κ τίετηιειν tenter I ερωιιο[ et δ priori litterae i superscripta (ita ut apex litterae ι partim deleatur) Ρ II suppi. Housman apud Hunt II 64 γεμιδαϊται Ρ (ut iam Bentley ad fr. c l v h i ): γαιοοοται EM, γαιηδάται EtGen. AB, EM D II

186

Callimachi Aetia

μερμν[ο]ν μοι τττερύγεεει __ [......... ]gv re νεοιο, €i κοτετιζ{ J , _ην λαόν εποικον α[γοιε. άλλ’ ore δή μόεευνac επάλξεει [καρτυνθε]vrac οι κτίετα ι δρεπανον θεντο rre[pì Kpóviojy, — κ€ΐθί γά ρ ojL τα γονήοε απεθριεε ιμήδε’ ε κ ^ μ ν ^ ε κεκρυπται γύ π η ι ζάγκλον υπό ιχθονίηι — , . [ ] _ιεαν άμφι πόληοσ δ μεν θε[ ........... ]ec0cu May you go with the wings of the buzzard .. if ever you . . . will lead a group o f colonists. But, mind you, when the founders had built the wooden city-walls strengthened with battlements around Cronus’ sickle — for there the sickle with which he cut off his father’s genitals is hidden in a cave beneath the earth— . . . about the town; one of them .. .

fr. 43-43a De Siciliae urbibus

70

70

70-1 EtGen. A B s.v. εθ ριεεν Κ α λ λ ίμ α χ ο ν 'κείθι-εκεϊνοε' {A: 'κεΐθι-άπεθριεεν B) παρά το θερίζω και κατά ευγκοπήν βρίζω (βρίζω om. Λ) και άποθρίζω (Β: άπό τον βρίζω Λ) καί άπέθριεεν (vide etiam Massimilla 1990b, 186) I EtGen, AB s.v. ζ ά γ κ λ ο ν το δρέπανουΚ αλλίμαχοε ‘κ εκρυπτα ι γυνή - ύποχθονίη’ παρά το ζα και το κοίλον ζάγκοιλον {ζάγκοιλον om. Β), καί κατά ευγκοπήν ( κ α τ ά ευγκοπήν Β: ευγκοπήι Α ) ζάγκλον, το λίαν κοίλον (Β: αγκύλον A ) (vide etiam Massimilla 1990b, 186); = EM 406,51 sqq.; EtSym. V apud Gaisford ad EM 406, 51 sqq. I respicit Σ ss3 Lyc. 869 (281, 15 sqq. Scheer) ζάγκλον S i παρά rote CiKcAotc τ ο δρέπανου, μέμ νη τα ι S i καί Κ α λλίμα χοε iv β' Α ιτίω ν I fort, respiciunt St.Byz. 293, 8 sqq. meineke s.v. Ζ ά γκ λη- . . . οι δε διά τ ο εκεί Κρόνον το δρέπανου άποκρύφαι,