Callimachus: Hecale [2nd revised] 9780199562466, 0199562466

Citation preview

CALLIMACHUS H E C A LE S E C O N D E D I T I O N W IT H IN T R O D U C T IO N , T E X T , T R A N S L A T IO N , A N D ENLARGED COM M ENTARY BY

ADRIAN HOLLIS

OXFORD U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Great Clarendon Street. Oxford ο χ : 6ι>ι· Oxford University Press is .1 department ofthe University of Oxford, it furthers the University's objective o f excellence in rese.ireh, schol.trship. .md education bv publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Ku.tl.i l.umpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico ( dry Nairobi New Oditi Sii.1n14h.1i Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentili.» Austri.» il rax ί1 Ubile O/cch Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy lap.m Poland Portugal Singapore Soutii Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc.. New York Φ) Adrian Hollis aooy ['he moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2009 Ail rights reserved. No part ol 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, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. F.uquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope ofthe above should be sent to the Rights Department. Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data ! >at.t available Typ esce by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, india Printed in Cheat Britain on acid-free paper by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham, Wiltshire ISBN 97X0-19-956246-0 T 3 5 7 6 to 8 6 4

z

In memoriam

SPENCER BARRETT

PREFACE

Two previous works have been devoted entirely to Callimachus’ Ficcale, by A. F. Naeke (Callimachi liceale, 1845) and Ida Kapp ( Callimachi Hecalae Fragmenta, 1915). The other most important landmarks for study of this poem in modern times are A. Hecker’s Commentationes Callimacheae (1842), O. Schneider’s Callimacltca (voi. ii, Fragmenta, 1873), the great edition of Callimachus by R. Pfeiffer (voi. i, Fragmenta, 1949), and, for post-Pfeiffer discov­ eries, Supplementum Hellenisticum (edd. Lloyd-Jones and Parsons, 1983). Each successive editor was able to add at least a few fragments culled from ancient or Byzantine grammarians and lexicographers. In 1877-8 help began to come from a different quarter with the discovery in Egypt of a wooden board (the ‘Vienna Tablet’) containing four columns of our poem; now augmented by later papyri, this remains the most substantial source for the Ficcale. Kapp, Pfeiffer, and SF l were able to use further papyri, including the one found at Tebtunis in 1934 which gave us the poem’s first line and a brief prose summary (or Diegesis) of the plot. As far as is known, the remaining unpublished Oxyrhynchus papyri contain no more of the Hecale, although some tiny fragment may have escaped notice there or in another collection. So this seems an appropriate time to offer a fairly detailed account of our present state ofknowledge concerning the poem, together with the evidence (e.g. apparent imitations in later Greek and Roman poets) which may perhaps facilitate future progress. Although I have not been able to use any new papyri, fresh consideration of old ones has yielded some results. It seems to me that quite a number of plausible new suggestions can be made about the context and linking of individual fragments, but I have generally confined such conjec­ tures to the apparatus criticus and the Commentary. 1 hope that I have distinguished clearly enough (though one wearies of the word ‘perhaps’) between established fact and speculation, and not impeded advances by others. It is reasonable to hope for continuing

viii

Preface

small accretions from some fuller manuscript of a grammatical treatise, lexicon or scholiast on another work; there may be yet more of the Hecale in Suidas (see below, Appendix V), and, if we had a more complete text of the poem, I am sure that we should recognize more allusions in Hesychius too. But, for substantial progress, we need new papyri of the Hecale itself; as well as Egypt, perhaps one day Herculaneum will reveal its secrets. This book, the product of some seven years' work, was almost complete by the end of 1986 (secondary literature which I read thereafter will be represented only briefly if at all). My involvement with the Hecale (the subject of my first article, in C R 1965) goes back to a 1962-4 Oxford B.Phil. thesis which included Ovid's Baucis and Philemon. Many colleagues and friends have been extra­ ordinarily generous with their help and encouragement; of course, I am entirely responsible for mistakes in the final version. Dr M. Campbell, Professor M. L. West and Mrs S. 1C. West read a draft of almost the whole Commentary (and bits of the Introduc­ tion and Appendices), Dr G. O. Hutchinson and Professor Hugh Lloyd-jones the Commentary on the Vienna Tablet. My Keble colleague Mr W. S. Barrett made a deep and detailed investigation of the papyrus scholia on Thucydides which quote Hec. if. 85. and also contributed penetrating ideas on a number of other problems. Mr P. J. Parsons patiently answered questions about spaces and traces in the papyri; my Christ Church Greek History tutor, Professor D. M. Lewis, corresponded about Attic demes and in­ scriptions. Professor K. Alpers supplied information on some read­ ings of Et. Gen. cod. B. Other scholars who have kindly answered questions are Drs W. E. H. Cockle and J. R. Rea (papyri). Profes­ sor A. M. Davies (Old Persian), Dr. J. Nimmo Smith (scholia to Gregory of Nazianzus), Dr C. Sourvinou-Inwood (mythology and art), and Mr N. G. Wilson (Byzantine matters). Professor L. Lehnus is preparing an Italian edition of the Hecale (as well as a complete bibliography of Callimachus since 1489); we have corresponded amicably, but have not seen each other’s work. I owe a special debt to Miss R. E. Woodrow, who typed the manuscript. It was a great relief to be able to entrust such intricate work to an expert typist who also had a postgraduate degree in Classics. Corporately, I must thank the Delegates and Staff of the Oxford University Press for undertaking publication, my

Preface

IX

colleges, Kehle and Pembroke, for two terms’ sabbatical leave in 198b, the Craven Committee for a grant to visit Athens, and the British School vvlio.se hospitality enabled me to taste the olives of Ekali.

A.S.H. Kehle College, Oxford September ig8~

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

The fascination which I have long felt for Callimachus’ Hccalc by no means ended with the appearance of my Oxford, [990 edition, but continued in a series of articles published by Z P E (Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphih); see p. 437 for details. So I welcomed the invitation from Hilary O ’Shea at OUP to incorporate my more recent thoughts on the poem into a second edition. At the same time I have made a translation of the (»reek text—something which I would certainly have done if starting the book de novo some ten years later. My 1990 (p. vili) hope for new papyri of the Hecale has not so far been realized (see, however, p. 427 on P.Oxy.2886 and addenda to fr. 69). Their absence has prompted a fuller scrutiny of ancient or Byzantine writers who knew Callimachus’ epyllion. These may be lexicographers such as Hesychius and ‘Suidas’ (the Suda), who had access to an ancient commentary on the Hecale, poets like Dionysius Periegetes and (above all) Nonnus, or highly educated clerics (e.g. Gregory of Nazianzus and Michael Choniates). One lesson which I have learned since 1990 is to pay as much attention to the prose of Gregory and Michael as to their verse. My (somewhat surprised) feeling that there is still much to glean of the Hecate in Hesychius and the Suda has intensified, leading the way to many o f the suggestions in these Addenda. My search among such sourcematerial began with Appendix V of the 1990 edition. Yet again, I am greatly indebted to Rachel Chapman, who typed the new material.

Adrian Hollis I'Vells, Somerset M ay 2008

CONTENTS

Abbreviations IN TRO D U CTIO N I. Π. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII.

Composition of the Hecale Subject-Matter and Sources Style and Language Metre Hecale and the Hellenistic Epyllion Influence and Survival Ancient Commentators, Copyists, and Grammarians The Hecale in Byzantine Times The Gathering and Ascription of Fragments The Arrangement of Fragments Papyri of the Hecale Other Main Sources of the Text

CALLIMACHI HECALA Testimonia Editiones et Codices Fontium Praecipuorum Sigla Diegesis et Argumentum Hecalae Fragmenta Hecalae Fragmenta Incerta

xiii i 3 5 10 [5 23 26 35 37 40 46 48 51 55 57 6i 63 65 67 125

COMMENTARY

(33

Appendices

333

I. II. III. IV. V.

Some Other Fragments The Length of the Hecale The Hospitality Theme Theseus’ Return from Marathon Ten Poetic Citations in Suidas

333 337 341 355 338

Conienti

xii Select Bibliography

3^2

Indexes

3fi9

Index Verborum Index Fontium Index of Allusions and Imitations General Index

3^9 382 388 392

Numbering of Fragments: Comparative Tables

396

Translation Additional Commentary Additional Bibliography Addenda to the Indexes

4° 3 425 437 439

ABBREVIATIONS

This Hst contains details of books that are regularly referred to in the following pages by surname, title-initials, or surname and titleinitials; details of books referred to by surname and short-title will be found in section Hi of the Select Bibliography at the end of this book.

I.

Books including Fragments of the Hecale

Hecker Kapp Naeke Pfeiffer Schneider SH

A. Hecker, Commentationes Callìmachcae (1842) Ida Kapp, Callimachi Hecalae Fragmenta (19(5) A. F. Naeke, Opuscula, ii (1845); Callimachi Hecale R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus, i: Fragmenta (1949) O. Schneider, Clallimachea, ii: Fragmenta ( i873) H. Lloyd-joncs and P. J. Parsons (eds.). Supple­ mentum Hellenisticum (1983) Π.

Bulloch, F H Hopkinson, H D Maas, G M McLennan, H Z Mineur, H D West, G M Williams, H A

Other Books

A. W. Bulloch, Callimachus, The Fifth H ym n (1985) N. Hopkinson, Callimachus, H ym n to Demeter (084) P. Maas, Greek Metre, tr. H. Lloyd-joncs (1962) CL R. McLennan, Callimachus, H ym n to Zeus (1977) W. H. Mineur, Callimachus, H ym n to Delos (1984) M. L. West, Greek Metre (1982) F. Williams, Callimachus, H ym n to Apollo ([978)

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

I.

C O M P O S IT IO N OF TH E H E C A L E

Only one ancient authority, a scholiast on H. 2. 106 ( = below, Test. 1), speaks about the genesis o f our poem: eyieaXet δια τούτω ν t o v c c kc o ttto vtclc αντον μη δννακθαι n o trjca t /xcya ποίημα, δθίν ηναγκάίθη ποιηζαι την ΈκάΧην.

How much trust can we place in this? ηναγκάοθη may suggest a degree o f naivete in the writer, and one could adopt a sceptical attitude towards almost everything in the scholion. As Mary Lefkowitz says,1 ancient commentators characteristically sought out particular incidents to ‘explain’ what poets deliberately left general and metaphorical. The old notion2 that the Hecale started with a polemical prologue has been refuted by discovery o f the first line (fr. 1). Perhaps indeed the scholiast is trying to concoct an explanation for the poem’s origin from the single objective fact— to which we shall return in Appendix II—that it was a μέγα ποίημα, allied to his knowledge (? from the Aetia prologue as well as the Hymn to Apollo) that Callimachus was involved in contro­ versy over the length o f poems. If, however, anything more can be extracted from the scholion, one might deduce that Hecale was not Callimachus’ first poem, but written at a time (? the 270s b c ) when his literary principles and practice had already been established by published work, and had become well enough known to attract opposition. It would not be surprising if such criticism had been provoked by the early Aetia? Then the Hecale could be both a response to criticism and a ' The Lives of the Greek Poets (1981), p. 122; cf. p. 120. I share her scepticism {pp. 119 if.) about the alleged quarrel between Call, and Apollonius Rhodius (cf. Gregory Hutchinson, Hellenistic Poetry (1988), pp. 86-7). : See on frs. 103, 113. ·’ Following the brilliant paper o f P. J. Parsons (ZPE 25 (1977), 1-50), it is now widely accepted (cf Lloyd-Jones, SIFC 77 (1984), 56) that originally the Aetia contained only bks. 1-2. Both A. W . Bulloch (CQ, n s 20 (1970), 269-76) and Annette Harder (ZPE 67 (1987), 21-30) have found evidence o f literary polemic in SH 239, perhaps linked to SH 253 and, in Dr Harder’s view, from the end o f Aet. 2.

Introduction positive manifesto,'' showing how a smart modern poet should handle traditional epic subject-matter (one o f the Labours of Theseus) in the traditional epic metre. Certainly there is no sign of Callimachus compromising his principles, let alone capitulating to opponents; but, if one can draw any lesson from the longest and best-preserved passages (frs. 69, 74), the Hecate, for all its subtlety and learning, may have been the most immediately approachable and enjoyable of Callimachus’ major works.'5 We can be reasonably confident, if not absolutely certain, that the Hecate predates Callimachus’ fourth Iambus (fr. 194 Pf.). This latter poem tells o f a dispute between the laurel and the olive; line 77 ( = below, Test. 2), from an enumeration o f the olive’s virtues, surely alludes to the meal offered by Hecale to Theseus (cf. fr. 36. 3—$ on various types o f olive): ev [δ* ή κολ]υμβάο ην enwve χώ O tjccvc.

Nor is that the only link with Hecate. In the olive’s branches sit two talkative birds (61-3), one o f them a crow (82), recalling the crow in the Hecate who perches on a tree (fr. 74. u ) and talks to another bird. Both poems mention the struggle for Attica between Athena and Poseidon, although in the Hecate (fr. 70. xi) Cecrops is a witness, in the Iambus a judge (fr. 194. 67 Pf.). Finally, the glare with which the laurel fixes an intrusive bramble at the end o f the Iambus (101-2 νποδράξ . . . j ςβλζψζ) reminds one of Hex. fr. 72, perhaps describing the fury o f Pallas when the crow tells her that Ericthonius has been revealed. If Callimachus hoped that the Hecate would end hostile criti­ cism, he was apparently disappointed. Most scholars6 incline to accept the word of the scholiast on H. 2. 26 that ‘my king’ is Ptolemy III Euergetes rather than II Philadelphus, in which case the conclusion to that hymn shows Callimachus as vulnerable and sensitive to criticism even near the end o f his life. Certainly in the Aetia prologue, a product o f his old age, the Telchines still complain (fr. 1. 3-5 Pf. with plausible supplements): ’ P. M. Fraser (Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972), ii. 905 n. 203) commends che opinion of Couat (Alexandrian Poetry (ET, 1931), p. 408) that the Hecale was a manifesto rather than a defence, but the two purposes need not exclude each other. 5 Cf. Lloyd-Jones, SI PC 77 (1984), 67. e.g. Pfeiffer, ii, pp. xxxviii-xxxix. F. Williams (HA) suspends judgement.

Introduction

5

eiv€K€v oij^ ev α€ΐομα ònjvexèc ή βααΧ[ήων ττρή ^i]ac ev TtoXXaic τ/vuca χιΧιάαν ή nporép\oue ypeuac . . .

Eulogistic epics on contemporary kings were definitely not in Callimachus’ line—his court poetry was much more subtle.7 But might he not have pointed to the Hecale, which told the exploits o f an ‘ancient hero’, and was, at least to later Greeks and Romans (e.g. Crinagoras and Petronius ( = below, Test. 4, 7)), one o f Callimachus’ greatest triumphs? The answer probably lies in TToXXak . . . xiXiaciv. Hecale must have been a substantial poem (see below, App. II), but was not likely to satisfy those looking for a full-blown Theseid. II.

S U B JE C T -M A T T E R A N D S OU R C E S

One could summarize the basic contents o f the Hecale in such a way as to make it sound like a traditional epic: the hero’s growth to manhood, his perilous journey from Troezen to Athens (in the course o f which he overcame several bandits), escape from his stepmother’s plot, victorious combat with the Marathonian bull, and triumphant homecoming. There was indeed at least one archaic Theseid, but we know little about it.1 Up to the last decades o f the sixth century b c Theseus is not very prominent in Attic art,2 If we can draw any inference from the subsequent explosion o f scenes involving Theseus, a patriotic Athenian Theseid perhaps appeared about 510 b c .3 Whether Callimachus made any use o f such work(s) is quite uncertain; Shefton’s account4 of Theseus dragging the captive bull, as typically 7 Cf. Stephanie West, CQ, n s 35 (1985), 66. 1 Kinkel {Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (1877), pp. 217-18) has four refer­ ences but no verbatim quotation. Arise., Po. 8 ocot των ποιητών ΉρακΧηίΒα καί Θη; in the 2nd syllable o f the 3rd foot (fr. 45. 1) and of the 5th foot (fr. 74. 16). w A small point in favour o f this fragment, the authenticity o f which has been impugned. 59 H. 4. 220 (ist foot), 209, 275 (4th foot), 156 (5th foot). ω See Mineur, HD, pp. 44-5. 61 McLennan (HZ) on H. 1. 93 challenges the statement o f Maas (G M , para. 121) that the elision of verb-endings in Call, is rare. Examples from the Hecale occur in frs. 34, 74. 14, 113. 2. 63 Also H. 6. 65, epigr. 42 Pf. - 8 G.-P. - AP 12. 118. 1, 3. 1 1 do not wish to enter into lengthy discussion o f this vexed topic. The latest treatment, Kathryn j. Gutzwiller, Studies in the Hellenistic Epyllion (1981), contains earlier bibliography. For the study of Latin epyllia there is much value in the Introduction to R. O. A. M. Lyne’s edition o f the pseudo-Virgilian Ciris (1978); in my view Lync underestimates the direct influence on the Ciris o f Hellenistic poetry. 2 Some scholars even apply the term ‘epyllion’ to elegiac poems!

Introduction (hardly shorter than 1,000 lines and perhaps appreciably longer)3 down to the mere 75 lines o f Theocritus’ Idyll 13 (‘Hylas’).4 P. Oxy. 3000 reveals that the Hermes o f Callimachus’ pupil Eratos­ thenes was, in all probability, even longer than the Hecale, containing between 1,540 and 1,670 lines.Λ Many works which may have been important are little more than titles for us, e.g. two by elder contemporaries o f Callimachus, Philetas’ Hermes6 and the Fisherman by Alexander Aetolus;7 Euphorion composed many poems in hexameters, but, even though several papyri have accrued to him, it remains very hard to imagine what a complete poem by Euphorion might have been like.8 And the works under consideration may vary as much in tone as in length. The keynote is usually taken to be ‘genial wit and child-like charm’, ‘a charming or humorous effect’.9 That fits well enough Theocritus’ ‘Heracliscus’ (Id. 24), or Moschus’ Europa, but scarcely does justice to the greater range o f Callimachus' Hecale, while the fragments o f Euphorion often seem sombre and melancholy in atmosphere. For these reasons it is not easy to list the determining character3 See below. App. II. 4 I very much doubt whether ‘Hylas’ should be considered an epyllion. One can argue about other poems in the Theocritean corpus. For our purposes, perhaps the most relevant and interesting is ‘Heracles the Lion-slayer’ (Id. 2$). Although external support is very weak, I would not rule out Theocritean authorship; the noticeable difference of style from Theocritus’ undoubted works may be partly due to difference o f genres (we have observed some similar points when comparing Call.’s Hecale with his Hymns). I agree with Gow (A Commentary on Theocritus (1950). ii. 440) in his high estimate o f Id. 25’s quality, and confess to sympathy lor the unfashionable view that the piece, as we have it, may not be complete. s See Parsons on P. O xy. 3000 and S H 397. 6 Frs. 5-9 Powell. Parth. Narr. 2 summarizes a story involving Odysseus which occurred in the poem. We cannot be sure that this was the main theme (though frs. 6-7 would suit Odysseus), and it does not explain why the poem was entitled Hermes. ’ Fr. i Powell. The subject was apparently the fisherman Glaucus, who became a sea-god. Suidas credits Call, with a Glaucus (not even the metre is known), and the same title was used by Catullus’ friend Cornificius (fr. 2 Buechner). * For an attempt to say something worth while about the Dionysus (frs. 13-18 Powell and perhaps S H 418 —but the editors are cautious) see A. Barigazzi in L. Ferrerò et al. (eds), Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni (1963), 416-549 Gutzwiller, Hellenistic Epyllion, pp. 5, 49 (the latter phrase is a comment on the Hecale).

Introduction

25

istics of a Hellenistic epyllion, and an attempt to do so may run into the objection that they are not found in every example, and in any case are shared by other literary types.10 Even so, 1 do believe that the category is a genuine one. Roman poets who composed such works as Catul. 64 or the pseudo-Virgilian Ciris— not to mention lost poems like Cinna’s Zmyrna or Calvus’ Io— must surely have believed that they were using a recognizable form inherited from the Greeks; and the traces of Callimachus’ Hecale which may be found in both these works, as well as in several episodes o f Ovid’s Metamorphoses,u suggest that our poem was given an honoured place in the evolution o f the genre. When Parthenius collected myths for his friend Cornelius Gallus to use etc hrf] καί èAeyetac (Narr. Amat., praef), he surely envisaged Gallus treating them in what we call ‘epyllia’ rather than in full­ blown epics. If we need to look for prototypes o f the epyllion in preHellenistic times, these may be sought in such works as the pseudo-Hesiodic Shield of Heracles (480 lines, of which 181 describe the shield itself) and certain o f the Homeric Hymns, e.g. Demeter (2) and Aphrodite (5). Consideration o f Callimachus’ Hecale suggests a number of features which could have influenced later poems and may be typical o f the genre. Several epyllia are named after a female character, and her emotions (usually, but not in our case, love) are explored in depth. The primary myth is obscure; other myths may be introduced more briefly, sometimes with a parade o f learning or in a polemical tone. Digressions are often said to be a distinguishing mark o f the epyllion, even if they do not occur in every specimen.12 We may note the substantial digression on Ericthonius and the daughters of Cecrops, in the mouth o f the crow (frs. 70-3). The narrative does not progress in an even and straightforward manner; sometimes important events may be dismissed in a few lines,13 while elsewhere the poet will linger lovingly over the minutest details (e.g. in Hecale’s cottage. Walter Alien, jun., ΤΑΡΑ η\ (1940), i-z6 , discussed by Gutzwiiler, Hellenistic Bpyllion, pp. 2-3. n Sec below, sect. VI. Lyne, in his edition o f the Ciris (p. 35), docs not consider the passage on Britomartis (294-309) to be a ‘formal digression’. u Wc have some slight reason for thinking that Theseus’ combat with the bull was not treated at great length (see on fr. 69. 1).

Introduction frs. 28 ff.). The technique o f ‘flashback’ may be employed for past events,14 and o f prophecy for those in the future;15 sometimes the poet concentrates on vivid scenes (e.g. the country people con­ gratulating Theseus in fr. 69). Direct speech is o f considerable importance, as in Hecale’s account o f her previous life (frs. 41 ff.) or the crow’s narrative (frs. 70-4). There were almost certainly other substantial speeches in our poem—by Aegeus trying to deter his son from going against the Marathonian bull, and by Theseus at Hecale’s funeral.16 V I.

I N F L U E N C E A N D S URVI VAL

A great part o f Hecale’s influence lies in the subsequent history o f the hospitality theme, which seems sufficiently interesting to deserve separate treatment in Appendix III below. Even apart from that, we can see how strong an impact the Hecale made on later Greek and Roman poets from the frequency with which they borrowed its words and motifs. As far as poets more or less contemporary with Callimachus are concerned, we can seldom be dogmatic about either their absolute or relative dates; nor do we know at what point in Callimachus’ long career the Hecale should be placed.1 I have, when quoting parallels in the Commentary, arranged them in the belief that Hecale post-dates Aratus’ Phaeno­ mena,2 but pre-dates all four books o f Apollonius’ Argonautica, Theocritus’ Idylls, the Alexandra o f Lycophron,3 Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter, and Rhianus;4 in several cases the chronological relation­ ship could be reversed by further argument or new evidence. 14 e.g. perhaps with regard to Theseus’ youth in Troezen (frs. 9ff). 15 For the story of Coronis and the raven in fr. 74. 14 ff. 16 I fully recognize that because o f the fragmentary condition o f the Hecale many of the above points cannot be asserted with confidence. ' See above, sect. I. 2 Call, referred respectfully to Aratus not only in the famous epigram (27 Pf. = 56 G.-P. = A P 9. 507), but also in his prose work Against Praxiphanes (fr. 460 Pf.). Ancient sources differ about the relative age of Aratus and Call. (K. O. Brink, CQ 40 (1946), i2-i4)-~a matter which, even if it were settled, would not necessarily determine the relative dating o f particular poems. 3 Though I would be prepared to accept a 3rd-cent. date for at least the great part o f that work. 4 FG H 26$ T i calls Rhianus a contemporary o f Eratosthenes. Jacoby placed him before Call., but, even though Rhianus’ version of the Admetus myth (fr. 10 Powell) may predate Call. H. 2. 48 ff, the latter poem (at least according to the scholiast on 1. 26) belongs to the reign o f Ptolemy III Euergetes.

Introduction

27

Resemblances between the Hecale and Apollonius Rhodius are not as numerous as with the Aetia, but there are parallels (from every book o f the Argonautica except 2) which are striking enough not to be due to chance: Ap. Rh. 1. 1203 θοη ανόμοιο κατάϊξ, cf. Hec. fr. 18. 15 θοη βορόαο κατάϊξ;5 3. 277 ov re μύωπα βοών xAetoua νομrjec, cf. fr. 117 ov re μύωπα βοών KaXéovciv άμορβοΟ, 4· u i άγχανρον (adjective), cf. fr. 74· 23 αγχαυροο (noun). More generally, it is hard to believe that the talking crows in Arg. 3. 927 ff. and Hec. frs. 70 ff. are not somehow connected.6 Callima­ chus and Lycophron have in common the similarity o f Alex. 866-7 κακοξόνουο | πάΧηο Kovicrpac to Hec. fr. 62. 1—2 Kovicrpai j άξίΐνοι, and the picture o f Diomedes’ companions, transformed into birds, being fed on κρΐμνα (Alex. 607) reminds one o f the voracious crow in Hec. fr. 74. 5. It is worth dwelling a little longer on Alex. 793-4: ζύφαρ θανΐίται πόντιον φνγών c/cerrac κόραξ cvv οπλοκ Νηρίτων δρυμών néXac. The aged Odysseus is described as a wrinkled skin (οΰφαρ) and a long-lived bird (κόραξ). In the Hecale too an old bird speaks o f her ούφαρ (fr. 74. 11, a very rare word); although a κορώνη rather than a κόραξ, she goes on to prophesy about a κόραξ four lines later (fr. 74. 15). I suspect that Lycophron has picked up the associations o f ονφαρ in the Hecale passage. If so, this is an indication that Callimachus wrote first, but there would be no need to deny at least the bulk o f the Alexandra to its traditional author, the member o f the tragic Pleiad in the first half o f the third century— like Callimachus, Lycophron may have had a long literary career. In Philicus’ Hymn to Demeter, country people pelt the goddess with leaves (SH 680. $3), as happens to Theseus in Hec. fr. 69. i i ff, and the old Attic woman Iambe (SH 680. 5 4 ff.) faintly resembles the heroine o f our poem.7 1 think it more probable that Rhian. fr. 20 Powell πολυδρύμονc tfài7Tic schol. B: άκρηί riva et f£ei codd. DM. Et. Mag. p. 547. 6 yAauKÒ>7reiov schol. Eur. κώπ ct ιζ pap. suppi. Lobei e fr. an. 332 (coll. 66f) Schn. 12 πίριπότν pap. ya[ójc suppl. Barigazzi 13 οθ ct μ ζ π pap. post en fort. e[ In prioribus saltem huius fragmenti versibus Theseus patrem alloquitur, ut conieccrac Lobe! et docet v. 4 pars prima, post Pf. reperta. Inter frr. 17 et 18 quot versus desint non constat.

18 (238. l5- 32, ?3ly Pf.) ι οφρα μ 4ν οΰν ev8toc erjv erι, θέρμζτο 84 χθων, τόφρα. δ’ ςην ύάλοιο φαάντ€ροο oùpavòc ήνοφ} ού8 4 1 77o0l i, Kvxr)KÌc ύπςφαίνςτο, nemo.ro 8' αΙθήρ α ν \νje^eA oc- c[

μτ)τ4ρι δ’ 6nn\6re δίίελόν αΐτίζ^ουαν, άγονα 8è ^ efp ac άττ 4ργου, τήμοζ αρ . ,[ πρώτον νπ 4ρ ΠάΙρνηθοζ^έπιπρο 84 μάοοον e n άκρου ΑΙγαλί tue θυμθ€Χvroc, άγων μ 4γαν veróv, ec τη10 τώι δ’ €π[ί] διηλόον _[ τρηχέοο Ύμηττ[οιο à crep o n a [l\ θίλάγι[ζον οι[ο]ν οτ€ κλονέ' [ Αύςόν[ι]ον κατά π[όντον 15 ή 8' από Μηριςοΐο 6l ot] ßopeao κατάϊξ elcenecev ν€φ4λ[ηιαν . . . [ . . } ν άθ[ )€Ρ. [ 5

Ι--2 Suid. ii. 273-24 evSioc pecypßpivoc. “ctypa—ήνοφ" (fr. an. 24 Schn. = 8. 1--2 Kapp), rourecnv 6 λαμπρόζ 2 Suid. ii. 574. 23 1)νοφ· 6 λαμπρόο. "ovpavoc ήνοφ" (sequitur fr. 102. 2) 3-18 P. O.vy. 2216 ( — pap. 3), fr. 1, pagina versa (pagina recta = fr. 17) 3 Suid. iii. 140. I κνηκίζ- η νζφξλώδηζ ζώνη, το μικρόν ve^oc. "oiìSe'—αιθήρ" (fr. an. 36 Schn. — 8. 3 Kapp) 6 Schol. (V) p 599 ci) δ’ epyeo SeieAi^cac] προc τήν δΐίλινήν ώραν rrapayevo/xevoc, rourecri τήν μ(ζημβρίαν· ή τήν έςπςρινήν διατρή/iac. Ινιοι 8c τήν δειλινήν τροφήν αϊτών, και Καλλ. φηα· “SeieAòv—ίργον” (fr. 190 Schn. = 32. 3 Kapp), τήν προ c τήι SeiAinji τροπήν airoüvrec Eust. p. 1832.62 οι Se erri τροφή c SeiAivrJc τήν λίξιν voovvrec προφίρονα Καλλ. το “SeleAójv αΐτίζοναν— epyou” , τήν πpòc SeiAr/v 8ηλα8ή τροφήν airoüvrec Suid. ii. 29. 2 SeieAivóv rò SeiAivòv. καί “SeieAov1’· rò SeiAivòv, ‘altera gl. prob, ex h. 1.’ (Pf.)

Callimachi Hecala

75

8—9 Suid. iii. 334. 8 judccov μίΐζον, μακρότ^ρον "firm pò—-eery" (fr. an. 46 Schn. — 10 Kapp) y Suid. ii. 157. i Α Ιγαλίtoc· e'n£ ye>iki)c αντί τού . . . [iacuna in codd. AFV post τού, prob. (ΑΙγάλ^ω ) supplendum] Suid. iv. 636.21 veróc το υ μακράν "άγων—«er η" 12 Suid. IV. 336- 2 1 αλαγίζω- λάμπω [λάμπω orn. AV, habent GFM) e Saiusti comment. 14 Suid. i. 417. 7 Αύΐονίων . . . καί " Avcóvioc πόντοι"' ή CiKtXiKrj OàXacca 15 Suid. iii. 45. 6 κατάϊξ- καταιγίο· "ή— κατάϊξ" (fr. an. 32 Schn. — 12 Kapp), ήτοι από ri?c Θράικηο. Cf. Hesych. κατάϊξ· Karacetcic, ορμή Omnia fragmenta anonyma a Suida allata eodem ordine quo nunc apud pap. 3 leguntur in versibus (1-2), 3, 8-y, 15, feliciter ad Hecalam revocaverat Hecker, CC, pp. 105 sq. (addito fr. 19)*19 3 suppi. Lobei e fr. an. 36 Schn. — 8. 3 Kapp ποθ' ή Suid. cod. A: ποθι cett. πίπατο Suid. cod. F 4 ζφζλο, tic Καλλ. “ίρωηcac θηρòc όλοον *epac” , το (κέρας add. Naeke)> eie την epav καταγαγών (cf. p. 369. 29 s.v. ςράν . . . άφ' οδ èpa ή γή· και ςρωήςαι, το απ' αυτής υποχωρηοαί) Suid. ii. 4*7-6 ίρωήςας- αντί τού μςιώςας, κατάξας (Pf.: κατίάξαζ codd.]. “«ρωrjeae— κέρας” Καλλ. ίρωήςας θηρός Et. Mag.: transp. Sylburg άλοόν Suid. cod. A Ad taurum Marathonium rettulit P. Buttmann (cf. Naeke, pp. 254 sqq.)

68 (259 Pf) ό μίν €ΐλκ€ν, 6 S’ €ΐπ€το νωθρός όδίτης Schoi. Αρ. Rh. i. 1162 ó τούςγς . . . ςφέλκςτο κάρτςϊ χςιρών j Η ρακλήje] προς την πάντων αυτών αργίαν καί την του κύματος νπςρβολήν το “ςφύλκςτο” προς πλςίονα etnev ςμφααν δπςρ καί Καλλ. ίπ ί τού ταύρου ηττηθέντος φηςίν “ ό— όδίτης" ό μςν ςΐλκςν schoi. Par.: orn. L (perperam C. Wendel (Hermes, ηζ (l937). 348) priorem partem in Par. coniecturain esse docti Byzantini censuit et pro ςίπςτο scr. €Ϊλκ«το) Ad taurum Marathonium rettulerunt P. Buttmann et Naeke (v. ad fr. 67). Fr. 69. I adiunxerunt Barigazzi, Hollis, ut fiat ό μςν ςΐλκςν, ό δ’ «ìWto voiöpoc όδίτης \ οίόκςρως κτλ.

Callimachi Hecala

95

69 (SH 288. 1--15; 260. 1-15 Pf.) ρΐόκςρως· erepov γάρ άττηλοιτ/ςς κορύν-η. o>c Γ δ ο ν , c o f c ] άμα ttÓvtcc ύπςτρςςαν, ονδς τις ςτλη άνδρα μέγαν και Θήρα π€λώριον αντα t’Ö e c ö a i , μ 4ζφ> o r e δή 0t)C€vc φιν άττόττροθι μακράν avce· 5 “μίμν€τ€ dapcrfevTtc, άμω δ4 tic Α ιγέϊ ττατρί νεύμςνοζ oc τ cokictoc ic acτυρόν άγγςλιώτηο ώδ' iyCTTOi— πολέων kcv άναφύξας μζριμνίων— ‘@t)ccvc ούχ €Kac o t f r o c , άττ €υύδρον Μαραθcòvoc ζωάν άγων τον ταύρον'.” ό μ€ν φάτο, τοι δ ’ àióvTec IO ttÓvtcc ίή 7ταιήον άνέκλαγον, αΰθι δ ί μίμνον. ονχι vÓtoc t Ócct)v y e χύαν κατ€χ(ύατο φύλλων, ο υ βορέTjc, ονδ' avTÒc δτ cttXcto φvλλoχóoc o c c a τότ a y p c o c r a i ncpi τ άμφί r e &t)cél βάλλον, οι μιν €KVKX(xtca]vTp περχταδόν, a i δ ί y u v a i / c e c 15 LCTÓpvT)iciv ανύτο«τ’, μ α tab. 13 t o t , rrepn' , θηθ€Ϊ tab. 14 ο ΐ μ ιν €κνκλώοαν)το nepicraòóv Gomperz, 'nec J.70 vestigiis pugnat’ (SH)\ ante ] 70 apices tantum litterarum: Treptcrarov tab. 15 suppi. Gomperz e fr. an. 59 Schn. Inter frr. 6 9 e t 7 0 d e s u n t v e rsu s fere 22

Callimachi Hecala

96

70 (SH 288. 16-29; 260. 16-29 Pf) και p ’ or’ €7t_ [ _j >idvcc............e...............peK, . roi ούρανιδαι. a. oie.........7Γ. . P............ezraAAac T17C μ 4ν €γώ δην................δρ....................... 1, 5 p,e'c’ ore /ίεκροπιδ^ (cip εττ.............κατοΑ. αν λάθριον άρρητον, yevei) δ’ odev οϋτ€ vtv €γνων οΰτ 4δάην φ................. Ήφα^τω t 4k€ Vaia, τουτάκι δ’ η μέν éi?c όρυμα xdovòc οφρα βάλοιτο, ΙΟ την ρα νόον φήφω re Z3iòc δαοκαιδεκά τ’ άλλων αθανάτων οφιόc Te κατέλλαβΐ μαρτυρίηαν, Πζλλήνην ζφίκανςν ϋχα»δα* τόφρα δε κουραι at ^υλακοί κακόν 4ργον eVe^paccavTo reAeccat κ_ ι ο τ η J.........ακαδ.............areicaι 1-14 Ρ· Ruiη. vi {Tabula Vindobonensis = pap. 8), col. ii (col. i — fr. 69, col. ili = fr. 73) 5 sqq. Schol. (AD) B 347 Έριχθονίου ■. . γΐννηθ 4ντοί Si ix τον ΊΙφaicrou. oJroc γάρ ΐδίωκΐν Αθήναν ίρών αύτήΐ . . . απαπίρμηνίν ile το CKfXoc τηο Otàc. ή Si μνααχθΐίζα ίρίωι άιτομαξαοα τον γόνον eppiipev eie γ η ν ódev Έριχθόνιοΐ ό ίκ Trjc γη€ avaSodeìc naie ΐκΧήθη, άπο τού ίρίου καί vqc χθονόν tCTOpil Καλλ. (fr. 6t Schn.) e’v ΈκάΧηι (om. A)i i omnia evanida 2 κ α ιρ ο τ tab. ) jdvee: fort. -atOvccad fm. ί,φ’ ον αν τιν ixacTot Gomperz, quod vestigiis non omnino congruit 3 in aXXac, -i Π αλλάζ (cf. y) ίπ ά γ ο κ ν ί μ φ nr[i]pà>, αλλά e FlaXXàc Gomperz, pleraque contra vestigia 4 eyoj vel erui potius quam eco» fort, δηναι fin. Sp[ó]cov Ή φαίοτοιο Gomperz, contra vestigia 5 μ α φ ' tab. fin. fort. τοΧ μαν (Rea): θήκατο Χάαν legerat Gomperz 6 yevei/S’ tab. ovSe tab.: corr. Wilamowitz 7 ουτ tab. φ ή μ η Si κ α τ' (spatio longius?) ώ γα γίο νς (lege - γ υ γ ίο υ φ Gomperz ται: vel τ#, Taf, t i c 8 οιω νουν, νφ ’ tab. Fata: γ e ν (tÌk ìv Λια) correctum? 9 τα υ τα κ ιδ ' tab. io Se tab.: corr. Gomperz δ υω κα ιδΐκα τ tab. 12 αχαιίδα tab. 14 κ α κ τη ο possis; de K-eicrrjc (Gomperz) dubitandum

fin. prob, dveieai: non excluditur

δ α μ ά τ aveicai (Gomperz)

inter frr. 70 et 73 stabant in Tab. Vindob. (= pap. 8) versus fere 22, quorum quinque (frr. 71 et prob. 72) aliunde habemus

71 (SH 289; 261 Pf.) ή μζν άερτάζουζα μίγα τριίςέοο Ύφιζώρου acTvpov €καν4βαινξν, 4γώ δ’ ηντηζα ΛυκΠου

καλόν dei Αιπο’ωντα κατά δρόμον Άπόλλωνοζ

Callimachi Hecala

97

1-2 [it. Gen. AB (= Et. Mag. p. r6o. 30) s.v. acTvpov rò acro. Καλλ. “ή— eicaveßaivev". eιρηται παρά το äcrv vnoKOpiCTiKcoc acτυρόν, ovtioc Θίων (cf. ad fr. 45. i, et Pfeiffer ad Aet. fr. 42) cv ύπομνήματι τον β' Αιτίων [τών τοΰ β' αίτιου codd.: corr. Sy Iburg} 23 Schol. (L) S. 0 7 '9 1 9 rrpóc c\ ώ Λάκα Απολλον) Αύκαον γυμνάαόν ècnv Άθήνη γάρ eycoye reóv ποτ€ ττότνια θυμόν ....................πολλά παραίαα μήττο[τΥ αλαφροί οιωνοί, τότ€ δ’ ώφ€λον e .................... ΙΟ _ι>τα>_ [ , . Teprjv /U.è[t’] arre . ev............. ήμ€Τ€ρ[, .} èxXetv. . e. . . . λλ, . e , ot /XT/Sfe] ποτ’ €κ θυμοίρ· ßapvc χόλος alév Άθήνης. αύταρ έγώ rurdoe παρέτ)[ν] yóvo[c J .δ [.]. γάρ ήόη μοι yeverj ττ Se [ ]eu 15 ................................. Ì . . . C i-15 Ρ. Rain. vi. (Tabula Vindobonensis = pap. 8), col. iii (col. ii = fr. 70, col. iv = fr. 74. 14-28) 1-4 omnia evanida 5 fort, ι-ac, vyc (sed Άθήνηζ (Gomperz) confirmari nequit) 6 fort. [/xjotVat (Gomperz) post παραπ fort, τυ, sed παραπτυό-

Callimachi Hecala μίίθα (Wessely) confirmari nequit (Rea) 7 Βαιμοαν (Wessely) confirmari nequit (Rea) 8 [r]’ tab. 9 e.g. , . ςομςγ Gomperz T o reS ’ tab. i i ημςτόρην eKAeive Barber ad fin. fort, άλλα rrecotfre 12 ποτ tab. CK θυμοίο lect. dub. interpunxit Barber 13 fin. vesti­ gia minima: {oJySfoJarJ-rj] γάρ Gomperz14 WAfirat] Gomperz, contra vestigia: fort, potius wAo- vel trap- (Rea) fin. δΐκάτη Se roKcvct Wessely, contra vestigia inter frr. 73 et 74 desunt versus fere 11

74 (S H 288. 43B-69; 346, 260. 44-69, 351 Pf.)

5

IO

1$

20

25

yacTepi μ^υνον e ιχοιμί KLaKrjc άΧκτηρια Αίμου ,)δουμ€χ[...........]βχ€ΐδο[ ά]λλ’ ΈκάΧ[η , λιτοί' εδ_ [ , ακ[............}νον παγ .( καί κ ,pi/i.vLovj kvk€còvoc ά π ι ocrà£avTOc £ραζζ ].μ7;ο[. . . .]. puric enecceTat[ J#a>v[, . . .]ρ(ι] κακάγγίλον effle γάρ [efyc Ket]y[ov eri] ζώονζa κατά χρόνον, οφρα τ[ _ \qc ως &Ρ\_ιαί τηνΛ ypijöLvj eTnnveiovci κορώναν. ναι μα Ó — ον γάρ [π]ω ττάντ ηματα—ναι ,p.fà το ρικνόν πρώτον εκεί κςντήςαι τον ΓΙήγαςον ίππον Βίλλςροφοντην Suid. iii. 94-