Callimachus 9069800645

Citation preview

HELLENISTICA

GRONINGANA

I

HELLENISTICA

GRONINGANA

PROCEEDINGS OF THE GRONINGEN WORKSHOPS ON HELLENISTIC POETRY

CALLIMACHUS

EDITORS

M. A.

HARDER

F.

REGTUIT

G. C.

WAKKER

R.

CALLIMACHUS

EDITED BY

M. A.

HARDER

R.

F.

REGTUIT

G.

c.

WAKKER

Egbert Forsten Groningen

1993

OMSLAG0NTWERP

Studio Bert Gort, Zevenhuizen (Gn)

© 1993 Copyright Egbert Forsten 1993

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the holder of the copyright.

ISBN 90 6980 064 5

CONTENTS

Giovanni Benedetto

II Prologus Aetiorum di A. Hecker

Jerker Blomqvist

On adverbs in Callimachus: a contribution to

Greek poetical language

Claude Calame

17

Legendary narration and poetic procedure in Callimachus' Hymn to Apollo

37

Mary Depew

Mimesis and aetiology in Callimachus • Hymns

57

Therese Fuhrer

Callimachus • epinician poems

79

Annelle Harder

Aspects of the sbUcture of Callimachus' Aetia

99

Michael W. Haslam

Callimachus • Hymns

Albert Henrichs

Gods in action: the poetics of divine performance

in the Hymns of Callimachus Nita Krevans

149

Die Einbeziehung des Lesers in den Epigrammen des Kallimachos

Kurt Sier

127

Fighting against Antimachus: the Lyde and the Aetia reconsidered

Doris Meyer

111

161

Die Peneios-Episode des kallimacheischen Deloshymnos und Apollonios von Rhodos. Zur Datierung des dritten Buchs der Argonautika

177

Richard F. Thomas

Callimachus back in Rome

197

Frederick Williams

Callimachus and the Supranormal

217

INDEXES

I.

Index of Passages discussed

227

2.

Index of Greek words

229

3.

Index of Names and Subjects

230

Preface

During the last few decades research on Hellenistic poetry has increased both in quantity and in scope, following the hint given by Pfeiffer at the end of the preface to the second volume of his edition of Callimachus: "ad ulteriora pervesriganda eruditis magna patet area". The "old, inveterate prejudices" concerning the work of the Hellenistic poets, which Pfeiffer still complained ofin 1955 1, have slowly been overcome, and Hellenistic poetry, and not least Callimachus, has become the focus of interest for an increasing number of scholars all over the world Much work has been done on the preparation of editions and commentaries 2 and more and more attention is given to new critical approaches to Hellenistic poetry. However, even now these Hellenistic scholars are only a 'minority' compared to those who work on earlier periods of Greek literature, and it became clear, during a one-day Colloquium on Callimachus in Leeds in April 1990, that there was a strongly-felt need for workshops or symposia concentrating on Hellenistic Poetry and offering opportunities for discussion and the exchange of ideas. This challenge was taken up by the Department of Classics at the University of Groningen (Netherlands), where a series of Workshops on Hellenistic Poetry to be held every two years is now in progress. The formula of these workshops is that the papers offered by the •speakers' should be sent to the participants of the workshops in advance of the actual meeting, so that during the workshops there will be ample opportunitiy for detailed discussion of the papers presented. The workshops will focus on individual Hellenistic authors as well as on more general aspects of Hellenistic poetry which still deserve thorough study, for instance the implications of the developments in modem literary criticism for matters like genre or narrative technique. A representative selection of aspects of these subjects will be dealt with in the papers offered at the workshops, and a major lecture at each workshop will aim at a synthesis of the various trains of thought and ideas or focus on a theme which is central to the subject of the workshop. The workshops will also offer the facility for young scholars and graduate students to present their research. The first of the "Groningen Workshops on Hellenistic Poetry" organiz.ed on this pattern was devoted to Callimachus. It was held at Groningen from 2-4 September 1992 and turned out to be very profitable. The papers presented were discussed and commented on by an international group of specialists in the field of Hellenistic poetry. More generally, the workshop offered ample opportunity for the development of ideas about Callimachus and the establishment of many fruitful contacts between scholars working on the Hellenistic period.

2

R. Pfeiffer, "The Future of Studies in the Field of Hellenistic Poetry", JHS 75, 1955, 69-73 (= Ausgewdhlte Schriften, Milnchen 1960, 148-58), esp. 69. See H. Lloyd-Jones, "A Hellenistic Miscellany", SIFC 77, 1984, 52-72.

This volume on Callimachus is the first in the series Hel/enistica Groningana, which will contain the proceedings of the workshops and will be published by Egbert Forstcn Publishers (Groningcn). Offering as it does a wide range of articles the volume provides an conspectus of current developments in research on Callimachus and may therefore be regarded as a kind of sequel to the volume on Callimachus published by A.D. Skiadas in 19753 in theWegeder Forschung series. Skiadas's volume contains articles which are to a large extent of a philological nature, showing the results of many years of research in this field-not in the least on the important papyrus-finds. In the present volume several articles show how recent developments in modem literary criticism, linguistics or the study of Greek mythology and religion have led to new or more refined insights in the nature of Callimachus' poetry. while others seek to formulate new approaches to long-standing problems. Among the latter group I should like to mention especially the major lecture of the workshop by Richard Thomas, which deals with Callimachus' important position on the 'watershed' between Greek and Latin literature. Giovanni Benedetto's paper about Alphons Hccker's contribution to our understanding of the Aetia-prologue also deserves specialmention as an homage to the scholar who in 1842, exactly 150 years before our workshop. put Groningen on the map as a place where one could profitably work on

Callimachus! Editing the proceedings of a workshop nowadays means being confronted with an exotic assortment of software and Greek alphabets: I wish to express my special thanks to my Groningcn colleague Remco Regtuit for dealing successfully with all this material and for remaining so cheerful in spite of it all!

Groningcn, June 1993

3

A.O.Skiadas(ed.), Kallimachos(Wege der Forschung296), Darmstadt 1975.

Annette Harder

ILPROLOGUS AEJ'IORUM DI A. HECKER* Giovanni Benedetto

"Ingeniosissimus omnium criticorum Callimacheorum [ ... ] non tam in locis corruptis emendandis quam in concinnandis canninibus e reliquiis prorsus disiectis" 1: tale l'omaggio tributato da Pfeiffer a A. Hecker in grazia soprattutto della felix divinatio per cui nei Commentationum Callimachearum capita duo, la sua dissertazione groningana del 18422, il giovane critico attribul a un congetturale prologo degli Aitia di tenore polemicoprogrammatico ben cinque frammenti (gli attuali 1.2, 1.3, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19 Pf.) poi rinvenuti nell'invettiva contro i Telchini, P.Oxy. 2079 fr. 1. Il ricordo dei meriti di Hecker è naturalmente consegnato anche al commento che accompagna il fr. 1 Pf. nonché ad fr. 2a, il commentario papiraceo dal quale risulta tra l'altro "Callimachum in 'Somnio' de Aganippelocutum esse", come Hecker aveva supposto sin dal 1843. E' di quell'anno la Commentano critica de Anthologia Graeca, contenente una seconda assai meno nota ricostruzione dell'Aetiorwn exordiwn, chiaramente complementare a quella offena nelle Commentationes Callimacheae ma per intero dedicata al sogno e ai preliminari del colloquio di Callimaco con le Muse sull'Elicona 3• Proprio in una recensione della Commentatio critica in GGA 1844 è traccia di un ulteriore fondamentale contributo heckeriano alla comprensione della struttura del prologo degli Aitia. Il recensore, F.W. Schneidewin 4, grazie a una privata comunicazione epistolare di Hecker ne cita l'attribuzione a Callimaco del distico, trasmesso adespoto da Frontone,

•

l 2

3 4

Parte dei temi qui esposti sono più ampiamente e con diversa prospettiva trattati in G. Benedeuo, Il sogno e l'invettiva. Moml!ntidi storia dell'esegesi callimachea,Firenze 1993. Di utili indicazioni sono debitore al prof. A.H. Huussen e al dr. H.K. s'Jacob della Rijksuniversiteit Groningen; ringrazio la biblioteca della Rijksuniversiteit Leiden per aver potuto prender visione della lettera di Hecker ciL in n. 47. R. Pfeiffer, CallimaclULS. Il: Hymni et epigrammata,Oxonii 1953, xlvi. La dissertazione di Hecker (A. Hecker, CommentationesCallimacheae,Groningae 1842) fu discussa il 15 giugno 1842 e approvata magna cum laude, cfr. "Academia Groningana Series dissertaùonum defensarwn in AcademiaGroninganaMDCCCXLI-MDCCCXLII"in AnnalesAcademiciMDCCCXLMDCCCXUX, Lugduni Batavorum 1851, 519; A. Hecker si era iscritto all'universilà di Groninga nel dicembre 1835, cfr. Album studiosorumAcademiaeGroninganae,uitgegevendoor het historisch genootschapte Groningen,Groningen 1915,294. In A. Hecker, Commentatiocriticade AnthologiaGraeca,Lugd. Bat 1843, 177-82. La recensione è firmata con la sola sigla F.W.S., da Pfeiffcr dubitanter riferita a F.W. Schncidewin (1810-1856),di cui comunque sono attestati rapporti con Hecker (cfr. infra n. 40).

2

BENEDETTO

JtOlµÉvlµilÀ86vocdi Apollonia Rodio28; esegesi simili si incontrano già nel commento all'Ibis di Dionigi Salvagnio (1633) e nelle note di N. Frischlin comprese nella seconda edizione callimachea dello Stephanus (1577), ed è possibile rintracciarne il procedere sin da intuizioni umanistiche quattrocentesche. All'inizio dell'Ottocento si passa a riconoscere nel poeta di Cirene l'ispiratore delle trame di cui rimane vittima il giovane ed improvvido Apollonio, ancora per Valckenaer invidus discipulus che aveva provocato la giusta reazione del maestro e l'avvio dell'inimicizia 29• Pare legittimo supporre che il rovesciamento del paradigma interpretativo invalso per secoli nel giudicare i rapporti tra Callimaco e Apollonia sia stato favorito anche dalla volontà dei primi Altertumswissenschaftler di reimpostare totalmente, ed esemplarmente, la trattazione dei due poeti: tale comunque è la visione contestata nelle Commentationes Callimacheae, con riferimento soprattutto all'Ùber das Leben und Gedicht des Apollonius von Rhodus di J.A. Weichert (1821). Il rinnovato esame dei loci similes comuni a Callimaco e ad Apollonia intrapreso da Naeke e soprattutto da Hecker non solo produsse un più maturo approccio critico,

28

29

solet - sibi persuaderi non passus est quae tamen [... ] profert nullius sunt pretii") e vana commeflla da chi non esiterà a intervenire sul testo delle vite apolloniane per fabbricare una testimonianza antica sulla conttoversia, "cuius rei memoria excerpentis cuiusdam librarii culpa postea evanuit" (R. Linde, De diw:rsis recensionibus Apollonii Rhodii Argonauticon [Diss. GOttingen], Hannoverae 1885, 14 e 39 n.*). Cfr. E. Spanheim, Observationes in hymnum in Apollinem = Callimachi hymni, epigrammata et fragmento ex ree. Th. Graevii, Ultrajecti 1697, Il 110: "ita etiam ut nonnulla Callimachi imitatus dicatur eodem in opere Apollonius ab eruditis ad eum Criticis [... ] e quibus proinde facile inter eosdern oriri potuit aernulatio". Cfr. L.C. Valckenaer, Callimachi elegiarumfragmenta cum elegia Catulli Callimachea [ .. .Jedidil I. Luzac, Lugduni Batavorum 1799, 282-3: "Inter invidos [Callimachus] praecipuum habuit, quod mirandum est, discipulum Apollonium; quem inimicum suum, Alexandriae vel in alia urbeAegypti natum, Aegyptiacae avis, Ibidis, nomine diris devovit".

PROLOGUSAETIORUM

9

implicante l'abbandono della vecchia ossessione per i plagi in favore della scoperta di un consapevolecallimachismoapolloniano,ma promosse altresl quella riflessionesu presenza cd efficaciadei calumniatores anticallimachcialla quale è intimamentelegata la concezione del prologo divinato nelle Commenlaliones. Un lungo preludio sottostà dunque all'ipotesi con la quale Hcckcr pose in testa alla propriaricostruzionedel prologo il fr. 493 Blomfield Vf1Wtco'ì MOUCT)c oùic è:yivov-co cpv..ote perccpl nel plurale Vf1Wtcl'esano corrispettivo di ciafun:ov-cacin t h. 2.106, a indicazionedel fatto che "Callimachumnullum nominatim notasse Apolloniumqueet qui ci accinebantcongregationisnomine celasse"; P.Oxy. 2CY79 fr. 1.2 VTIWEJC o'ì MOUCflC oùic è:yivov-r.o cpv..otconfennerà che il poeta si rivolgeva in apertura di canne ai suoi detrattori, genericamente denotandoli col solo appellativo di Tclchini. Hccker non intese presentareun esordio polemico-programmaticodistinto dalla narrazione del sogno di cui infonna AP 1 .42, ma genialmente intul che Callimaco aveva scelto di riservare alla confutazione degli avversari una parte del proemio incentrato su sogno e colloquio con le Muse ("jam proponam eam prologi partem qua se ab hac calumnia poeta defendit, prouti vcrisimiliter e reliquiis concinnari posse videtur"). Il recupero del n:epi11:UC't0V ovetap sarà tentato l'anno successivo, nella Commentatio critica de Anthologia Graeca, ma neppure in quell'occasioneHccker si pronunzieràsul rapportotra le due sezioni (rejUlatioe somnium) del suo prologus Aetiorum, la cui ricostruzionedel 1842 si conclude con l'appello alle Cariti del fr. 121 (= 7.13-4 Pf.): "nec tamen a me cannen magni spiritus exspcctandum,lcvibuscanam elcgis vosque,o Gratiae

èllau VUV,e.À.éyotct 6' e\'l'lf11Cac8tA.lJl:COCaC xe'ipac 1va ... µot n:ouÀ.Ù µivcoctv etoc". La collocazionedel fr. 121 in chiusuradel prologo sarà ammessada Diltheye da Schneider (che peraltro non cita il precedente heckeriano)30 e largamente accettata anche in séguito, tanto che al momento della pubblicazione di P.Oxy. 2079 fr. 1 favorevoli e contrari all'identificazione nel nuovo testo del prologo degli Aitia (Maas, Pfeiffer, Rostagni) parimenti tentarono di collegarvi, in chiusura, il fr. 12!3 1. Saranno i "Nuovi frammenti degli Aina di Callimaco" editi da Vitelli nel 1934 e magistralmenteillustrati da P. Maas quello stesso anno in Gnomon ad attestare (unitamente agli Scholia Fiorentina) che la 30 31

Dilthey (n. 9), 75 n. 2 (è questa l'unica occasione in cui Dilthey concorda con Hecker ncll'auribuzionc di un frammento al prologo) e Schneidcr (n. 10), 116. Cfr. Maas (n. 8), 129; A. Rostagni, "Nuovo Callimaco", RFJC NS 6, 1928, 39 ("al frammento callimachco d'Ossirinco [scii. P.Oxy. 2079 fr. l) dev'essere congiunto anche il fr. 121 Schn. contencnle l'invocazione alle Cariti [dopo e insieme a quella per le Musei"); Pfeiffer (n. 9), 331 ("ob K. schlicsslich, wie es Euripidcs sagt, in dicsen Versen noch 'dic Musen mit den Chariien verbunden hat' und die fr. 491 [= 3.2 Pf.Jund 121, die sich beide auf die Chariten bcziehen, hierhcr gehOren, das wOrdenwir gmie wissen [... )").

BENEDETTO

IO

perorazione alle Cariti posta a suggello dei prologhi di Heckcr e di Schneider conclude il primo aitiondel poemae rivela nel chiaro valore programmatico una stretta connessione con la scena procmiale32_ Non mancano nell'esegesi heckeriana del fr. 121 ulteriori motivi di interesse in relazione all'incalzante dibattito odierno circa la struttura della complessa ouverture degli Aitia. Alla citazione del frammento Hecker fa seguire poche righe di commento, osservando che gli u.qe"ia a proteggere i quali sono implorate le Cariti risultano senza dubbio gli Aitia (e non altra presunta raccolta elegiaca callimachca) "quod ante majus poema deac invocandac erant, Musas autem sibi propitias [Callimachus] invocare non possct, quippe quae ca ipsa poemata dictassent"33. All'inizio degli Aitia, dunque, Callimaco si sarebbe rivolto a divinità diverse dalle Muse, attrici del dialogo eliconio e parte esse stesse della trama narrativa. Se dalle speculazioni di Hecker si balza agli attuali contributi indaganti il raccordo tra invettiva ai Telchini e sogno è suggestivo rilevare che nel recente intervento di N. Krevans a proposito del Musenanrufindividuatoda A. Kerkhccker fra le due sezioni del prologo (frr. Ja.24-6) 34 proprio l'invocazione alle Cariti del fr. 7.13-14 è citata come indizio di una "generai Alexandrian tendency to avoid traditional invocations [to the Muscs] at the beginning of a work", a suppono della possibilità che in fr. la.25 àµv]1lca1tt: "the addressces are indced divinities, but they nced not be thc Muses•'3S. La ricostruzione del 1843 dell'Aetiorume:xordium(nella Commentatiocritica Hecker non usa l'espressione prologus Aetiorum) si apre con l'attuale SH 304 Mouc111c1yàp ~A.8t:vte oJ}&r,vnella forma MouC111c1 yàp ~A.8ovic6J3611vper la quale già Nacke aveva supposto "ipsum de se dicere Callimachum [ ... ]in prooemio Aiticov''36 nell'unico rapido cenno del filologo bonnense all'esordio del poema, da lui evidentemente concepito come sede per la narrazione dell'incontro eliconio con le Muse. Alla descrizione dell'epifania delle Muse e alle prime battute del dialogo con le dee sono per lo più dedicati i frammenti raccolti da Hecker, tra i quali il fr. 12 = 7.12 Pf. àit' ÒCtAiyycovaiÈv aA.Eupapél:1 (verso di cui i papiri hanno confermato la collocazione in apertura degli Aitia, con riferimento però alle Cariti e non alle Muse) e l'attuale fr. 6 Pf. oi 6' tvt:IC' Eùpuv6µ11 T1t11v1àc dxav

32

33 34

35

36

Cfr. M.A. Harder, "Some thoughts about Callimachus SH 239 and 253", ZJ'E 61, 1987, 29 n. 46 e "Callimachus andthc Muscs: Some Aspects of Narrative Technique in At!tia 1-2", Promethe/1.S14, 1988, 5 e 11. Hecker(n. 16), 53. A. Kerkhecker,"Ein Musenanruf am Anfang der Aitia des Kallimachos", ZPE 71, 1988, 16-24; anche il lemma fr. la.19-23 ~ assegnato all'invocazione da P. Bing, "A Note on the New 'Musenin Callimachus'Aetia", ZJ'E 14, 1988, 273-5. N. Krevans, "'Invocation' at the End of the Aetia Prologue", ZPE 89, 1991, 21 e 22, dove si a noi suggerisce che Callimaco avrebbe potuto ad esempio invocare le 6Écnoivm h l~UTJCTJpco'l6cc note dal 'cirenaico' fr. 602, incerta.esedi.s. Naeke (n. 15), 117 (e già in RhM 3, 1835, 530).

anrur

PROLOOUS AETIORUM

11

ennev in cui Hecker lesse l'eco di discussioni callimachee sulla genealogia delle Cariti, quali effettivamente risultano attestate dagli Scholia Fiorentina rr. 30-537. Rispetto al tentativo esperito nelle Commentationes Callimacheae Hecker nel 1843 rivolse assai minore attenzione a discutere implicazioni e obiettivi della sua ricostruzione, di cui è tuttavia possibile individuare alcuni tratti che felicemente la caratterizzano: cosi il richiamo al proemio della Teogonia di Esiodo quale modello della scena callimachea38, l'intuizione dell'avvicendarsi delle Muse nel colloquio con Callimaco ("ut apud Ovidium in Fastis quaestionibus Poetae nunc haec, nunc illa Musarum respondet, sic apud Callimachum quoque vicibus altemis veteres mythos poetico omarunt sermone',39, la divinazione grazie all'attuale fr. 696 della presenza nel proemio della fonte Aganippe "filia Permessi fluminis" (e cfr. fr. 2.a.16-25).Va inoltre notato che la fonte Aganippe ricorre nelle pagine heckeriane in connessione esclusivamente con paesaggio e dialogo eliconi, senza alcun riferimento a una Dichterweihe quale a partire dal Dilthey ostinatamente (e sinora senza alcun riscontro papiraceo) si è cercato di ricalcare soprattutto su Prop. 3.3. Alla stentata sopravvivenza tra i callimachisti della memoria dei reali meriti di Hecker corrisponde un più generale oblio calato sulla sua figura già nel secolo scorso. Nato nel 1820 da famiglia cattolica 40, A. Hecker dopo il brillante esordio con le Commentationes 37 38

39

40

Heclter lesse il frammento nella fonna tì 6' i:vu:' Eùpuvo1111 T1'tTJVWC tÙtEVbuc'tEV ("llla [scii. Musa) dixit Eurynomen Gratias peperisse1 e lo intese "dictum in reprchensionemcuiusdam qui non dixerat EurynomenGratianun ~ mattem" ([n. 3), 182). Benchéin Comm. crit. ancora non sia attribuito a Callimaco il distico sull'incontro di Esiodo con le Muse citato da Frontone(cfr. supra n. 5) nel corso della ricostruzione Heclter evoca i vv. 5-6 della Ttogonia (À.otccaµÉvac 'tÉpEVaxpoa Iltpµ11ccoio I -ii"hm:ou ICP1lV1\C -ii'O4tunì çaatow)per avvalorare l'attribuzione al proemio dell'attuale fr. 740 Pf. Vl1jllXJ1EVa\ KP11V'I\C ro~ov 'Ap-yacp{11c. A confenna dell'originalità delle intuizioni di Heclter si può ricordare che nessuna menzione del sogno callimacheo (e di frammenti ad esso riferibili) è nell'ampio commentario che accompagna l'edizione della Ttogonia a cura di DJ. van Lennep, apparsanello stesso anno del volume heclteriano (Htsiodi ThLogonia. Librorum MSS et veterum editionum lectionibus commentarioque instruxit David lacobus van Lennep, Amstelodami1843). Le scoperte papiracee hanno dimostrato l'intervento di più Muse al colloquio con Callimaco, cfr. Pfeiffer ad fr. 7.22 e H. Lloyd-Jones-PJ. Parsons, SuppltiMnlum Htlltnisticum, Berlin/New York 1983, 90; sull'attiva partecipazionedi Callimaco al dialogo, "being prepared to volunteer information as well as aslt questions", vd. A.S. Hollis, "Teuthis and Callimachus, Attia Boole l", CQ NS 32, 1982, 118 e 120. Entrambi i genitori di Heclter provenivano "van deftige R.C. familien", cfr. la voce dedicata a W.A. Heclter, fratello di Alphonsus, da W.B.S. Boeles, "Levenschetsen der Groninger hoogleraren", in WJ.A. Joncltbloet,Gtdtnkbotk dtr Hoogtschool tt Groningtn, ttr gtltgen~id van haar vijfdt halvt etuwfttst, Groningen 1864, 162. Al cattolicesimo di A. Hecker accenna R.C. Bakhuizen van den Brinlt in una lettera da Vienna del 29.6.1845 al suo maestro J. Balte, parlando di Schneidewin: "Hij schijnt in droltlte correspondentie met Heclter, wien hij het overigens niet vergeven ltan dat hij Roomsch is. 'Quem si ad neo-catholicos pellicere possemus!' schrijft hij mij" (in S. Muller Fz. [ed.), Briefwisstling van Balchuiztn van dtn Brink.IMI zijnt vritndtn gtdurtnde zijnt ballingschap [1844-1851], Haarlem 1906, 147). La lettera confenna inoltre i rapporti epistolari tra Heclter e Schneidewin, e la sicura identificazione in Schneidewin del recensore in GGA 1844 della Co~ntalio critica dt Anthologia Gratca (cfr. supra n. 4; in Plulologus 4, 1849, 478 la "recordatio

12

BENEDEITO

Callimacheaeche lo segnalò come erede di Naeke4 1 e dei grandi Kalltµaxeiot olandesi del XVIII secolo 42 pubblicò, oltre a due epistolaecriticae di argomento callimacheo indirizzate a F.W. Schneidewin 43 , le importanti Commentariocritica de Anthologia Graeca (1843) e Commentationiscriticaede AnthologiaGraecapars prior (1852)44. All'indomani del dottorato groningano Hecker si trasferl a Leida, dove divenne intimo di J. Bake e soprattutto di J. Geel 4S, ottenne nel 1846 l'incarico dipraeceptor nel locale Gymnasiumma mai poté raggiungere una stabile sistemazione universitaria46. Già all'inizio degli anni '50 la sua produzione scientifica si arresta per l'insorgere della malattia mentale4 7 che doveva accompagnarlo fino alla morte, nel 1865. Irrealizzato rimase cosl il proposito di curare

41

42

43

44

4S

46

47

pristini commercii epistolarum" con Schneidewin apre la prima Epistola critica indirizzatagli da Hecker). Giudizio e auspicio di August Meineke (Analecta Aluandrina, Berolini 1843, 404: "sed haec omnia ea qua res digna est cura explicatum iri speramus ab Adolpho [sic] Heckero, cuius Commentaliones Callimacheae hunc virum dignissimumesse ostendunt qui Naekii panes suscipiatj. Nella prima annata di Philologus, la rivista fondata da Schneidewin,OUo Schneider esonDnegli studi callimachei appunto rivolgendosi a Hecker e salutando in lui l'erede dei grandi maestri leidensi del XVlll secolo: "[me] hominem earundem studiis litterarum operantem quas Tu ornas, et omas tam egregie, ut Hemsterhusiorum, Valckenariorum, Ruhnkeniorum tempora Batavis Tuis mox reditura auguremur" ("Callimachea. Alphonso Heckero S.P.D. Otto Schneider", Philologus 1, 1846, 260). In Philologus 4, 1849, 478-9 e 5, 1850, 413-512: una terza pane, pur preannunciata (Philologus 5, 1850, 510-1), non vedra la luce. Ad altro settore di studi attiene A. Hecker, De oratione in Eratosthenem trigintavirwn Lysiae falso tributa, Lugd. Bat 1848; in W. J>Okel,Philologisches Schrifsteller-lexicon, Leipzig 1882, 111 è attribuito a Hecker il volumetto polemico Lysias en Dr. W.A. Hirschig, Groningen 1855,che è opera invece del fratello Willem. Nella prefazione alla Commentatio critica del 1852 è data per prossima (cfr. p. VII) la pubblicazione di un altro volume sull'Antologia greca, che in realtà Hecker non po~ concludere. Sulle Commentationes del 1843 e del 1852 vd. il giudizio di A.S.F. Gow-D.L. Page, The Greelr. Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams Il, Cambridge 1965, 683 n. 1. Nell'àmbito della 'scuola leidense' di J. Bake (1787-1864) eJ. Geel (1789-1862) il nome di Hecker è menzionato da L. MUller,Geschichle der klassischen Philologie in den Niederlanden, Leipzig 1869, 110 e J.E. Sandys, A History o/ Classica/ Scholarship lii, Cambridge 1908, 280; della partecipazione di Hecker a un circolo filologico leidense animato da Bake e Geel è traccia in una lettera di quest'ultimo del dicembre 1846 cit. in MJ. Hamaker, Jacob Geel (1789-1862) naar zijn brieVtlnen geschriften geschetst, Diss. Leiden 1907,65. Nel 1847, alla mone di P. van Limburg Brouwer, si cercò di assicurare a Hecker la cattedra groningana di Ialino e greco (vi accenna una lettera di Geel di quell'anno in Hamaker [n. 45], 104, e cfr. anche Briefwisseling [n. 40], 284), che toccò però a J.A.C. van Heusde. Sulla situazione degli studi classici a Groninga negli anni '40 e '50 del secolo scorso vd. H. Hofmann, "Classics in Groningen 1614-1876", in H. Hofmann (ed.), Latin Studies in Groningen 1877-1977, Groningen 1990, 14-8. Sin dall'estate del 1850 Hecker fu sospeso per motivi di salute dall'insegnamento, da cui sarà definitivamente allontanato nell'aprile 1851, cfr. A.H. Huussen Sr., Robert Fruin en het Stedelijk. Gymnasiwn te Leiden 1850-1860, Leiden 1963, 8. Delle difficoltà di quel periodo è testimonianza una lettera di Hecker a J. Bake del 31.10.1850 conservata presso la Biblioteca Universitaria di Leida (BPL 1187), cfr. Bibliotheca Academiae Lugduno-Batavae. Catalogus XXII, Leiden 1934, 88 e XXVI, Leiden 1935, 4.

PROLOGUS AETIORUM

13

un'edizione callimachea che, annunciato nella prefazione alle Commentationes48, non vennemeno quando Hecker seppe dell'analogo progetto di Schneider49 ed è ribadito ancora nella prefazione all'ultima opera ("Callimachea auctiora in ipsius poetae editione daturus sum")SO, datata_ luglio 1852, quando i disturbi psichici di Hecker erano ormai noti e conclamati. Assai miglior sorte è toccata al fratello Willem (1817-1909), docente di storia antica a Groninga dal 1855 al 188751 e autore di una vasta produzione soprattutto come traduttore e interprete 'letterario' dell'antico52. A fronte del silenzio di repertori biografici e storie della filologia 53 è in carteggi ed epistolari riconducibili al circolo leidense di Bake e Geel che è dato rinvenire tracce di A. Hecker. Rievocando un recente incontro con lui scriveva il 29 ottobre 1850 R.C. Bakhuizen van den Brink a J. Bake: "Is onze arme Hecker weder hersteld? De ontmoeting met hem is de eenige onaangename indruk, welken mijn jongste reis bij mij heeft achtergelaten. Zijne Epistola critica gelezen te hebben en den auteur van zooveel schoons in een zoo niet deemiswaardigen dan toch hoogst dubbelzinnigen toestand te zien, trof mij diep; maar vooral vergeet ik niet ligt het gedwongen wantrouwen, waarmede hij mijn bezoek ontving, 48

49

so 51

52

53

"Specimen dedi, cene dare volui, eorum quae ad Callimachi reliquias commentatus sum, ut inde de norma judicium ferri possit quam in ils edendis sum secuturus", e cfr. Pfeiffer (n. I), xlvi. Non priva di puntigliosa determinazione è a questo proposito la prima epistola ad Schneidewinum, cfr. Philologus 4, 1849, 478: "Ottonem Schneiderum [ ... ] virum doctissimum Callimachum editurum esse laetum attulisti nuntium. Nullus dubito quin futurus editor praeclara inde lucraturus sim subsidia. Nam, fateor, consilium parandae editionis, quod adolescens cepi nec non perpetuo exinde agitavi, iuvenis continuo abiicere non possum". A. Heclter, Commentationiscriticae de Anthologia Graeca pars prior, Lugd. Bat. 1852, p. VI. Alla "unheilbare geisteskrankheit" che rese impossibile a Hecker il completamento dell'edizione di Callimaco fa rapido cenno O. Schneider in Philologus20, 1863, 130 e cfr. anche M0ller (n. 45), 110. Cfr. Nieuw NederlandschBiografisch WoordenboekIV, 1918, 718-9; Schouten (n. 53), 384, 454-5, 468 n. 13. Dapprima docente di "Algemene Geschiedenis en Antiquiteiten", Hecker divenne nel 1877 "the first professor of Ancient History in Groningen" (Hofmann [n. 46), 18; una figlia di Heclter sposò Emi! Bahrens e fu madre di un altro latinista, W.A. Bllhrens, cfr. D.R. Shackleton Bailey in Hofmann [n. 46], 36). Un ritratto di Willem Hecker è riprodotto in R.E.O. Ekkart-J. Schuller tot Peursum-Meijer, GroningerAcademieportrellen.Catalogusvan de portrellenin het Academiegebouw en de Bibliotheekder Rijk.suniversiteilte Groningen,Groningen 1978, n. 82. Rilevato che W. Hecker "als philoloog veci minder bekend was dan zijn jongere broeder Alphonsus, die toen [nel 1855, quando Willem ottenne la cattedra] reeds tot hopelooze krankzinnigheid vervallen wu" su caratteristiche e limiti della sua personalità di studioso si sofferma Johan Huizinga (dal 1905 al 1915 docente a Groninga di algemeneen vaderlandsegeschiedenis)tracciando la storia dell'ateneo groningano dal 1814al 1914,cfr. J. Huizinga.''Geschiedenis der Universiteit gedurende de derde eeuw van haar bestaan 1814-1914", in Academia Groningana.Gedenkboe/cter gelegenheid van het derde eellWfeeslder Universiteitte Groningen,Groningen 1914, 165-6. Nulla su A. Hecker in AJ. van der Aa, BiographischWoordenboe/c der Nederlanden(il voi. VII è del 1867, il supplemento del 1878), né nel Nieuw NederlandschBiografisch Woordenbod; di lui non si cura neanche l'informatissimo D.C.A.J. Schouten, Het Griek.saan de Nederlandse Universiteitenin de negentiendeeeuw bijzondergedurendede periode 1815-1876(Diss. Nijmegen), Utrecht 1964. Dei brevissimi cenni di M0ller e Sandys si è dato conto in n. 45.

14

BENEDETTO

alsof ile afgezondcn was om hem te bespieden of te vervoeren" 54 • Non dissimili accenti desolati risuonano in una lettera di Geel del novembre 1852: "Hecker? - jubes me renovare dolorem; er is geen redding waarschijnlijk; met korte intervallen lucide, is hij dan eens suf, dan eens maniacus. Hij werkt niet mecr, en dc presentexempl. van zijn lste dccl dcr Anthol. liggen door hem in een hoek gesmeten; ile wect dat hij het boek aan mij, per xpoccpµ.coc, V11'tpticii>c, ceµ.vii>c),whereas the other texts use more common ones, too, as aihroc, iccoc and oµ.ii>c. The frequency of adverbs in Apollonius is remarkable, since epic poetry generally avoids them more carefully than other genres.

4. Adverbs in -6ov, -6a, -&,v (-6av), -lhc, and -'tl

I start by giving a list of these adverbs. From the list I have excluded 611v(Hee. 49.3 (µ.yt µ£ta6..;v],h. 4.216), which is a temporal adverb and in which 611vcannot be called 'the suffix', the prepositional phrase ic 0!3&,v (la. 218), and the temporal adverbs lipn, a-on(c), eicen, ~en, en,µ.111ehl,and ouici'tl. It might be argued that also xaµ.ci6lc should be excluded since it has a local sense. 6ta1Cpt66v h. 4.5736 ev..1166vla. 191.28 xtplcta66v Hee. 69.14 pu66v Hee. 48.3 cxe66v h. 3.195 xav66v Aet. 178.11 aµ.l30Aa6ic h. 3.61 aµ.01l3a6ic Aet. 186.23 liµ.u61c Hee. 114 xaµ.ci61c h. 6.15 icavax116ci h. 4.45 µiy6a Aet. SH 259.18 a611v/a6av Hee. 25.2, h. 6.55 xu6av Lyr. 228.11 36

This is the reading of the medieval MSS. The papyrus has 6ta1Cp110v.

ADVERBS

27

&tl.auti Hee. 115.2, h. 3.267 &µ0111ti Eleg. 384.33, h. 3.25 &cppucti h. 3.65 t\copl.C'ti la. 203.18 £Y1C'Utl Hee. 15 1acti la. 203.18 ovoµaC'ti Aet. 43.79, h. 4.224

Of the adverbs in -66v, cxw6v is a common word both in poetry and prose. All the others arc rare or very rare words and attested mainly in poetry. In the following survey only the poetic instances arc recorded comprehensively. Citations by grammarians, commentators, etc. arc disregarded. i:\1a1ep~6v (19 attestations, including Callimachus) is used by Homer, Semonides of Amorgos, Apollonius Rhodius, Damagetus, Nicander, Oppianus of Cilicia, Nonnus, in two anonymous epigrams of the Roman or Byzantine period, by Herodotus, and a few times in prose of the Roman period. Ev..1166v, v..a66v or v..1166v(23) is used by Homer, Hesiod, Tyrtaeus, Apollonius Rhodius, Antiphilus of Byzantium, Quintus of Smyrna (who has 13 of the 23 cases), in Christus Patiens, by Herodotus, and a few times in later prose. 1Aa66v is by far the most common form. Ev..1166vappears only in Callimachus and Antiphilus. Il£ptC'ta66v (25) is used by Homer, Euripides, Apollonius Rhodius, Theocritus, Quintus, in the Orphic Argonautiea, in a hexametric interpolation in Apollodorus 3.4.4, by Herodotus and Thucydides and a few times in prose of the Roman period3 7• 'Pu66v 38 appears only in the Odyssey and in Callimachus. It is an alternative for {>u6"11v, which is also an uncommon word but, except for Hipponax and Cratinus, mainly attested in prose. The earliest prose examples are Hellenistic 39, and, by choosing pu66v, Callimachus probably shows his preference for a form with Homer's authority behind it. Xav66v (c. 40 cases) is used by Homer, Lycophron, Nicander, Andromachus ap. Galen, Diogenes Laertius in his epigrams, Quintus, and Nonnus. In the Hellenistic period it seems to have been only a poetic word, but it is used by a number of later prose writers (Philo of Alexandria, Aretaeus, Galen, Lucian, Clement of Alexandria, Origenes, Athenaeus, Philostratus maior, pseudo-Dioscorides, Dio Cassius, Eunapius, Synesius, Paulus Aegineta). The survey shows that Callimachus' adverbs in -66v are attested in older poetry, although some of them later on also became prose words. Most of them were used also by other Hellenistic poets. 37 38 39

Cf. Hollis (n. 9), on Hee. 69.14. Cf. Hollis (n. 9), on Hee. 48.3. PolybiusFr. 18,LXX 2 Ma. 3.25; later attestations in Plutarch etc.

28

Bl.OMQVIST

Of the adverbs in -6tc, ciµJ3).a6{c h. 3.61 is a hapax. If the reading is correct, the word is a variation of the Homeric ciµJ3M~v. However, there is some reason to suspect textual corruption. The interpretation of ciµJ3).a6£ccauses considerable difficulties4°, and the word is not quoted by any grammarian or lexicographer. Moreover, the scholiast's 61a&xflc cannot refer to any possible meaning of ciµPo).a6{c. One should explanation ex: consider the possibility of reading eµ(3o).a6{c instead. This word is quoted by Herodianus 111:1.512.13 Lentz from an unknown source. Its equivalent eµl30A.cx6riv appears in hMerc. 411 airt68ev eµ(3oM~v ectpaµµivat cilliiATltCt (of twigs). Its etymological meaning is 'insertion-wise' or 'intertwining-wise'; this would come sufficiently near the scholiast's £te61aooxflc in the Callimachus passage: the smiths are at work simultaneously on the same piece of hot iron and are, so to speak, 'inserting' their blows one after the other or 'intertwining' them with each other41• 'Aµo1f3a6{cis used by Apollonius Rhodius, Theocritus, Quintus, and Nonnus, and a few times in prose texts of the Roman period. 'Aµo1!3a~v is not attested, but ciµo1f3a66v occurs in Parmenides, Hellenistic poetry (Apollonius and the anonymous elegy SH 964.42), and later texts. Cf. also £1taµo1f3a6ic (Homer, Apollonius). It seems that ciµo1l3a6ic is an innovation by the Hellenistic poets who used it instead of, or parallel with, ciµo1f3a66v, but the Homeric t1taµo1!3a6ic provided a model for the innovation. "Aµu61c is normally regarded as an adverb of space and time, but where it occurs in Callimachus, Hee. 114 cuv 6' ciµu61c q,oput6v 't£ JCai.ixvta A.uµat' cittpev, it does not have an unqualified local sense but highlights the vigour with which the action was performed 42 • The word is used only in poetry, especially in epic (Homer, Hesiod, Apollonius [21 instances!], Aratus, Euphorion, Oppianus ofCilicia)43. A survey of a number of other adverbs in -6tc 44 clearly demonstrates the poetic character of this type of words. They hardly ever occur in prose, and many of them are 40 41

42 43 44

Cf. F. Bornmann,Callimachi hymnus in Dianam, Firenze 1968, ad loc. Prof. Thomas draws my attention to Virgil's adaptation of h. 3.59-61 in G. 4.174 f. illi inter sest magna vi bracchia tollunt I in numtrum vtrsantqut ttnaci forcipt /trrum (repeated A. 8.452 f. with massam for /trrum) where in numtrum 'in rhythm• occurs in the same position as iµJjo>..allicor ciµJ3o>..allic. ln my view, in numtrum cannot be meant as a direct ttanslation of either word, but it evokes the same idea as iµJ3o).a6ic of two smillls hammeringon the same anvil and keeping time with each other; cf. Servius ad loc. (in numerum, id est in ordintm), and I. Henry, Atnidta, Ill, Dublin 1881 (Hildesheim 1969), ad loc. ("In numerum £V pu8µco,so as to form a measure or time, viz., by striking one party all at once and another party all at once, and alternately with the fonner"). Virgil's inter stse conveys Ille same idea. The corruption of iµf3- to ciµJj-is trivial; in the Hermes hymn one MS has ciµJ3o>.a611v. Xaµci61c h. 6.15, on Ille other hand, is used with a straightforwardlocal sense. This adverb is also confmed to poetry. On its meaning,cf. Hopkinson(n. 23), ad loc. On Ille Homeric modelsof Callimachus' verse, cf. Hollis (n. 9), ad loc. 'Aypav6ic,aicpv116ic, a1Cpo7tou6ic, cillu6ic, aµa6ic, ciµcpou6ic,~ic. CXU'tOVUXi6ic, CXU'tOCXOOic, £V(l)7tCX6ic, £1tou6ic,icxa.6lC, ICCX'tcoµa6ic, ICpUq>®lC, ICOllt1l6ic, ).a8p116ic, µ1yci61c,oiica6ic, qnryci6ic,µa6ic. oicA.a.6lC, '0Auµ,tiav6ic, ou6ic, 1t'ta1Cci61c, c-tOLX116ic,

ADVERBS

29

known only from grammarians' quotations of poems now lost. The instances in Callimachus fit into the picture. Whether we read aµl30)..a6ic or iµl30)..a6ic at h. 3.61, the word is a hapax, and neither aµo1!3a6ic nor aµu6te (or xaµa6te, for that matter) occur outside poetry before the Roman period. The exclusively poetic character of the two adverbs in -6a is also evident. KavaXT16a is used by Hesiod, Pindar, Apollonius, and Nonnus (the alternative form 1Cavaxtt66v occurs in Quintus, NoMus and the Orphic Argonautica). Miy6a is attested in Homer, the Homeric hymn to Demeter, Andromachus op. Galen, and Quintus; the alternative µiy6ttv or µiy6av in the Homeric hymn to Hermes, Pindar, Apollonius, Nicander, and the Orphic

Argonautica. The adverbs in -&,v are less exclusively poetic. Of those two used by Callimachus, a6ttv is a rather common word (167 attestations in the TW material) and, although most of the earlier examples come from poetry, the word appears in prose as well, from Herodotus and Plato onwards. Nor is x6ttv (xu6av) really uncommon (c. 90 attestations). It is used by Aeschylus, Alexis, Diphilus, Nicander, Quintus, Nonnus, and the epigrammatists Leonidas, Antipater of Thessalonike, Erycius, Antiphanes, and Straton, in the Orphic Argonautica, by Plato, Isocrates, Xenophon, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Polybius, in a Hippocratic letter, and several times in late prose. Among the adverbs in -tt, t\cop1cti and 'lacti belong to a well-known type, with the sense 'in the X language/dialect' or, more generally, 'in the way the X people do it'. The adverbs are derived from verbs in -i~coand -a~co. which in their tum are derived from designations of living creatures, mostly ethnic or proper names 45 . Most words of the category end in -1cti. Except 'Iac'ti, which is common, the only adverbs in -acti of this category are the hapax legomena Xtacti46 'in the Chian way' and t\tacti 47 'in the language of Zeus'. They are on the whole prose words. In poetry they are used mainly by the comic poets, sometimes in jocular new formations; there are also a few instances in Sophocles and Theocritus. Both the Callimachean examples occur in the Iambi (203.18), where prosaic words are not alien to the style. In poetic texts there appear a small number of other adverbs in -tcti, i.e. such as are not ultimately derived from names. 'Avcou:ti and µdtu:ti are used by Homer and recur in later poetry (also 1Cataµdtu:ti); aq,povttcti occurs for the first time in Xenophanes. Of those in -acti that are not derived from names, only ovoµacti is common. It occurs more

45

On verbs in -i~w.cf. Schwyzer-Debrunner I (n. 11), 735f., A. Debrunner, Griechische Wor1bi/-

46 47

d1U1gslehre, Heidelberg 1917, 127-40. In the phraseX\ac'ti 'tilliw com. adesp. 919 Kock. Dio Otrysostomus 11.23, a plausible conjecture for 'lacti.

BLOMQVIST

30

than 300 times in prose and must be regarded as mainly a prose word 48 • But Callimachus is not the only one to use it in poetry. His contemporaries Aratus and Theocritus used it, too, and it appears in an elegy by Critias and in a poem by Gregorius of Nazianzus. 'Aydacd, autovoµacti and tKOuciacti are rare and occur only in prose. 'Aiclauti occurs outside Callimachus only in Longus, the variant aiclaucti in Soranus and Palladius. 'Aµo"flltl is a Homeric word and recurs in an epigram by Rhianus, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Galen, Lucian, Plotinus, Dio Cassius, Gregorius of Nazianzus (both poems and prose), Gregorius of Nyssa, Libanius, and Nonnus. 'Acppticti is a hapax. 'Eyicuti 49 is also known from a fragment of Archilochus. Thus, except for ~coplCtt, 1acti and ovoµacti. Callimachus' adverbs in -tt are rare words; earlier attestations of them, if existent, are in poetic texts.

5. Other adverbs of manner Under this heading I treat the following words in Callimachus, which for syntactical and semantical reasons may be identified as adverbs: al'lfa, altc, autoxEpt, aq,ap, Cl'lf, 6uitptxa, 6ixa, £1Cxo6p6.; (/a. 194.101, Hee. 72.1)7S_ The survey of this group of adverbs reveals a considerable number of words that are exclusively poetic, just as some of the adverbs in -6ov, -6te and -6a that were discussed previously. Most of them are used by other poets of the Hellenistic period but are attested also in earlier poetry. The group contains also one word, icpuq,a, that is very rare in poetry but became common in late Hellenistic prose. On the authority of Pindar, Callimachus may have regarded it as a poetic word, even if it had already started to be used in contemporary prose.

6. Conclusions The adverbs that are used by Callimachus are in most cases taken over from earlier poetry, especially Homer and the tragedians; there are also a few instances of words that are previously attested only or mainly in the comic poets. A dozen words are known only from Callimachus himself (ciµpoi..a6ic [or, possibly, eµpoi..a6k], citptµafroc, ciq,p1icti, eµ,i:tpa.µcoc, t1tci>1t1a[if that is really an adverb], e-rc'oc, ICPll'YUCOC, vcovuµvi, tetpa.xai..at, xii'>pt)or from Callimachus and one of his contemporaries (cii..tµatcoc/tii..tµatcoc, i>xo6pa.;). We may suspect that at least some of these have been coined by Callimachus or another Hellenistic poet The three words in -tcti belong to prose rather than poetry. So does probably oi..iycoc, whereas icpuq,a, in spite of its distribution, is a doubtful instance. There are no other typical prose words in the material. In some cases we have found indications of an influence from classical Ionic prose on Callimachus, since earlier attestations of certain adverbs or their corresponding adjectives are to be found in Herodotus and the Hippocratic writings (citptµaioc, 61aicp166v, U.a66v/tU.1166v, icouq,ot£pcoc, icp11yuoc, oi..iycoc, xa.nu, 1ttp1cta66v). However, Callimachus may have known these words from poetic texts that are now lost to us, or the mere fact that they were missing in Attic prose may have induced him to regard the words as poetic. The stylistic difference between the Iambi on one side and the hymns on the other manifests itself also in the choice of adverbs, as demonstrated most clearly by the distribution of adverbs in -coc.

71 72

73 74 75

This presumably Ionic equivalent of µ&.llov is known only from Callimachusand Tynaeus. Also in Apollonius. Also in Apolloniusand Nicander. Also in Apollonius and Aralus. Cf. Bornmann(n. 40) and Mineur (n. 21), ad locc. occurs only in Callimachus and Nicander (Ther. 457, 765); cf. Hopkinson (n. 23), on h. 6.50.

'Y•oo~

34

BLOMQVIST

These findings agree on the whole with results obtained from studies of other word classes in Callimachus' vocabulary76. As for Greek poetical language in general, it has been shown here that adverbs in -we were infrequent in Hellenistic poetry, just as they were in earlier periods. Callimachus seems to avoid these adverbs more carefully than most other Hellenistic poets, but later on, e.g. in Nonnus, they become still rarer. However, we found reason to suspect that, in Doric texts where other words in -we arc normal ingredients, Callimachus would allow himself to use adverbs in -mc with less restraint than elsewhere. Thus, his reason for avoiding adverbs in -mc may be, not certain features inherent in adverbs as such, but a peculiar quality that belongs only to this type of adverbs and stigmatizes them as prose words unfit for poetry. This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the fact that Callimachus actually uses a not inconsiderable number of adverbs that do no! appear in prose but evidently were regarded as normal ingredients in the poetic language. They constitute a rather impressive list 77 : at'l'a, aµO)'T'lti, &µ01l3a6k, aµu61c, acpap, a'lfl',61a1Cp166v,6uhp1xa, e0,.1166v, 1Cavax116a, £!CCXC, £µ1ta, £µJt11C,e!;axa, £1t\'ta!;, ~!Ca, iP..18a, 8aµa (possibly), µcU.1ov, µiy6a, !;uv;,1, oµap'tft1, xarxu, 1tal1µ1tette, 1taccu6i111, 1tep1c-ra66v, pia, pei.a, pu66v, uxo6pa!;, xaµa61c, xav66v, @!Ca. Callimachus evidently did not avoid all adverbs, nor did other Greek poets. The situation is rather that, in Greek, there existed a considerable number of adverbs that where used without scruples by the poets and were alien to prose language. On the other hand, poets avoided certain other adverbs, just as they avoided certain words of other word classes that were felt to be non-poetic (and for which they had poetic alternatives at their disposal). Possibly, a corresponding category of 'poetic' adverbs did not exist in Latin or was not as extensive there as in Greek. This may be the reason why the Latinists quoted in the introduction of this study have concluded that Latin poets avoided adverbs in general and that adverbs have certain semantic characteristics that make them unfit for poetry. The situation that we have found in Callimachus does not confirm these conclusions. It is my subjective impression that Callimachus' use of adverbs does not differ significantly from that of other Greek poets, and I tentatively regard my conclusions regarding Callimachus as valid for Greek poetical language in general.

76

77

Cf. R. Schmitt, Die Nominalbildung in den Dichrungen des Kallimachos von Kyrtne, Wiesbaden 1970, and A. Zanfino-Leccisi, "L 'aggetivo negli inni di Callimacho", Alli dell a Accademia ponlaniQIIIJ 32, 1983, 123-47. The list includes also the 'Ionic' adverbs mentioned above that Callimachus probably regarded as belonging to the poetic vocabulary. The list might easily be augmented if all local and temporal adverbs were included as well.

35

ADVERBS

ci)..)..coc Homer Homeric hymns Hesiod Alcaeus Ibycus

..

OV'tO>C

17

pat6icoc

3 3

23 4 5

cacpii')c

1

Pindar

Solon F.mpedocles Pannenides Xenophanes Theognis tragedy comedy Apollonius Rhodius Theocritus Nicandcr Herondas Oppianus,Halieulica Quintus Smymaeus Anthology other poetry

I

xavtcoc

5

1 1 67 54 3

2 2

9 46

1 1 7 2 1

1 2

1 1 30 46

4 36 58 4

91 88

1

2

2

1 2 6 3

17 2

15 2

1 19 9 9 3

6 2

Table 1. Frequency of aA.A.O>C, ovtcoc,xavtcoc,pai6icocand cmpcocin poetry 78

78

The figures have been taken over rather uncritically from the TLG and probably need some correction. However, they are precise enough for our purpose. 'Other poetry' includes certain

fragmentary or peripheral texts, such as oracles and the Orphic poems.

36

BLOMQVIST 1

Callimachus, Hymns Apollonius Rhodius Theocritus, Idylls (incl. spuria) Aratus Lycophron Nicander

a 6 54 41 7 10 9

2 b 5.5 9.3 15.0 6.0 6.7 5.7

a 6 205 63 28 10 27

b 5.5 35.1 23.1 24.3 6.7 17.0

Table 2. Occurrences of adverbs in -me in Hellenistic poetry (col. 1: different words; col. 2: number of occurrences; cols. la and 2a: absolute numbers; cols. lb and 2b: number of occurrences in 1000 verses)

LEGENDARY NARRATION AND POETIC PROCEDURE IN CALLIMACHUS' HYMN TO APOUO

OaudcCalame

There is no reason to doubt the fact that the Greeks throughout their history did sincerely believe in their myths. Nevertheless can we really say as much about the Hellenistic poets, and in particular Callimachus? His position as librarian in the House of the Muses created by Ptolemy I and his work collecting and collating literary manuscripts gave him the opportunity to compare and merge different versions of the same legend. However, in one of his own compositions at least, the learned poet in his comparative work managed to achieve the opposite result. In his Hymn to Apollo, Callimachus combines different versions of the legend of Cyrene in order to restore chronological coherence to the reconstructed 'mythical' story. Perhaps the form of the Homeric hymn, with its epic rhythm and language, was felt to be the best way of treating the story in terms of linear development, rewriting it back into historiographical order. But was this kind of formal and chronological normalization of the story of the founding of Cyrene a simple question of rationalimtion? Or is it the mere product of patient philological work, carefully applying its own coherence onto the material? Was the choice of the Homeric prooemium a simple literary critical decision? These questions take on extra edge when we acknowledge the fact that in Greece at least, there is no such thing as an essence of a myth, that myth is a category created by modern anthropology, that it has real substance only in certain well-defined narrative and literary forms. That is to say that, linked as they are to precise circumstances, each one of these forms confers a particular function to the chosen story; this function defines itself in relation to the text within which the narrative is inserted and in relation to its context of perfomance, often of a cultic order 1• With this in mind, it would be fruitful to look at the strange narrative reconstructed by Callimachus in Hymn to Apollo under three aspects: that is, a study on three different levels, firstly looking at the development of the story from the Sketches of these propositions on the non-existence of an essential nature of Greek myth and on the relative nature of the anthropological category of myth were presented in "Evanescence du mythe et mllitl des fonnes narratives", in C. Calame (ed.), Metamorphoses du mythe en Gr~ce antique, Ge~ve 1988, 7-14, and Illusions de la mythologie (Nouveau.,: Actes Semiotiques 12), Limoges 1990. They take up the conclusions of the classic studies of M. Detienne, L'invention de la mythologie, Paris 1981, and of P. Veyne, Les Grecs ont-ils cru a leurs mythes?, Paris 1983. Besides the useful remarks of the panicipants at the Callimachus' conference at Groningen University, I have taken great advanrage of the comments of Peter Bing, who soon will publish a convergent study (see infra n. 12), of Alben Henrichs at Harvard University, and of Ralph Rosen at the University of Pennsylvania

CALAME

38

semantic rather than syntactical point of view (with comparisons with the older versions of the legend), then studying the 'enunciative' markers given by the story itself (interventions in the text of the 'narrator'/'speaker'), and lastly dealing with the ways the story is inserted into the overall structure of the poem. This tripartite study will lead up to a few reflections raised by the function and target audience of the poem, placing the circumstances of performance in relation to the ritual character of the Homerichymn form.

1. Versions of the legend of the founding of Cyrene We know that in the first half of the fifth century, Pindar gives three parallel versions of the founding of Cyrene in three different epinicia. In the first version, the eponymous Nymph, hunter and guardian of her father's flocks in Thessaly, founds the Greek colony in Libya after her abduction by Apollo and their marriage there. The second version uses the legendary expedition of the Argonauts to excite interest in this particularly fertile territory; Medea predicts the Greek colonization seventeen generations after the passage there of Jason's companions-in-arms. The third version recounts the act of founding the city by the daring Battus of Thera; it portrays him as the venerated founding-father of the cult dedicated to him, but also situates his action within the double perspective of the Trojan Antenorides' passage through Cyrene and of the Spartan ancestry of the Therean founders. Herodotus then made his contribution by working up this third version in order to present the two perspectives, Therean and Cyrenean, of the story; through genealogies, the founder Battus descends either from the Argonauts whose descendants had emigrated from Lemnos to Sparta and then to Thera, or from a royal Cretan family2. Time of the gods, time of the heroes, time of men (heroicized) could be a useful paraphrase but does not avoid the overschematic.

1. 1. An aetiological plot-line

Rewriting the story of the founding of Cyrene in the form of a hymn to Apollo gives Callimachus immediate freedom to combine the 'divine' and 'human' versions, to make them coincide. Instead of the oracle at Delphi, which plays such a crucial role in Pindar's versions and in Herodotus, it is Apollo himself who takes control of the colonizing

2

Cited, in order, Pi. P. 9.5f., 4.4f. and 5.5f., Hdt. 4.145f., and of course not forgetting the local, abridged version in SEG IX, 3.6f. and 25f.; annotated versions, in particular by F. Chamoux, Cyrtne soll.S la monarchie des Battiades, Paris 1952, 69-114, and by C. Calame, "Mythe, recit q,ique et histoire: le r~it htrodotfen de la fondation de Cyrene", in Calame (1988, n. I), 105-25, and "Narrating the Foundation of a City: The Symbolic Birth of Cyrene", in L. Edmunds (ed.), Approaches to Greek Myth, Baltimore/London 1990, 277-341.

HYMNTO APOLLO

39

operations 3; this he does by transfonning himself into a crow and by leading Battus directly to the Libyan coast, with the promise to build the walls of a city (h. 2.65-8). From this first anticipatory move, the narrative unfolds, telling the story of the different stages of colonization in linear fashion: the descendants of Oedipus who, having left Thebes in the sixth generation as in Pindar, find Apollo Carneius in Sparta and take him to Thera; then from Thera, with Battus as intennediary, the god is accompanied to his cult in the territory of a population of natives in Libya, the Asbystes (72-6). It is here at this first Libyan settlement, at Azilis, that the Doric Greeks manage to move Apollo with their dances which he contemplates from the site of the future Cyrene, along with his young wife (77-90). The clever ring-structure which closes the narrative in on itself allows Callimachus both through allusion to lead the Greek colonists not far from the site of the city of Cyrene beneath Apollo's protective gaz.e and also, with a discreet reference to the archegetic function of the god, to evoke his union with the eponymous Nymph; this time, the struggle between the young girl and the sheep-killing lion is moved from Thessaly to Libya (91-2)4. The reflexive aspect of the ring-structure can be located not only in the fact that Apollo is invoked as Cameius at the beginning and at the end of the colonial itinerary (72 and 80), but also in a quite unexpected narrative procedure, which straightaway brings us into contact with the 'enunciative' strategies of the narrative, with strategies linked through the interventions of the intra-discursive 'narrator' with the extra-discursive utterance and perfonnance of the poem: if at the beginning of the narration Apollo leads the colonial expedition organized by Battus towards Libya in the form of a crow (65-8), the sudden invocation of the god as Carneius from line 69 on shifts Apollo from the third person grammatical and narrative position to the second person enunciative position: protagonist of the narrative, but also 'narratee' or 'allocutee', as the story-teller's (or 'narrator's') interlocutor. From then on, returning to the colonists' itinerary from Sparta to Libya by way of Thera, Apollo-strange protagonist of the story in the second person-'JJJ,Eiv:cf. Sim. fr. 519.35 Page, with the commentary by I.C. Rutherford, "Paeans by Simonides", HSPh 93, 1990, 169-209 (esp. 173); that would signify that the chorus to which the narrator addresses himself is itself singing a paean (lines 17-8). On the pulling to death of the serpent Python, cf. h.Ap. 300f. and 356f., commented on by Ch. Sourvinou-lnwood, 'Reading' Gred. Culture. Te.x1sand Images, Rituals and Myths, Oxford 1991, 227-30.

HYMNTO APOlLO

47

3. Structures and functions of the poem Now is the right time, before going on to the conclusion of the poem and any consideration of the function the poem assumes overall, to look closely at the why and wherefore of the deliberate inclusion of this long narrative section within the general development of the composition; our attention will be drawn, briefly, to the particular point of view set up by the cnunciative stances and also to the isotopies which assure a certain semantic coherence.

3.1. Enunciative and mimetic effects The mysterious we who describe themselves as listening to the Apollonian refrain being glossed at Delphi are in fact nothing more than the product of an enunciative synthesis that works itself out in the first section of the poem. The strange narrative stance through which the god is addressed is set up from the very beginning of the hymn and infonns it throughout Protagonist in the third person of the epiphany narrative that opens the poem (1-8), Apollo is quickly invoked in the vocative (11), as he will continue to be till the very end of the poem (113), in a fonnulaic farewell taken from certain Homeric Hymns. But there is a supplementary paradox in this first section outlining the characteristics and functions of the young god. After a few lines, Apollo, as addressee defined by the second person and vocative, is for the most part replaced by another 'allocutee', by another 'narratee': a chorus of young men addressed from line 8 on by a fonn of the imperative in the second person plural and probably represented as dancing and singing at Delos 17• By the repetition of these fonns in lines 17 and 25, the choreutai are, it seems, even being invited to sing the poem composed by the /-voice; or, in a rather more complicated way, these young choreutai are called upon to find inspiration in the song sung by Apollo himself; they are invited to listen to his music with the same respectful silence due when the ciot6oigive praise to the lyre or bow of Apollo (18-9), just as Thetis stops her song of complaint when she hears the refrain of the paean (20-1), and as Niobe's rock ceases its lament on the same occasion (22-4). These legendary examples make the reflexive dimension of Apollo's song so explicit that it is the choreutai themselves who-despite the silence they are asked to respect-are requested to sing out the refrain (25). Essential to the ring-structure of the poem, the refrain will itself be the object of the learned explanations referred to above (97-104). The explanation places Apollo's role as aoidos and his skill as archer into an aetiological relationship with each other, for they are enigmatically juxtaposed not only at the beginning of the poem (11 and 19), but also, through the allusion to 17

This address to the chorus is prepared for in 4 by a rhetorical general address which recalls those of archaic poetry (Alcm. fr. 1.50 Page, in a kind of epiphany, as A. Henrichs pointed out to me}, then in 6 by an invitation addressed in the imperative to the doors moved by Apollo; cf. Bing (n. 12). The presence of the chorus at Delos can be inferred from the qualification of the palm-tree as -1,ilux:at 4; but see Williams (n. 4), 19.

48

CAl.AME

Niobe's fate and the parallel fate ofThetis, in the list of the god's golden attributes (33), or in the parenthesis in line 44: 'to Phoebus is due the bow and also the song'1 8• In raising the issues of both silent listening and musical voice, the reflexive component of Apollo's song inaugurates the metamorphosis of the you of the young choreutaiaddressed by the narrator/speaker (8) into the we which includes both chorus and narrator/speaker (11). Both the adolescents and the /-voice (as well as his real audience) arc called upon to attend to Apollo's epiphany: the young choreutaiwho arc inspired to play lyre and dance (12-3), the speaker who approves their song (16). But who really is the singer of the poem we arc reading: the chorus the poet puts on stage probably at Delos, or Callirnachus himself-and who is it sung for? 1bc echo effect in the narrative section of the poem between the enunciative authority and the legendary, paradigmatic choreutai of Cyrene and Delphi is transferred onto the enunciative relation set up between the narrator and his double narratee: the god and the choreutai.This mirroring aspect of Apollo's song accentuates these enunciative ambiguities even more: Apollo's musical epiphany interrupts whilst at the same time inspires a song sung by the young choreutai;-the narrator even rallies them along, and associates himself with them in their praise of the god! It is true that the use in line 11 of first person plural future forms makes one think of the 'performative' future used by the choreutaiof archaic melic poetry describing in the first person the action they are in the act of performing; nevertheless the constant interplay sustained between persons occupying in turn enunciative stances normally held distinct gives the strong impression that this 'mimetic' effect is operating on the level of literary fiction. Insofar as this enunciative interplay is behind the many coincidences outlined above between Apollo's song, the song of the choreutai and the poem assumed by the/ of the narrator/speaker, the 'mimesis' is in fact hermetic: its construction is such as to close off any references to any action external to the poem. Instead of referring to the ritual and external action in which the singers of the archaic poetry arc engaged, these self-referential forms create from this point on a kind of internal (intra-discursive) reference system, fictional reference in fact 19. Under this point of view, it 18 19

1be mysterious combination of Apollo's duties as archer and bard receives its explanation only in the epilogue of the poem: cf. infra n. 26. The mimetic aspect of Callimachus' poem, which describes a cuh.icceremony without one knowing exactly where the poem itself is performed (Cyrene?, Alexandria?), has been seen well by Cahen (n. 15), 45-50; see also the confusion expressed by W. Albert, Das mimetische GedichJ in der Antike. Geschichle und Typologie von des Anfiingen bis in die augusteische Zeit, Frankfurt a.M. 1988, 6676, and the fine analysis of the polyphony of the poem proposed by Bing (n. 12). Less prudent, C. Meillier, Callimaque et son temps. Recherches sur la carriere et la condition d' un ecrivain d r epoque des premiers Lagides, Lille 1979, 79-91, sees in this poem of Callimachus' a cultic paraphrase of a ritual song performed on the occasion of the Cameia. Describing briefly the enunciative games of the poem from the '!ability' of people involved in a choral performance situation, M.R. Falivenc, "La mimesi in Callimaco: lnni II, IV, Ve VI", QUCC 65, 1990, 103-28, has stressed that the mimetic aspect of the performance described by the narrator could not have referred to an actual choral performance; see also the fine contribution of Depew (this volume), 57-77. For a clarification on the secondary (here: compound!) nature of a mimesis which imitates for a learned public and through

HYMNTO APOI.LO

49

is particularly significant that the poet has to say much more on the (consnucted) context of performance of his poem than the Homeric Hymns or the archaic melic poets do! No surprise then when we see, at the end of Apollo's song, the we open up, by way of a rhetorical·question with tic, into a generalizing who (31 ): if Apollo is so worthy of being sung (rouµ.voc), that is because it is so easy for every man to sing him21>. And when the narrator/speaker, in this highly complex enunciative development, comes out on his own, as/, it is in relation with 'my king' (26-7), recalling the 'my city' and 'our kings' of the narrative of the founding of Cyrene (65 and 68). This move sketches out, in the ambivalent way we have shown, the ancestry that in effect consnucts the narrative by placing the narrator in relation to the founder of Cyrene and, through him, with Apollo. The powerful enunciative intervention of the / is from thenceforth situated in the perspective of the supposed homeland of the poet and of his tutelary god 2 1.

3.2. Semantic constructions Essentially designedto list Apollo's characteristics and modes of action, and consequently concentrating on the god's functions and field of action, the first section of the poem is focused, according to the point of view of the god's servants, on the activities of the cult and its ritual. This first 'ritual' section prepares us for the second narrative section, notably with the transitional verses that list the trades and skills under the god's aegis (archer, aoidos, diviner and doctor, 42-6)22; this preparation does not only take place at the enunciative level, but also at the semantic level, in the isotopies it sketches out. Firstly, and briefly, the spatial isotopy centred round the consnuction theme: Apollo's epiphany is straightaway signalled by the quaking of his temple, and the kicking on the doors (2-3). He alone is capable of making the foundations (0eµt0A.a) of the walls he normally protects tremble (15); and in the end it is the whole city, and more particularly the ground, which benefits from the curative virtues of the balm that drops from the locks of

20

21 22

writinga distant ritual, cf. A.W. Bulloch, Callimachus: The Fifth Hymn, Cambridge 1985, 3-13, and on the confusion in the Hymns of Callimachus in general between 'diegesis' and 'mimesis', M.A. Harder, "Insubstantial Voices: Some Observations on the Hymns of Callimachus", CQ 42, 1992, 384-94. On the futures of ritual value in Pindar, see notably W.J. Slaaer, "Futures in Pindar", CQ 19, 1969, 86-94. This new etymologizing explanation takes up a qualification of Apollo stated by the Homeric Hymn which is dedicated to him (19 and 207); cf. Williams (n. 4), 38. On the creation in other works of Callimachus of a situation of internal and intra-discursive and therefore fictitious communication, see the contribution of D. Meyer (this volume), 161-75. This early mention of the king refers in effect to one of the Ptolemies: cf. supra n. 15. This catalogue is welJ commented on by Williams (n. 4), 45-8; it is in keeping with the second part of it already given by Solon fr. 1.5lf. Gentili-Prato; the addition of the archer is explained by the reasons set out infra n. 26; cf. again Pi. P. 5.63f., precisely in a poem which recounts the 'historical' version of the foundation of Cyrene, and Pl. Cra. 405a.

CAl.AME

50

the god of eternal beauty (38-41). But also the social isotopy is centred on intimate relations: this is present especially in the ritual and cultic relationship between the chorus of young men (vtOl, 8) and the eternally young god (atl vioc, 36); but if Apollo with his divine nature will never sec his cheeks covered with down (36-7), the choreutai on the other hand can still hope to reach the maturity sanctioned by the relation of matrimony through the benign influence of the god (14). Furthermore, in imitation of the intimate relation that is established between Phoebus and the young chorus who celebrates him, an affinity is suggested between 'my king', the narrator/speaker's sovereign, and the divinity protecting him (26-7). In this reciprocal movement between men and god, and its discreet and ambiguous allusion to the city to be founded, Cyrene (or Alexandria?) is situated between the two geographical and religious poles of the cult dedicated to Apollo: Delos where the god's epiphany seems to take place (1-8) and Delphi where his civic function is realised (32-41). These two religious centres arc also the two poles of Greek civilization, on the model given by Homeric Hymn to Apollo in its two sections 23 ! But the essence of these spatial and social isotopies, the essence also of the intimate ritual relation woven between choreuraiand god in places of unshakeable foundations, is realised by musical activity. Introduced by the swan's song signalling the vision of Apollo at the beginning of the poem (5)24, this musical isotopy centred on ritual song runs through the whole poem in such an obvious way that it would be over-fastidious to list all the occurrences. Suffice it to say that the musical homages rendered to Apollo by the choral group of Dorians and blond Libyan women celebrating the Carneia (85-95) arc nothing more than the narrative and legendary counterparts to the ritual gestures that the narrator recommends the chorus of young men to perform when they seem to be singing his own song.

3.3. The Hymn as poetic programme In the best tradition of Alexandrine poetry and especially the epigram, this strange interpolation of Cyrene between Delos and Delphi, and also the breaking off of the story in

23

24

Even if originally the Homeric Hymn to Apollo could have been composed from two distinct poems, in the version in which it reaches us it presents an organic unity which delineates the spatial, ritual and civilizing polarity of the worship rendered in Greece to Apollo; on the composition and unity of the work, see notably A.M. Miller, From Delos to Delphi. A Literary Study of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, Leiden 1986, 1-9 and 111-7, and A. Aloni, L' aedo e i tiranni. Ricerche sull' lnno omerico a Apollo, Roma 1989, 17-31 and 107-31. To the numerous texts which show the affinities of the swan with Apollo and which Williams (n. 4), 20, cites, one must add all those which make of this winged creature the most perfect of singers: cf. Alcm. frs. I, IOI and S 2 Page, [Hes.) Sc. 314f., B. 15.6, etc., likewise Call. h. 4.252; still other references in D.L. Page, Aleman. The Partheneion, Oxford 1951, 100, and C. Calame, Aleman. Introduction, texte critique, temoignages. traduction et commentaire, Roma 1983, 348.

HYMN TO APOLLO

51

the narrative section as well as the focusing of the poem as a whole on singing and song as such find their justification in the concluding lines of the poem. It is unnecessary to point out that the final development, the confrontation of Apollo and Envy (105-12), emphasizes the musical isotopy centred on the song theme. One need only emphasize the fact that the linguistic echo relates this last scene to the aetiological narrative which precedes it and which makes up the fourth episode of the narrative section: in the same metrical position, the song rejected by Envy (cid6e1, 106) is the same song with refrain whose aition was formulated by the confrontation between the god of Delphi and the snake Python (aei&,1, 104). So the celebrated programmatic scene where, kicking Phthonos back, Apollo opposes the river-song to the poetic drops of water from a pure source is equally an echo of the killing of the monster plaguing the site of the future sanctuary at Delphi. This relation is reinforced by the civilizing aspect of Apollo's action: the god eliminates a wild animal ( 100-1), associated by legend with putrefaction, and then warns Envy of the course of a river carrying the filth of the earth ( 108-9)25• Talking about the purifying and civilizing effect of Apollonian interventions raises the question of the relation of the ending of the composition to the poem as a whole. The semantic coherence of the poem taken overall is also assured by the presence of the obvious musical isotopy which runs throughout: to go back to the one we have been discussing, it would be worthwhile dwelling on this key echo which is at once phonic, metrical and linguistic. Just as the ending of the narrative is linked to the ending of the poem by the repetition of aei&,1/ae{6e1 in the same rhythmical position (104 and 106), so the same term is used to introduce the musical isotopy at the very beginning of the poem with the swan comparison (5); and in different forms, the same word occurs in the same position at the end of lines 17, 18, 28, 30, 31, 43 and 44! 'There are two points in panicular in the allegorial exposition of the poetic programme claimed by the narrator/speaker which are very closely related to the strange version of the story of the founding of Cyrene given by the poem 26• These two aspects ensure that the 25

26

It is even more "likely that the Pythoktonia passage serves to introduce this literary discussion" (Williams [n. 4 ], 82) than the poetic purity claimed here is in opposition to the putrefaction with which Python is associated etymologically in h.Ap. 370f. This programmatic passage has been brought together with other poems where Callimachus lays claim to the short and well-worked pieces as opposed to the long epic-type poems: cf. Aet. l, fr. I.If. and 17f., /a. 13, fr. 203, Ep. 28 and fr. 398 Pfeiffer; see lastly on this subject G.O. Hutchinson, Hellenistic Poetry, Oxford 1988, 67-8 and 78-84; bibliography in Williams (n. 4), 86-9. This would be to give to this passage an interpretation so biographical as to consider that it offers a precise allusion to Apollonius of Rhodes, if not to Homer: cf. the detailed discussion by M.R. Lefkowitz, 'The Quarrel Between Callimachus and Apollonius", ZPE 40, 1980, 1-19, with the nuances introduced by G. Giangrande, ''On Callimachus' Literary Theories", CL 2, 1982, 57-67 (in response to the article by KOhnken cited infra n. 31 ). The echoes which associate the epilogue with the development of the poem in its entirety are obviously more numerous. Against those who affirm the independence of this final part, such as E.L. Bundy, ''The Quarrel between Kallimachos and Apollonios", CSCA 5, 1972, 39-94, K. Bassi, "The Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachus' Hymn to Apollo", TAPhA 119, 1989, 219-31, has skilfully shown that the strange juxtaposition of the functions of archer and bard proper to Apollo is

52

CALAME

story finds its fulfilment in the programmatic ending of the poem, and therefore its narrative sanction. Summarizing the contradictory interpretations of his predecessors and relying on a series of ancient texts, a commentator on the Hymn to Apollo has recently been able to show that the opposition between the 'river of Assyria' rushing along with its muddy water and the bees carrying the drops of pure water from a 'sacred source' to Demeter is operating on three different semantic levels. In Aristotle's zoological work, firstly, beesare represented as avoiding putrid matter to feed on sugared juices or dew, making honey from them. Furthermore, from a cultic point of view, the priestesses of Demeter are frequently associated with bees. Finally and above all, the poet himself, insofar as he produces a honey-sweet song, is, from Pindar and Bacchylides onwards, often compared to a bee27. To these three literal and figurative levels of expression, we must add, however, the metaphorical move that makes the bee the perfect example of the happily married woman, incarnation of the civilization brought about by Demeter's efforts, incarnation of the cultivation of cereals sustained by the goddess. Furthermore, since the legend establishing the services rendered Demeter by the women-bees stages the creation of the weaving loom and the gift to men of their first clothes, the bee-reference could also be related to the common metaphor of the 'weaving' of the poem. An echo of this can be found in Apollo 'weaving' the foundations of the Altar of the Homs (61): Apollo's architectural construction parallels the construction of poetic 'making'28. The bee dedicated to Demeter, produc-

27

28

justified inasmuch as the poetry is also envisaged as a weapon intended to confound the 'envious' (cf. infra n. 31): on the complementarity of Apollo's functions as archer and as bearer of the lyre, see L. Bruit-Zaidman-P. Schmidt Pante!, La religion grecque, Paris 19912, 138-40. In addition, the divine foot which in 3 opens the doors of the temple, but which in 107 repulses Envy, reflects, through rhythmic interposed metaphor, effects of the poetry itself; see also on this subject the study by A. Henrichs (this volume), 142-5. While revealing the Cyrenaic orientation of the poem (68-70), Cahen (n. 15), 84, describes with reason this final part as c~pcryic, as 'signature' (indirect). The bees and the putrid: ArisL HA 4, 535a2f. and 8, 5%bl4f.; on the production of honey from dew or pure water, seeibid. 5, 553b29 and Thphr. fr. 190 Wimmer; it is suitable to recall that the dew just as well as the water which rises drop by drop constitute the metaphors in all of Greek poetics for literary production: passages in D. Boedeker, Descenl from Heaven. Images of Dew in Greek Poetry and Religion, Chico 1984, 80-99. On the priestess-bees, see Apollod. Ath. FGrH 244 F 89 according to which the women celebrating the Thesmophoria are named bees and who connect this denomination to the myth of the weaving loom of Persephone and of the hospitality offered to Demeter by the king Melissus; in malting allusion to this legend, the anonymous author of a Hellenistic hymn to Demeter (fr. adesp. pap. 990.lf. Lloyd-Jones-Parsons) asks the bees to listen to the song which he is precisely in the midst of weaving! Cf. also Porph. Antr. 18, Hsch. s.v. ~iliccm (M 719 Latte), I Pi. P. 4.106c (II, 113 Drachmann), etc. For the poet-bee, cf. Simon. fr. 593 Page, Pi. P. I0.53f., B. 10.10, etc.; see also Pl. Ion 534a which makes explicit the double metaphor bee/poet and honey/song: cf. J.H. Waszinlt, Biene und Honig als Symbol des Dichlers und der Dichlung in der griechisch-romischen Antike, Opladen 1974, likewise G. Crane, "Bees without Honey, and Callimachean Taste", AJPh 108, 1987, 399-403. State of the question concerning the interpretation of the text of Callimachus in Williams (n. 4), 93-4. In basing himself particularly on the myth of Melissus (cf. supra n. 27) and on the parallel version which attributes to the Nymph Melissa the discovery of honey and its use in leading the men to a civilized diet (cf. especially I Pi. P. 4.106a; 11, 112-3 Drachmann), M. Detienne, "Orph~ au miel",

HYMN TO APOLLO

53

ing honey and protecting the weaving trade, fulfils the civilizing work undertaken by Apollo and the Nymph Cyrene-young married couple, not yet progenitors, on a site freed from wild beasts, not yet transformed for agriculture (90-2). Taking it from a different angle, from the spatial point of view, the spring producing pure water drunk by the bees recalls the source Cyre which the Doric colonists celebrating Apollo Cameius had not been able to reach yet (88-9)29.If it is true that, according to the programmatic reading of the concluding lines, the bee that slakes its thirst at the sacred spring beneath the benevolent eye of Apollo is no other than the poet himself, the poet by inference must occupy a privileged position with regard to the Cyre source. The true colonizer of Cyrene then, is the poet who conforms to the poetic programme set up by Apollo. By virtue of the salutation addressed to the divine lord in line 113, signing and sealing this poetic allegory whilst at the same time bringing the poem to a close, the person of the founder poet is embodied in the person of the narrator/speaker. In conclusion and in opposition to the praise of Apollo recommended to the chorus of young men (especially 2531), the narrator (from now on founder and poet) in the final line expresses the wish that Blame should henceforth be allied to Envy, both rejected by the god. He therefore sets the literary programme that he himself assumes up on one of the essential foundations of Greek poetics from the archaic period on: the opposition between 'praise' and 'abuse'. In this context, the criticisms embodied in Mroµoc and provoked by cJ>86voccannot be made to fit in with the biographical interpretations suggested by modern readers of these lines 30• It

29

30

in J. Le Goff-P. Nora (eds), Faire de r histoire l/1. Nouveaux objets, Paris 1974, 56-75, has displayed the constellation of conjugal values attached to the figure of the bee wire: cultivated, legitimate and faithful life of the matrimonial bond, controlled and producing sexuality, domestic virtues under the control of Demeter. The metaphor of weaving of the poem has been developed notably by Pi. 0. 6.85f. (in relation to the drinking of water from one source!), N. 4.44f. and 8.14f.• and by B. 5.9f.; it is analyzed lastly by J. Scheid-J. Svenbro, Lusus Troiae. Le mythe du tissage dans le monde gricoromain, (forthcoming). On the weaving of 8E1µEAla,see M. Detienne, "Apollon arcMg~te. Un modele politique de la territorialisation", in M. Detienne (ed.), Tracis de fondation, Louvain/Paris 1988, 301-11. Presented here from the perspective of etymology. the spring of Apollo constitutes since the earliest versions of the foundation legend the original centre of Cyrene: Pi. P. 4.294 (where a relation is alreadystressed with the source of poetic inspiration, 299!) and Hdt. 4.158.3; likewise Steph. Byz. s.v. KupT1v11 (396 Meineke). Its archaeological location next to the sanctuary of Apollo is described by Goodchild (n. 4), 109-12; for the texts, cf. B.K. Braswell, A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Odeof Pindar, Berlin/New Yorlc 1988, 394. Based on the history of Greek poetics reconstructed by Aristotle (Po. 4, 1448b24f.), the dialectic of praiseand blame indicates in effect the very poetry of a culture 'of shame': see already Alcm. fr. l.43f. Page. In particular in the melic poetry of the end of the archaic period, jealousy (cp8ovoc) appearsas the force which with reproach (µii>µoc)does violence to just praise (aivEiv): B. 13.199f., but also 5.187f., or Pi. P. l.8lf., but also 0. 8.54f. (where the jealousy that could affect the poet singing the glory of the athlete is compared to the throwing of a stone) and 6.74f.; see in this regard especially G. Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans. Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, Baltimore/London 1979, 222-42, and B. Gentili, Poesia e pubblico nella Grecia antica do Omero al V secolo, Roma/Bari 19882, 141-51.

54

CALAME

is true that.mcdiatcd by the enunciative games describcxl above, the narrator/speaker who identifies himself with the poet as colonist is more than likely to correspond with Callimachus the Cyicncan who changed the nature of the entire legend of the founding of his homeland to make it into a kind of narrative prop for a poetics designed to outlive its occasion31_ But this docs not alter the fact that the biographical allusions arc above all a means for the poet of reclaiming, through royal ancestry and interpolated legendary narrative, all the authority of the god of song. The final farewell to the god underlines the privilegcd relationship between poet and divinity. Callimachus, with these narrative procedures, manages to divert the 'myth' and introduce it into the situation of the Hellenistic poet he aims to defend in the poem. He therefore restores to the legendary narrative the practical function which it always had in ancient Grccccand then places it at the service no longer of any particular cultic celebration, but for thedefenceof a poetic programme. Furthermore, he reactivates the very function of the Homeric hymns:by beginning-in a highly refined manner of course-by invoking the god. the poem's addressee, in order to list his characteristics before launching on the story of his career, Callimachus succeeds in playing a variation on the general structure of the genre.Moreover, he presents to us a choral song under the form of a hymn! Read as such, the Hymn to Apollo, like the Homeric hymns, is nothing more than the prelude to other songs; transformed into an applied poetic programme, it becomes the 'source' of those songs 32• The rcarticulating of the epic proocmium therefore underlines the programmatic character of Callimachus' composition. Far from being designed for ritual performance within the context of an Apollonian festival, the poem is entirely devoted to the cult of lcarncd poetry, reservcd for a privileged circle of litterati. The pragmatic function of the Homeric Hymn and the practical function of the legendary narrative have been brought under the sway of a poetic programme consecrated to Apollo. But through the privileged relations that the poet, with the Hymn, weaves between himself and the god, and through 31

32

On this poetic programme, see the references given supra n. 25, wilh lhe sensible remarks by Williams (n. 4), 2-4; for the identification poet/kings/god, see A. Henrichs (this volume), 146-7. M. Poliakoff, "Nectar, Springs and lhe Sea: Critical Tenninology in Pindar and Callimachus", ZPE 49, 1980, 41- 7, discovers lha1a large ponion of poetic tenns and metaphors used in lhe programmatic passage are of Pindaric inspiration; see also A. KOhnken, "Apollo's Retort to Envy's Criticism", AJPh 102, 1981, 411-22, which-following U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Hellenistische Dichtung 2, Berlin 19242, 85-?-distinguishes µii>µoc and cp8ovoc in order to show that lhe abuse is lhe consequence of envy, but who, in reading in 106 i:ov (aoL6ov) as i:6v6E, thinks wrongly that the criticism of Envy aims at lhe brevity of 'this' poem and that this critical pan does not bear on the hymn itself. In a more pertinent manner, E.R. Schwinge, Kunstlichkeit von Kunst. Zur Geschichtlichkeit der alexandrinischen Poesie, Miinchen 1986, 16-9, notes that in adopting the same form of the hymn and in consecrating his poem to Apollo, Callimachus practically transforms his aesthetic into 'religion'. We know lha1in 113, certain manuscripts carry the reading cp06pocinstead of cp86voc, a reading defended recently by J. Blomqvist, "The Last Line of Callimachus' Hymn to Apollo", Eranos 82, 1990, 17-24. The Homeric Hymns function as prelude to some probably rhapsodic recitations: cf. F. Cilssola, lnni omerici, Milano 1975, XII-XXI.

HYMN TO APOU.O

55

the fervour of repeated addresses to that god, the labour of learned poetry is transfonned into a religious act 33. This act is worthy of a poet who, in the Mouseion and 'thiasos of the Muses', has placed himself at the service of the divinities of poetic inspiration.

33

With regard to the religious sentiment of Callimachus, refer to the clarification of A.W. Bulloch, "The Future of a Hellenistic Illusion. Some Observations on Callimachus and Religion", MH 41, 1984, 209-30. On the audience of his poems, cf. l~tly Bing (n. 7), 10-8.

MIMESIS AND AETIOLOGY IN CALLIMACHUS' HYMNS MmyDepcw

1. Introduction Few would argue that Callimachus' three 'mimetic' hymns-2, 5 and 6--were meant for performance in the religious contexts to which they refer. Like Callimachus' other poetry, thesearc allusive, finely-wrought poems, "an amalgam of elements which combines the literary and the 'religious' inextricably and in equal measure", as Hopkinson has put it 1• But in what sense arc they hymns? Callimachus adheres strictly, if sometimes deviously, to the hymnic genre's formal and thematic expectations, and his choice of mythological material is more often than not understood to conform to the genre's 'encomiastic challenge'. Most recent commentators would still agree that these poems function in the way hymns should function: they praise the god they address. I do not want to deny this, nor can I, since our only evidence about what Callimachus 'means' in his hymns is internal to them. All we have is their allusive, technically accomplished surface, and it is with this surface that I will remain in this paper. I am especially interested in two aspects of it that by their nature and traditional use usually refer beyond the textual surface to the real world: mimesis and aetiology. Mimesis has received a good deal of attention in studies of Hellenistic poetry2; aetiology has received relatively little3. Three of Callimachus' Hymns surround mythological narratives with frames4 which purport to be first person descriptions of the circumstances under which the poem is being performed. For example, the central past-tense narrative of the fifth hymn (lines 57-131) is

2

3 4

N. Hopkinson, CallimaclulS Hymn to DtrMter, Cambridge 1984, 12. Most iecently, W. Albert, Das mimetische Gedicht in dtr Antiu: Geschichte und Typologit von dtn Anf4ngen bis in dit augusteische Ztit (BeitriJge :rurldassischen Philologie 190), Frankfun 1988. In this painstaking chronological analysis, Alben does not sufficiently distinguish Hellenistic 'mimesis' from earlier and varied imitations of occasional conventions. See also H. Koller, Die Mimesis in dtr Antiu, Bern 1954; A.W. Bulloch, Callimachus: the Fifth Hymn, Cambridge 1985, 6-8 and 7 n. I; N. Hopkinson (n. I), 36-8 and II n. 4 for bibliography; cf. G. Zank.er, and his discussion of 'pictorial realism', in Realism in Alexandrian Poetry: A Literature and its Audience, Kent 1987, 55-102; M.R. Falivene, "La mimesi in Callimaco: Inni II, IV, Ve VI", QUCC 65, 1990, 103-28, who compares Callimachus' literary imitation of essentially oral situations to Plato's dialogues; C. Calame (this volume), 47-9 and n. 19. The only relatively full study to date is G. Codrignani, "L'aition nella poesia greca prima di Callimaco", Convivium n. s. 26, 1958, 527-45. Of course, we cannot know that these are frames until we have read the poems once through.

58

DEPEW

framed by what appears to be an 'on-the-spot' effusion anticipating the Argive ritual in which Athena's wooden image was removed from its temple, washed, and reclothed in fresh garments. The scene is vividly and realistically described by a spealcer who is apparently watching it and playing some role in its unfolding. The same spealcer presents the mythological narrative of Tiresias' blinding as though it provided an aetiological explanation of a warning he or she issues to the male members of the poem's 'audience': allci, Il£MXC)'£, I cppa~ro µTIOUK iBWJ>v'tCXV J3actA.£UXV W1llC(51-2). Critics have cited the µiµ11cic ~iou of New Comedy and the Mime as Callimachus' model for these realistic framesS. They have placed his second, fifth and sixth Hymns alongside Theocritus' dramatic Idylls and Herondas' Mimes in what has been called "a distinct class of Alexandrian experimental poetry, literary drama''6. The operative metaphor here is hybridization 7. The terms 'literary drama' and 'mimetic hymn' imply a mixing of traditionally discrete generic conventions, the addition of realistic dialog, description and low ~8oc giving new life to an all but defunct genre 8• Thus myths may be updated and the past appropriated to the present. The function of the many aitia found in all six of the Hymns is usually interpreted along similar lines. In his commentary on the sixth Hymn, Hopkinson describes Callimachus • fondness for aitia by saying that they provide a poem with "a link between past and present highly valued in Greek society". Within the Hymns aetiologizing "points to visible manifestations of divine activity, rationalizes ritual, accounts comfortably for existence, dispels doubt by producing final causes•'9. Hopkinson describes well how earlierpoets used aitia:to provide relatively straightforward links between the narrated past and the present occasion of praise, to rationalize ritual or account for existing states of affairs, in short, to malce relevant to the present beliefs and practices sanctified by the past But do they function this way in Callimachus' poetry? I think not. Callimachus inherits his use of both what I have been calling mimesis and of aetiology from the two genres that are his chief models in the Hymns: hymn and epinician 10• In both genres the speaker characteristically places his utterance in the present, 5 6

7

8

9 10

See, for example, Bulloch (n. 2), 6 (though cf. 7, where he admits these hymns' relation to choral lyric); Zanker (n. 2), 62. Bulloch (n. 2), 6. The metaphor is discussed in a paper delivered by A. Barchiesi, "(Ne)Fasti: Poetics and Augustan Discourse in Ovid", 8ff. For the formulation of the genus mixtum approach see W. Kroll, Studien zum Verstt'Jndnis ckr romischen Literatur, Stuttgart 1924, 202-10; for bibliography see M. Depew,"iaµ~ciov ICaA.Eital vuv: Genre, Occasion, and Imitation in Callimachus, frr. 191 and 203Pf.", TAPhA 122, 1992, 313 n. 2; cf. L.E. Rossi, who explains the phenomenon as a product of the li1Cra1enessof the Hellenistic age in "I generi leuerari e le loro leggi scritie e non scritie nelle leuerature classichc", BICS 18, 1971, 69-94. Hopkinson (n. I), 141. Hopkinson (n. 1), 3, has until recently been almost alone in commenting on this inheritance, but in the scope of his commentary he does not develop its implications: "Inspiration for this 'mimetic' effect is to be found in choral lyric (cf. h. 2.8), where 'l'/'we' refer sometimes to the chorus,

MIMESIS AND AETIOLOOY

59

directs it at someone else, whether a god or a victor, and very often actually refers to particulars of the context of his performance. Thus Callimachus' 'mimesis'. When aitia are present in these two traditional genres they tend to link the poet's utterance to the audience's experienced world. Aitia have strongprimafacie links with reality, and this is especially so in a hymnic or epinician context, in which narrated myths often provide aetiological accounts of contemporary cultic practices or institutions. In such cases the poet claims authority for knowledge about the origin of some aspect of contemporary realityl 1. 'Mimesis' performs the same function: it places the poet and his utterance within a community and its concerns. It also asserts and guarantees his authority to provide meaning to those concems 12• This occasional conception of the hymnic genre, and, to a lesser extent, of epinician, is the starting point for Callimachus' mimetic Hymns. But, as I will argue,bothaetiology and mimesis are the perfect vehicle for Callimachus' particular type of irony. By their nature and traditional use, both assume a relation to lived religious experience and meaning. Callimachus undercuts this presumed reference just where it might seem most robust. He uses both mimesis and aetiology as a means of highlighting the essential textuality (and inter-textuality) of his poetic recreation.

2. Mimesis, occasion and aetiology in hymn and epinician Since antiquity it has been recognized that the rhetorical and formal similarities between these two genres, hymns to gods and hymns to men, arise from the fact that both do the same thing 13• Traditional instances of hymn and epinician assume oral and not written communication, an actual circumstance in which the poetic utterance praises some man or somegod 14 • Their first person narrator, unlike the third-person narrator of epos, places his

11 12 13 14

sometimes IO the poet . . . . In Pindar . . . it is usually possible IO distinguish between these two voices, which Callimachus merges inlO one". Cf. E.L. Bundy. "The 'Quanel between Kallimachos and Apollonios', Part I, The Epilogue of Kallimachos's Hymn to Apollo", CSCA 5, 1972, 83: " ... the hymns of Callimachus ... owe much to the rhetoric of choral poetry ... "; M. Fantozzi, "Preistoria di un gcnerc letterario: a proposito degli /Mi Ve VI de Callimaco", in Tradizionet innovazione nella cultura greet da Omero all' tta tlltnistica: scritti in onort di Bruno Gentili, Roma 1993, finds spcc:ific models for Callimachus' 'mimetic hymns' in ceremonial, 'local'. choral genres such as the paean,prosodion and parthenion. As will become evident below, I disagree with his analysis only insofar as I find more elements of occasional poetry in the other three hymns and more elements reminiscent of 'rhapsodic' hymns in 2, 5 and 6. For lucid discussion of this 'ritual focalization' in Callimachus' hymns, see A. Henrichs (this volume), 129-31. In the famous declaration of the Muses in Th. 26ff. Hesiod claims that he will set about telling the b'Uth concerning the origins of the present state of the world; the poem is aetiological as a whole. For discussion of the archaicpoet's place in a 'cultural system', see Falivene (n. 2), 107. Cf. Pl. Lg. III 700b. On the occasional nature of praise poetry see the recent discussions of W. Mullen, Choreia: Pindar and Dance, Princeton 1982, 3-45; B. Gentili, Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece (tr. A.T. Cole}, Baltimore 1988, 109-11; G. Nagy, Pindar' s Homer: Tht Lyric Possession of an Epic Past,

60

DEPEW

utterance in a panicular situation, to which he may refer. He directs his praise at someone else, whether a human being or a god, who is, like the speaker himself, described in tenns appropriate to the context of praise, and who is either present to the speaker or, in the case of hymn, is asked to be present. Petitions that voice the needs of the singer and his audience are made, and both genres have similar ways of signalling that their praise is relevant to a specific audience IS. The poet's authority as well as his grounds for selecting one myth over another is also closely tied to the occasion and its rhetorical imperatives. In order to examine Callimachus' use of mimesis and aitia in his Hymns it will be helpful first to single out for brief discussion three ways in which hymn and epinician typically refer to their perfonnance context and make what is said relevant to it The most direct way a hymn or an epinician connects to the occasion of its performance is to begin with an indicative first-person verb: ati6ro, aticoµat., ClPXOµ'ati6£tV, 1C£A.a6,icro are typical examplest 6• Such verbs are crucial to the poem's occasionality and function: 'I praised' does not in itself perfonn the action of praising. 'I praise' does, 'I will praise' can, in the sense that the speaker thereby begins the act of praising I 7. The presence of a chorus or the anticipated presence of a divinity is presupposed in the hortatory imperatives that characterize ritual poetry 18• In both cult and 'rhapsodic' hymn various epikllseis may be joined to the god's name to suit and place the occasion. In epinician the poet not only echoes the herald's original announcement of the victor, his city and the victory's occasion, but also readapts that announcement to the site, audience, and occasion

15

16

17 18

Baltimore 1990, especially 31, 148-9; J. Danielewicz, "Dews in Greek Choral Lyric". QUCC 63, 1990, 7-17; L. Kurke, The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy, Ithaca 1991, 1-12. On the perfonnance conditions of hymns see J.M. Bremer, ''Greek Hymns", in H.S. Versnel (ed.), Faith Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, Leiden 1981 (= Studies in Greek.and Roman Religion vol. 2), 197-203. On the performance of epinician poetry see most recently M. Heath-M. Lefkowitz, "Epinician Performance". CPh 86, 1991, 173-91; A. Bumeu, "Performing Pindar's Odes", CPh 84, 1989, 283-93; C. Carey. "The Performance of the Victory Ode",AJPh llO, 1989, 545-65. For the use of the first-person in Pindar see M. Lefkowitz, "TO KAI Em: The First Person in and a Recent ConttoPindar", HSPh 61, 1963, 177-253; J.M. Bremer, "Pindar's Paradoxical £"(CD versy about the Perfonnances of his Epinicia", in S.R. Slings (ed.), The Poet's I in Archaic Greek. Lyric, Amsterdam 1990, 41-57. On the convention in hymn see recently W.H. Race, Style and Rhetoric in Pindar' s Odes, Atlanta 1990, 102-6. Cf. W J. Slater, "Futures in Pindar", CQ 19, 1969, 86; E.L. Bundy, Studia Pindarica, Berkeley/LOS Angeles 1986, 21. Cf. Henrichs (this volume), 130 and n. 5; K. Keyssner, Gottesvorstellung und Ltbtnsaujfassung im griechischen Hymnus (Wilrzburger Studitn zur Alttrtumswissenschaft 2), Stuttgart 1932, 33; on the contextuality of ritual perfonnance see also C. Calame, us choeurs de jeunes /illes en Greet archaique, II, Rome 1977, 128-30; A. Henrichs, "'Why Should I Dance'?':Ritual Self-Referentiality in the Choral Odes of Greek Tragedy", paper delivered April 1992, conference on "The Chorus in Greek Tragedy", Cambridge.

MIMESISAND AETIOLOGY

61

of his own praise19. In both genres deictic reference to the occasion is common20. These and conventions like them straightaway place a poetic utterance in a specific occasion of praise. The truth that the genres of hymn and epinician express is not a universal or unchanging commodity, but like the poet's authority, is closely tied to the rhetorical contingencies of a particular occasion21. It is common practice in both genres for the poet to announce his choice of mythological narrative in terms that declare its relevance and meaning for the present situation of praise. There are several ways of doing this. The poet may ask, for example, a series of aporetic questions22, or he may adjust his choice to the requirements of the present occasion through the use of a priamel 23• By announcing his ability to discern what is true for the present occasion, a priamel puts the speaker in the role of praise-poet 24. The Homeric Hymn to Apollo, for example, contains a priamel at lines 19-29, and in its juxtaposition of encomiastic object (ce) and encomiastic intention (uµvftcco) in line 19 it duplicates the verb-object pattern of the poem's first few lines 25• That is, it extends the 'here and now' of the hymn's exordium to pinpoint the theme that will best suit in the present occasion:

nroctap

C. uµvftcco 1taV'tCOC euuµvov OOV'ta; 1tO.V'tTll yap 'tOl, Cl>oiPe.voµoc PePAtta'ta\ ci>i6i;c, TJJ1£V av' T11t£lp0V1t0p'tl'tp0q>OV 116' UVClVTICOUC. 1ta.Ca\ 6e CICOJtlai'tO\ a6ov Kal 1tpCOOV£C CXICpOl U'lf11MDV opwv 1totaµoi 8' a).a 6e 1tpopiovtec, alC'tai 't' eic a).a 1C£1CA.lJlEViliE. Such reference, relatively implicit in hymns, is explicit in epinician poetry. Cf. e.g. the geographical reference of P. 1.39-40 or thereference to the 1e 1CaA.a8c.o 1Ca't1.6v'tocemcp8ty~ac8e, yuvai1C£C· I "Aaµ.a'tep, µ.tyaxaip£, JtOAU'tpocp£ JtOUAUµ.ro1.µ.ve". In its use of a hortatory imperative 34 the poem announces itself as a cult-hymn • Moreover, the scene's immediacy, which is emphasized by repetition35, the "vividly deictic use of the definite article"36, asyndeton (13, 7, 10), alliteration (1-3), and the speaker's observations, uttered as though they were incidental and entirely spontaneous. invites us to share in the impression that this is a scene in which a hymn might occur. The narrator seems to be very specific about the visual and temporal fix of the scene. We hear of the arrival of the 1CaA.a8oc(1, 3, 7) and of women who are standing on a rooftop and therefore risk viewing what it holds. Hesperos has just appeared(7) and the sacred fast is about to end While the notion that this poem was meant to be performed as part of an actual festival of Demeter has been discarded37, these and other references have suggested to many that these lines at least must be describing a particular festival 38• Some details can be associated directly with cults of Demeter, while others cannot. The very diversity of scholarly debate over the location of this festival should lead us to wonder whether Callimachus intended any association at all with either a particular cult or a geographical location, that is. with the sort of occasion his use of conventional address and reference assumes3 9• As Hopkinson says of the speaker:" ... he lurks apart behind the insubstantial 34 35 36 37

38

For parallels see Hopkinson (n. 1), 78; Henrichs (this volume), 130 and n. 5. 1 and 3; 4-6, µ11S'... µii •.. µ~'; anaphora also in 7 and 8. Hopkinson(n. 1), 77; cf. 'tUl l«lA.a8co .. . 'tOVK:cv..a8ov.. . 'tm 'tEYEOC ( 1-4). P.M. Fraser, P1olemaicAlexandria,Oxford 1984, llb.916f. nn. 289 and 290, is an exception. In his fonhcoming Callimacluu and His Critics, A. Cameron revives the view earlier held by E. Cahen, Les Hymnesde Callimaque,Paris 1930, 281, thal Callimachus' Hymnsmay have been perfonned al religious festivals wilhoul aclUallybeing pan of a ritual contexL For discussion see Hopkinson (n. 1), 35-9. An inttoductory scholium gives as the hymn's venue an Alexandrian Demeter festival, presumably Eleusinian. Bul the scholiasl tells us no more than the hymn itself does. A village and deme of Eleusis existed al Alexandria (Callimachus himself was a teacher there before being 'adopted' by Philadelphus), bul there is no suppon for the claim lhal mysieries on lhe Athenian model were ever held lhere (or indeed anywhere outside of Attica). Other cities have been suggesled---Cyrene,Cnidus, and Cos-bul the poem admits of no definitive conclusion. For discussion see Hopkinson (n. I), 32-

9. 39

As WilamowilZpul il, "Dass er kein bestimmles, sondem ein lypisches Fesl schildern will, isl die Hauplsache", U. von WilamowilZ,HellenislischeDichtung 2, Berlin 1924, 182.

66

DEPEW

voice, and we are left with a poem in vacuo, a narrative whose obvious emotion and subjectivity have no definable referent ... the setting is 'real' ... but attempts to pinpoint an exact locale only confirm the success of an illusion" (3-4). Callimachus has developed the referential possibilities of occasional poetry. The result is pure artificiality. The second Hymn also evokes occasional conventions of address only to scramble their referential specificity. The narrator's persona in this hymn is strikingly subjective. In the mythological narrative he speaks of Cyrene as eµiw 1tOA.lV (65); elsewhere he refers to his own king (eµiol j3actA.f\l,27; cf. 68). Moreover, the literary concerns that dominate the poem's 'sphragis' seem to emphasii.e that the poet has been speaking throughout in propria persona. And yet from its beginning. the speaker's voice and the voice of the chorus to which he refers are not easily distinguished. The speaker commands a chorus of young men in their hymn to Apollo (12-6), and he is himself ostensibly engaged in the same activity: lines 32-104, spoken by the same narrator, are, or purport to be, with their aretalogy and mythological material, a hymn to Apollo 40 . Who is singing this 'A1t6A.A.covocaolm1\41 ? There are reminiscences throughout the poem to Pindar's ambivalent persona in several of his epinicians, an ambivalence which is notably present in Pythian 5, an important model for this hymn's narrative ofCyrene's foundation. Concerning a part of that ode in which the poet's reference to the circumstances of its performance are particularly vivid, the scholiast remarks: o ).6yoc axo'tOUx6pou 'tO>VAlJ¼cov i\ axo 42 . Having lost the context of a poem's actual performance, Callimachus and 'tou 1tOl'f1'tou his contemporaries could only guess at the referents assumed by the text. In his three mimetic Hymns Callimachus manipulates the essential indeterminacy of extratextual reference to his own ends. In the second Hymn those ends are, as many have shown, metapoetic. In the fifth Hymn Callimachus also manipulates the conventions by means of which a poet places his utterance within a particular occasion. But here the overall effect is actually detrimental to the function such conventions normally perform in a hymn: praise of the addressed god. The first line of the Lavacrum Palladis contains the name of the relevant god ('tac naUa~oc) 43 . It thereby announces itself as a traditional rhapsodic hymn, and we expect a first-person verb announcing the singer's intentions to follow. It does not come. Instead the first line contains the nominal and verbal forms characteristic of a cult hymn44 • But again our expectations are confounded: the speaker does not address Athena

40 41 42 43 44

Cf. Wilamowitz (n. 39), 78; Calame (this volume), 47-9. 17, immediately following a first-person verb in 16. IP. 5.96a Drachmann. 11le name, as Bulloch points out, is panicularly usedof Athena as a warrior-goddess; Bulloch (n. 2), 111. As we shall see, this side of Athena's traditional character will dominate the poem. Cf. E. Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religioser Rede, Leipzig 1913, 143-63; H. Meyer, Hymnische Stilelemente in der fruhgriechischen Dichtung, KOln 1933, 318; Bremer (n. 15), I94ff.

MIMESISAND AETIOLOOY

67

or request her epiphany until line 32; his commands are addressed instead to her statue's attendants: "Occui AO>tpox601tiic naUa6oc e~1t£ 1tiica1, ~ite (line 1)45 • Is this to be a hymn or not? The speaker's commands to the statue's 'attendants' are typical of those prefatory to ritual acts, but at the same time they are oddly selective. Most of them are prohibitions about what should not be brought or done prior to the statue's emergence from its temple. It seems intuitively unlikely that the principle of their inclusion is the realistic portrayal of an Argive rite. In fact, while the speaker purports to describe and direct preparations for an Argive Plynteria, these lines may also be read as a descriptio,that section in a traditional hymn which, when present, describes the god's nature "as reflected in his haunts, his companions, his offices and functions, or his habitual pursuits" 46 • For example, lines 2-12 might describe the ceremony. There are horses present, and as if in response to hearing them, the speaker tells us in the form of a mythological exemplumthat Athena never (ouxoic',5) cleansed her great arms until she had first washed the dust from her horses' flanks (6) 47 • While we might conclude that this is only proper and expected behavior for a horseman (or -woman) and a warrior there is some irony here. It is usually assumed that the focus of the ceremony was the ritual washing of a sacred image, and yet within the context of this exemplumwe find an Athena who is not primarily mindful of her own cleansing, but of her horses'. This has led some to conclude that we are being told that the washing of the procession's horses was an actual part of the Argive ceremony, that is, that this is a straightforward aetiological explanation of part of the Argive ritual48 . But aside from the fact that we have no evidence of this in the Athenian Plynteria, are we to assume that the horses must be cleansed before the image is? Perhaps. But in what way is this a relevant detail? What is notewonhy about these lines is that they begin an extended and consistent descriptioof Athena as a wholly masculine goddess. For example, in the following lines the speaker remains absolutely faithful to a particular assemblage of Athena's traditional attributes. For example, he ponrays the goddess as martial, heedless of her appearance and, to some extent, of propriety. Line 13 reiterates the speaker's command to the women to come out Urgently and repeatedly he tells them what not to bring along: perfumes and mirrors 49 . Athena does not like 'mixed unguents' (16) 50•

45

46 47 48 49

50

Bulloch (n. 2), 109f., says of this opening that it is "an extension of a common hymnal feature, an address to the celebrants". The models that he cites-Powell, CA 133, l 36ff. and 138f.-arc paeans in which the singer calls upon his audience to join him in the famous refrain. Callimachus here has ratheradapt.edthe very raisontf itrt of a cletic hymn. Miller (n. 23), 3. Oi>KolC' 'AOavaux 11E'YaA.0>C a1ttvi111a'toltalElC, I Kpi.vICOVlV iKnEUXV E~Ei..a.cai'A.ayovow.... E.g. Wilamowitz (n. 39), 16; Bulloch (n. 2). 116. •n i't' 'Axaua6tc, 1eai.11'111upa11116'ai..aJ}aC'tpCOC I (cupi'Y'YOYV aim q,8oyyovima~ov1ov). I 11'1 11upa Ml>'tPoXOOl 't(Xlnalla61 11116'a:Aal3tic'tpCOC I (ou yap 'AOavaux xpi11a'ta ll[llCTIX cplAEi)I OU:E'tE 11116£ ICCX'tOK'tpOV · ati. ICIXM)V 01111a 'tOfflVac ( 13-7). On the Greek perception of scented oils as effeminate cf. Bulloch (n. 2), 124f.: Athena's preference here is decidedly masculine.

68

DEPEW

But a second 'aetiological exemplum', introduced by the same words that began the first in 7-12 (ou6' 01Ca),immediately ironi7.Csthe goddess' disregard for mirrors:

ovcS'o,ca'tCXV'16at cJ>pu~W\K'a~ev £PlV, oifr' £CopeixaA.K'OVµqcv..a 8eoc OV'rE CtµOt>V'tOC £PA.£\if£V 6{vav r.c 61acpawoµivav· ovcS' "Hpa· Ku1tplC 6i: 61auyro xaA.K'OVUoica xollaK't 'tClVau-rav 6ic µe-ti8,iK'£ K'Oµav.

20

There is a precedent for the speaker's command to the water-pourcrs in 17 (oicet£ µri6i: Kci'toX'tpov): in front of Paris Athena needed no mirror or reflecting water to check her hair, an act we arc told Aphrodite busily performed-twice (21-2). But then of course, Aphrodite won the contest Combined with what we know to have been the outcome of the Kpictc, we can only conclude that in that instance Athena's countenance-and Hera's-must have not been fair enough. Athena's interests and abilities, we learn, lie elsewhere: in 29-32 she is compared in her athletic ability to the Dioscuri, the twin warriors-epitomes of manliness and strength. Athena, like the Dioscuri, but not like a goddess, finishes her exercise routine by applying plain olive oil to her skin, which is flushed with exercise. Significantly, she applies masculineolive oil, apcev ... u.a1ov (29). This is surely not the sort of oil goddesses typically use to anoint themselves, but it is what Castor and Heracles, two archetypical examples of masculinity, use (29-30). Plain olive oil would be exemplarily appropriate, and it may have been used to anoint Athena's xoanon. But even as the poem's speaker offers aetiological exemp/a for parts of the Argive ritual, a ritual at which he would seem to be present and involved in directing, he continues his consistent, allusive descriptio. In the poem's first 32 lines Athena is thoroughly dissociated from traditionally feminine activities and cares 51• This would not be remarkable were it not for Callimachus' handling of the poem's central myth (lines 57-133). In that account Athena and Chariclo are in Boeotia; the goddess who just a few lines earlier was described solely in terms of her masculine attributes is now bathing in the wilderness with a nymph 52, whose son she will blind for his unwitting intrusion upon the scene. The scene is bizarre: it would be far more appropriate to Artemis and Actaeon, to whose own meeting at a forest spring Athena appeals in her lengthy apologia to the distraught Chariclo (97-130). Artemis will severely punish Actaeon for coming upon her bath. Athena has punished-but will also

51

52

More examples could be cited; I develop these issues in a forthcoming paper, "Athena in Callimachus' Lavacrum Palladis:aiyiax010 Aloe ICO\lpllµ£"f(V.Ol0". It is not an 1WOCiationthe tradition normally makes. Cf. the Homeric h.Cer. 424, where she and Artemis appear with a group of Oceanids in Persephone's account of her rape. and N.J. Richardson, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford 1974, ad loc. The account is also extant in Pherecydes ap. [Apollod.J 3.6.7.

MIMESISAND AETIOLOGY

69

compensatc-Tiresias for coming upon her bath and lusting after-her? The goddess of the great anns and the ruddy complexionSJ? With the 'mimetic' first section's descriptioin mind, we see the tradition's doubling in all its incongruity. This masculine Athena is woefully inadequate to the task of comforting Chariclo, whose close relationship with the goddess Callimachus emphasizes throughout lines 57-69. In Greek religion, gods have the power and the ineluctible right to destroy those who offend them, no matter how unwitting the offense. Athena's reaction to Tiresias' intrusion is unremarkable. What is noteworthy is that Callimachus has throughout the poem's first section emphasized her masculinity. In the myth he then focuses on aspects of a traditional account for which that quality is absurdly out of place. Bulloch therefore concludes that the hymn expresses a deeply distrustful view of religion 54• We may in any case conclude that this is not a poem whose 'point' it is to praise Athena. Its aims must lie elsewhere, such as in the combination of accounts whose connections would otherwise have remained undiscloscd 55. Callimachus alters the referential force of the conventions that introduce the poet, the laudanda and the context of praise. In so doing, he undennines the generic functions these conventions traditionally perform.

4.2. Priamels, truth and praise In his Hymns Callimachus adopts many of the conventions with which the singer of a hymn or a victory ode justifies his choice of theme and guarantees his authority. For example, the fifth Hymn invites a hymnic reading not only in its structural articulation 56 but also by suggesting that its myth will be relevant to the cul tic experience of its audience. The myth of Tiresias' blinding is usually understood as a cautionary tale explaining the speaker'swarning in 51-2 to the men of Argos: ITtA.ac-y£,I q>pCX~£0 µllO'UlC 57 j3aciA.£tav Wt'ltc . In fact the myth provides an aetiological exemplum for nothing-the warnings fonn no pan of the rite, which has not even begun. Moreover, if the myth did give an aetiological explanation for the warnings, then the Tiresias account, which is set in Boeotia. will have been linked in history or legend to the Argive washing rituaIS8_

ooacov tav

53

er.A.H. Griffiths, review of Bulloch 1985,JHS 108, I 988, 232.

54

A. Bulloch, "The Future of a Hellenistic Illusion: Some observationson Callimachus and religion", MH 41, 1984, 229. er.the discussion of M.W. Haslam (this volume), 122-5. In addition to its 'invocation' (1-4), descriptio (5-44), and 'epic' narration (57-133), lines 137-42 (end) constitute a typical hymnic conclusion (137-9 addressed to the Argive maidens again in languageappropriate in hymnicaddresses to a god); lines 140-2,addressed to Athena,constitute both a sign-0ff and a greeting. It is not a connection we make, however, until in line 78 we read of Tiresias: 001Ci8Ucov6' El&

SS 56

57 58

-ra"11OE"\-ia. Although there were ties between Argos and Thebes, there exists no plausible connection between this Argive ceremony and any known Boeotian practice. Contra, Bulloch (n. 2), 24f. Athena is of

70

DEPEW

In lines 10-1 of the sixth Hymn, the poem's speaker seems to be beginning a mythological narrative of Demeter's wanderings. He emphasizes the length of the goddess' journey (13f.), and tells how she finally sat at the well of Callichorus without eating or washing (15-6). We think, of course, of Demeter's distraught search in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, and after the speaker's vivid reference to ritual celebrants and the religious practices for which such a narrative might account, we assume that he is about to begin a similar aetiological narrative. But our expectations are suddenly derailed. The speaker interrupts himself, excitedly interjecting, µ11 µ11 tauta A.eycoµec u 6aicpuov a:yo:yeAT1oi (17)59. It is better, the speaker says, to tell of how Demeter bestowed laws on cities and of how she instituted agriculture (18-21)-themes which in fact he does not pursue. It is better, as it turns out60, to tell of how Demeter punished Erysichthon6 1. Apparently, this to be a cautionary tale-'iva icai nc focepj3aciac «A.£11tat(22)-but attempts to unify the myth in theme with the mimetic first section only point up the absurdity of such an expectation 62 • In the myth the narrator describes the offense in a standard sequence: Erysichthon acts shamelessly by cutting down Demeter's sacred grove 63 • His suffering is entirely justifiable. What we are unprepared for is that his parents should suffer, especially after line 17 and its prohibition concerning Demeter' s maternal grief. If their suffering were portrayed as Chariclo's is in the fifth hymn, we would find it to be intolerable. But this does not happen: Erysichthon's parents are not mourning so much for their son as they are for their reputation. Unlike their son, they show shame (72), but this shame has not been produced by Erysichthon's transgression, but by the embarrassment he will cause them. They are ready to invent any excuse to keep the neighbors from knowing about the whole affair64.

S9

60 61

62

63 64

course connected to Boeotia through her epil.het Tp1wyivtui. Pausanias repons I.he belief that her birthplace was I.heriver Trito near Alalcomenae in Boeotia [9.33.7). For discussion see L.R. Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States I, New York 1977, 266ff. For the same sort of break in the narrative, also instanced by the poet's archly pious pose, cf. Aet. fr. 75.4-5 (Acontius and Cydippe). On Callimachus' self-conscious use of the conventional 'Abbruchsformel', see M.A. Harder, "Untrodden Paths: Where do They Lead?" HSPh 93, 1990, 295-303. Kall1.0v, 18 and 19, line initial; repeated again line initial, 22. Some such phrase is to be supplemented in the lacuna at 23: such is the story that the narrator goes on to tell. KJ. McKay, The Poet at Play: Kal/imachos,'The Bath of Pallas', Leiden 1962,65, assumesthat the u1ttpl3ada the women will avoid is that of overeating; Hopkinson (n. I), 5, concludes that in the ritual context the myth will be morally uplifting. He and his companions are called avai6frc (36); he is called ava16ia (45, by Demeter). Aiooµtvo1 yovr.Ec, npaxava 6' tupici.c'to naca, 73. It has been observed that Callimachus' portrayal or Erysichthon's embarassed parents could be a scene from New Comedy. Zanlter (n. 2), 187-9: "In Hymn 6 ... Callimachus again makes extensive use or everyday matter. In the scene depicting Demeter's punishment or Erysichl.hon we are presented with a domestic comedy of manners". "[Erysichl.hon's mother's] embarrassment would be entirely appropriate in a scene from the New Comedy". On the other hand, cf. P.B. Falciai, "Per l'interpretazione dell' inno vi di Callimaco", Prometheus2, 1976, 48ff., who interprets the hymn as a tragedy.

MIMESIS AND AETIOLOGY

71

Erysichthon plays out his punishment and eats everything in sight. When the family's stores arc utterly depleted, the secret can no longer be kept (cf. 111-2). And now the final shame occurs: the king's son ends up at the crossroads, begging. Erysichthon's aim in cutting down the grove had been to give banquets; now he must beg for the crusts and scraps thrown away from others' feasts 65. This is the logical outcome of Demeter's uc'tepov eilmd.vat 'tot (64). McKay punishment as she has stated it: 8aµwal ya.p calls this scene the "bourgeois denouement" to the story (71 ): an account which could have been full of pathos and admonitory atonement for a wicked transgression has become, in effect, a comedy of manners. Callimachus' portrayal of Erysichthon' s punishment plays up its social consequences; the moral claims made at the beginning of the myth, and present in the description of the offense, are entirely forgotten. These are characters who would be at home in comedy and its portrayal of everyday Jifc66.or indeed in mime67. The narrative brings ancient myth into a modem context, that is, it performs the same function that aitia in the other five hymns perform. The contrast between this 'low' material and its generic context has been interpreted in various ways. The most traditional of these views take Callimachus' concerns to be religious68. Howald, for example, recognizes the impossibility of seriously portraying the range and effects of Demeter's power "in die Wirklichkcit unseres bilrgerlichen Daseins"69. But the immediacy of the frame, he argues, helps the myth along: we have direct access to the naive emotions of the participants, and therefore we are thrown back ourselves onto a more simple faith. Erysichthon's parents, like Demeter, should be overwhelmed by grief for their child. but they are not. Our emotions cannot be affected by their embarrassment Bulloch 70admits that the religious formulation of this poem is important only on the surface level, but he takes it that there are "other levels which are of much greater importance to Alexandrian taste". Callimachus "is ultimately concerned not with a full and total religious view of the world, but with a secular story of social behavior" (101). While he is not seriously considering religious matters, Bulloch argues, Callimachus is quite serious about the non-religious, human implications of Erysichthon 's action. On this view

ec

65

66 67 68

69 70

115, ai-r£Cc:ov alCOA.µev I appf1toV (1-2). That passage's exegete remarks: xpfaet 6e Kai. 2tOtf1taic µaA.teta ,, TI ' aPXTI, ' , ' ... , - icpatf1pae .... , ' ' autf1 £2t£t 1Cat ev tote euµxoetotc tpete £Ktpvwv, Kat' tov µev 2tpii'>tovAtoe 'OA.uµxiou, tOV 6t 6eutepov AtoeKoupwv !Cat flprowv, tOV 6t tpitov

.

71 72

73

\

.

.

Zanker (n. 2), 189. 5, cf. N. Hopkinson, ''Callimachus' Hymn to Zeus". CQ 34, 1984, 141. The 'normal' version of Zeus' binh places the event in Crete. Hes. Th. 468ff.; Agathocl. fr. 2; [Apollod.] 1.1.6.

MIMESISAND AETIOLOOY

73

~lOCCom\poc 74• As Hopkinson points out (140), aporetic questions concerning a god's cult-title are well-known conventions; these lines are modelled on the extant opening lines of the first Homeric Hymn (to Dionysus), and line 5 "is a 'corrected' quotation of a line which Antagoras had applied to Eros in a similar hymnic context of doubtful lineage" (140).

At the very point at which he declares his intention to speak the truth, then, the speaker's intentions and the context to which they will be relevant are far from clear. Addressing Zeus in the second person, he 'quotes' two factions: some say the god was born in the mountains of Ida, some say in Arcadia 75• The vocative ,ea-rep, used here in the context of the god's binh, is incongruous and underscores the passage's arch tone. The answer comes: Kpt1tec ciel 'f/'euctat, and Crete is rejected on the a priori ground that since Cretans are always liars, the Arcadian account must be preferable (8-10). The 'fact' that Cretans are liars in this instance is then syllogistically 'demonstrated': 1eal yap tacpov, ~ ava, ceio I Kpt1t£C £'t£1C't11Vavto· CU6' OU8avec, £CC\yap aid (8-9). Since Zeus is eternal, he could not have died. The quotation in line 8 is from Epimenides: Kpt1tec ciel 'f/'£UCta1,1ea1ea81,pia, yac-repec cipya{76, words which themselves recall the Muses' address to Hesiod: 1to1µevec aypa'l>M>l, lC6oiµT}v, 1C£V 1te1ti801evCX1C0'1>11V (65). ciiovtoc

a

4.3. Aetiology and the occasion of praise Callimachus' handling of mythological material, traditionally freighted in the poetic tradition with relevance to the audience's experience of cult, may be the best perspective from which to view the nature and extent of his innovation, of the dislocation from socially grounded convention that his imitation carries with it. Fortunately, Callimachus' poetry provides us with the perfect vehicle for such an inquiry: his ubiquitous use of aitia. We have already seen that while the first 32 lines of the fifth Hymn may be read as a running aetiological commentary on the Argive Plynteria, the section also effects a hymnic 74

Maass, 81, lines 26ff. Thus, the Scholiast continues, begin Theocritus' 17th Idyll and the Orphic

75

H-ymnto Zeus. Callimachus of course praisedthe Phaenomena'sA£1ttcmicin Ep. 27 Pf. Ztu. CEl'£V'l&xfo\C\Vtv ouptci q,aci ytVEC8m,I Zn>, ci: li' tv Aplctllii11i, 6- 7. Fr. 5 Kinkel.

76 77

0

Th. 26.

74

DEPEW

descriptio of Athena in which the goddess is portrayed not only indecorously but as remarkably ill-suited to the role she will play in the poem's hypomnesis. The second Hymn contains several mythological narratives, and we may also read them as they are announced, that is, as aetiological explanations of phenomena that are 'present' to the speaker's audience. But each also develops the poetic issues with which the poem is concerned. The mythological section focusses on Apollo's proclivity to help those who honor him in an acceptable way, and the last aetiological narrative, the IC'ttelCof Cyrene, leads directly into the sphragis and Apollo's defense of the sort of honor Callimachus is capable of bestowing. The mythological portion of the poem (lines 47-96) is articulated into three sections, each containing an aition, and each beginning with a declensional form of cl>oif3oc(47, 55, 65). In spite of the emphasis on this epithet, the first section of the myth narrates how the god received another name: N6µ1oc (47-54). 'E~tc1 Ktivou, 47, announces this section as aetiological. Phoebus is known as Nomius since the time when he tended the 'yoked mares' of Admetus near the river Amphrysus (47-9). The aetiology seems straightforwani, but the speaker's confidence conceals several unexpressed assertions. First, the epithet is not always or even typically associated with Apollo 78. Secondly, N6µ1oc does not always connote 'pastoral'79. We might ask if Callimachus made this aetiology up, and if he did, why. The episode of Apollo's enslavement to Admetus is known from several preCallimachean sources80. Callimachus emphasizes elements that occur in none of these accounts: Admetus' youth and Apollo's erotic motivation. We may wonder why, in a passage whose announced theme is Apollo's influence in the natural world in matters of healing and reproduction, this erotic element intrudes at all. The answer may be that Callimachus is intrigued by the name Admetus and invents his own gloss: Apollo is burning for love of one who is, literally, untamed, untouched. The collocation xap8evoc a6µi1C is Homeric 81, Admetus is an tii8eoc (49), and therefore, also a xap8evoc. Thus Callimachus' erotic treattnent follows. The passage also prefigures the narration of Cyrene •s foundation (65-96), where the speaker alludes to the tradition, found also in Pindar, that the IC'ttetc of Cyrene was the ultimate result of the passion Apollo felt for the nymph Cyrene 82. The name N6µ1oc is extant in Pindar only in this passage, where it is applied to Aristaeus, the son of Apollo and Cyrene (Pi. P. 9.65). In the earlier part of the poem we have heard of Apollo's ability to

78 79

80 81 82

It is applied also to Pan, h.Pan 5, AP 6.96; Hermes, Ar. Th. 977; Dionysus, AP 9.524.14; and Aristaeus, Pi. P. 9.65. Its connection with viµro is adduced in its application to Zeus as a Law-god, and to Apollo in a first century dedication by voµoql'UAc sc. b ava71:yve1Cv fecerinl." For passages in Greek literature see Maehler (n. 5), 1 II, 153 on line 9; for examples in the visual arts cf. F. Brommer, Herakles, Darmstadt 19722, 7-11, and H. Maehler, "~sie Alexandrine et Art Helltnistique l Memphis". CE 63, 1988, 122-6. [Theoc.] 25 appears to have been composed after the Victoria Bere,uces in time (cf. Henrichs [n. 46], 70). er. G. Zanker, "Callimachus' Hecale: A New Kind of Epic Hero?" A111ichthon11, 1977, 7lf.; KJ. Gutzwiller, Studies in the Hellenistic Epyllion, KOnigstein/fs. 1981, 27. At issue are frs. 67-9 Hollis. Here again the audience's knowledge of the struggle with the dragon is assumed; for this er. e.M. Bowra, Pindar, Oxford 1964, 287f. and 347; G. Norwood, Pindar, Berkeley/Los Angeles 1945, 80 and 169; cf. Machler (n. 5), I I, 27f. on this technique in Bacchylides. On this playing with the Rezipientenerwartung cf. D. Meyer (this volume), 170-1. The reader's attention is drawn to the omission again in the following: Molorchus asks Heracles for a story (line 2), but is put off till dinner-time (lines 3f.). Cf Fuhrer (n. 8), 121-5. For funher instances of Callimachus' useof the Pindaric device of breaking off narrative er. T. Fuhrer, "A Pindaric FealUre in the Poems of Callimachus", AJPh 109, 1988, 53-68, esp. 62ff.; M.A. Harder, "Untrodden Paths: Where do they lead?", HSPh 93, 1990, 287-309, esp. 295ff. The technique of the prophecy, through which a bridge can be made from a mythical event to the present, is especially in the epinician an imponant means of establishing the conne.ction between the myth and the event being celebrated, and is often employed by the choral poets. Cf. Maehler (n. 5), 1 II, 252f. and 262 (on B. ~p. 13.58); Hurst (n. 28), 165. What is new in Callimachus is again that he uses the conventional techniques of aition and prophe.cy not for the conventional purpose (cf. 83-5 above),but to his own ends, i.e. as a means to demonstrate his learning (on this Callimachean device cf. M. Depew [this volume], passim).

EPINICIAN POEMS

87

object of praise53. This is a function which the Heracles in the Victoria Berenices. goodnatured and somewhat bumbling. even comic in effect 54, cannot fulfill-and he need not. either.The epinician is directed, after all, to a woman and a 'daughter of the gods' (cf. SH 254.2) who through her divinity (she is addressed as 'sacred blood') not only is on the same level with the hero, but also, thanks to the constructions of the dynastic cult of the Ptolemies, is even his relation 55• Berenice needs no enhancement through a mythical paradigm, and through this humanizing portrait of the classical hero she will in any case be drawn all the more believeably into the divine realm herselfS6. VllC\1I would like to focus on a passage from section 3, from the From the Cox:1J3iou speech for which we may assume Sosibius is the speaker, detailing the victories of his youth. Also in the choral epinicians the enumeration of earlier victories (the victory catalogue) cannot be omitted, when the figure celebrated or a member of his family has won success in earlier contests, and this material, prosaic in itself but with an important encomiastic function to fulfill 57 , is generally shaped by the poets into a most elaborate form 58. Callimachus, then, in the enumeration of Sosibius' youthful victories, clearly plays on a passage from a Pindaric catalogue of victories: Like Pindar in N. 10.35f., he alludes to the victory at the Panathenaea, by means of the pri7.CamphoraeS9:

S3

54

SS

56

57 58

59

From the abundance of literature on this topic (especially in the interpretation of single odes) I would cite hereBowra(n. SO),46f.; B. Effe, "Held und Literatur. Der Funktionswechsel des HeraklesMythos in der griechischen Literatur", Poetica 12, 1980, 149; G.K. Galinsky, The Herakles Theme, Oxford 1972, 23-39; D.L. Pike, "Pindar's Treatment of the Heracles Myths", AC/ass 27, 1984, IS· 22;Kramer(n.23), 108-38. ef. Livrea (n. 13), 8 n. 6, on the scene in SH 251 (Heracles tries to pluck a fruit from the wild pear tree in Molorchus' court): "Si tratterebbe ovviarnente dell'Eracle affamato della tradizione dorica". A hint of this traditional character trait of Heracles' seems to occur in SH 264 as well, where Heracles cuts off Molorchus' plea for a story with the answer, he will tell him more at diMer. here again the herois thinking of his favorite occupation. er. the inscription in Dittenberger (n. 37), 54; on this cf. Fraser (n. 11), 2, 344 n. 106; J. Tondriau, "Rois Lagides eompar~ ou ldentifi~ l des Divinitts", CE 23, 1948, 129-31; finally e. Meillier, "Papyrus de Lille: Callimaque, Victoria Berenices (suppl. hell. 254-258). E~ments de Commentaire sur la Divinitt de Berenice", CR/PEL 8, 1986, 84. The paradox of the anthropomorphizing of gods and deification of men is a distinguishing characteristic of the Hellenistic period;cf. F.T. Griffiths, Theocritus at Court, Leiden 1979, 63f.: "In theclassical tradition which Callimachus so broadly evokes, ... the gap between men and gods was vast and unbridgeable. Callimachus will not go so far as the Euhemerists do in saying that the gods were never more than kings like Ptolemy, glorified in retrospect But he does present a mythic world where the limits of divinity were very fluid indeed ... ". er. D.e. Young, Three Odes of Pindar, Leiden 1968, 91-3; E. Thummer, Die isthmischen Gedichle 1, Heidelberg 1968, 19f. er. esp. Pi. 0. 7.80-7; 0. 13.106-13; P. 9.79-103; N. 4.17-22; N. S.44-6; N. 10.25-35; I. 1.SS-9; I. 2.18-20; B. ep. 10.29-35. On the conformity of these lists to established rules (the ranking of the contests), which conformity Callimachus too appears to maintain throughout the C1Ai-ta1pov cioi61µoc ~A.8£ 1Ca\011Couc Ilq,yaµou 'AA£loprovic for a victory in Argos; 69.8f. (for which cf. 92): the victor's grandfather of the same name is alluded to with the words 6~coic 6' oiivoµ' £Va(o]loc bxt'i n6t\ ~6ic>.11tov;75.lf.: periphrutic description of the victory at Isthmia(?); 73B.3: periphrutic description of the Pythian games; 55.1 and 768.6: periphrastic description of the Olympian games; 49.4: periphrutic description of the island of Kos, homeland of the victor, u island of Merops. er. Eben (n. 1), 9-11 and 16-8; J. Jilthner, "Herkunft und Grundlagen der griechischen Nationalspiele",Die Anti.Ice15, 1939, 241. er.lheproposedsupplements to line 3 detailed in n. 73 above. Thesentiment that a victory is owed 10 a god (usually the god of the festival) is also characteristic of the cpinician of choral lyric; for this cf. esp. Pi. N. 4.9-11; P. 4.1-3. er. E. Thummer, Die ReligiositiltPindars,Innsbruck 1957, 81f. and 93-5; Fuhrer (n. 8), 93-8.

94

FUHRER

more victories, being in content and poetic design similar to, in meter usually identical with, the Callirnachean cpinician87. In the Ccoc1P\OU v{lCllas well we find motifs which may be compared with passages in the agonistic epigrams. Apart from the topoi employed in both the epinicians and the agonistic epigrams 88, the CcocipiouvilCllshares with those epigrams one thing in particular: from the end of the fifth century B.C., the victors in the Panhcllenic games began to comewith ever-increasing frequency from cities and counaics which were farther from the mother country Greece and had never yet attained such fame 89• Thus the emphasis on the victor's achievement as first of its kind became a topos in the Hellenistic victory epigrams90:

oc

ltpCltOC aya8ea1 yipa.c o)..P1ovCOJtaCE A{v&n

actaryyap

acp''Ella6oc

[e]~xoc a.yayEC £ic aya8i.ovolKOV'AYT1VOplOOV Jtp]yapxm tlC bt[l] flOA.lV

87

88

89 90

91

1• iiyay' a.£8)..ovI 611tA.Oov i]K tacp{rovtiov6e 1taV11yup{rov)9

A comparison is intimated as early as Reitzenstein (n. 70), 88, and P. von der Mahli, "Die Gedichte des Philosophen Arkesilaos", in Studi in 0nort di Ugo Paoli, Firenze 1956, 718 (= Ausgtw4hltt kltint Schrifttn, Basel 1976, 278). a) The victor brings his city fame: with Call. fr. 384.28 Pf. (ic:a>..aµo, 8pt1t'tOCluu:t yipa) compare Pi. N. 5.8 (iyipaiptv Jla'tpo,ro>..w);P. 1.31; P. 9.73; B. tp. l.5-11; epigrams 12.4 Ebert (ytpac o>..~wv IXIKUCE A(v6coi);20.4; 26.12; 69.9(.; etc. b) The enumeration of earlier vicrories is broken off with the excuse that their number is IOOgreac With Call. fr. 384.57ff. Pf. compare Pi./. l.60-3; 0. 13.43-6; N. 2.23; N. 10.45f. (cf. E.L. Bundy, "The 'Quarrel Between Kallimachosand Apollonios', Part I: The Epilogue of Kallimachos' Hymn to Apollo", CSCA 5, 1972, 49 with n. 38); tpigrams 15.5 ('tac 6' aUac v(ic:a.couic: tuµaptc ic't' cipi8µilcai); 39.5; 79.18 Eben; AP 16.52 (cf. Eben (n. 1), 18 and 68f.). Cf. Ebert (n. 1), 24 and 106f.; E.N. Gardiner, Athletics of the Ancient World, Oxford 19552, 45f. Cf. also epigrams 31.2; 71.4; 73A.lf., and 73B.5 Ebert. On each occasion in theepiniciansof choral lyric where an achievement is emphasized as first of its kind, it is exclusively a particularcombination or accumwation of victories which is brought forward as first or unique (Pi. N. 6.24-6; 0. 13.31; B. tp. 8.22-5; Simon. PMG 506; E. PMG 755). That for the Ptolemaic reign in particular such a gain in prestige was imponant is shown in an episode in Plb. 27.9.7-13: a Theban athlete competes for the fame of Greece, an Egyptian alhlete for the fame of Ptolemy (Epiphanes); cf. L. Roben, "Sur des inscriptions d'Eph~. Rtes, athl~tes. empercurs, q,igrammes", RPh 41, 1967, 25f.

EPINICIAN POEMS

95

In section 3 Sosibius has probably been introduced as speaker. That the victor should enumerate his own successes has given offense to one of Callimachus' modem interpreters92, and this is indeed unthinkable in the epinicians of choral lyric. In some agonisticepigrams, however, the poets actually do have the victor-or better, his statue-report on his victories in the first pcrson 93. Thus also in the CCl>Ctj3iou vi1C11 we cannot excludethe possibility that a statue of Sosibius has been introduced as speaker before lines 35ff. In section 4 Callimachus introduces into his epinician a dedicatory epigram (lines 50f.) which probably is to document a victory of Sosibius' and thus must have been an agonistic epigram. Here the dedication itself speaks-a device fairly often employed in dedicatory (and thus also victory) epigrams 94. In the last portion a remark such as 'I proclaim the victory of Sosibius' could have followed (cf. e.g. ayyfil]co vi1C11v in epigr. 51.l Ebert). In the manner of the agonistic dedicatory epigrams, possibly Sosibius' name, his father's name, his native land, the festival and the type of athletic contest have been announced The examples here given should make it sufficiently clear that the concept of the 'crossing of genres' in the case of the Callimachean epinicians has indeed its right. Callimachus uses for the celebration of the victories of the Egyptian queen and the Ptolemaic statesman the poetic form in which such occasions ordinarily were celebrated in the Hellenistic age. The tendency already to be detected in the somewhat earlier Hellenistic epigrammatists, that of drawing from the epinician poetry of choral lyric topoi, stylistic traits, and imagery, Callimachus too adopts; as Alexandrian scholar, who within the framework of his work at the library was deeply engaged in the study of choral lyric, and-we may well say-as the brilliant poet that he is, he goes further that all the composersof agonistic epigrams of the Hellenistic 'school'. In the VictoriaBerenicesCallimachus takes his 'epigram' further in following it with a myth; that is, he transforms it into a part of a larger poem that at least with respect to its structure is comparable with an epinician of choral lyric. Thus the 'epigram' concsponds to the praise of the victor (the Siegerlob)in the choral victory ode. In the Ccoctj3iou vi'IC11 it is possible in spite of the many unresolved questions regarding the poem's structure to demonstrate that the poem contains several 'interludes' or 'cameo poems' in direct speech, all celebrating Sosibius' accomplishments and connected to one another with the poet's intervening remarks9 5 • From the text as it has been

92 93 94 95

Barigazzi (n. 15), 416. Cf. esp. epigrams 34; 35; 36; 50; 68; 70 Eben (not in the pluralis maiestatis found tasteless by Barigazzi,which could, however, be interpreted as a pluralis modestiae). Cf. Eben (n. 1), 2lf. and 112; R. Kassel, "Dialoge mit Statuen", ZPE 51, 1981, 1-12, esp. 11. Cf. Eben (n. 1), 2lf. In the extant sections of the poem the following structure may be distinguished: the hymn to Poseidon (section 1) is followed by the speech of the Nile (section 2), a speech which we have reason to suspect was spoken by Sosibius (section 3), the speech of an unknown figure (an Argive?) on the

96

FUHRER

transmitted to us, we can assume that Callimachus composed the poem of several parts which could in themselves be independent shon poems; one of these is identifiable as dedicatory and probably also victory epigram, and the speeches of the Nile and of Sosibius show at least elements common to this genre. As a whole, however, the Celf3iou viKTlis more than a victory epigram: it is comparable with the exceptional instances in the epinicians of choral lyric where the myth section is absent or a mythical event is only briefly alluded to96. Thus Callimachus not only in writing considerably longer poems but also in other respects,as the arguments above demonstrate, joins clearly the tradition of the epinicians of choral lyric. His victory poems were not engraved in stone as epigrams were, but were recited perhaps at a victory celebration or were conceived from the very beginning as literary poctry97• Thus even when they show characteristics of the genre of epigram, they belong without a doubt to the genre of epinician. That their form is no longer the same, is surely to be attributed to the disappearance of music, song, and dance; but perhaps the origin of the transformation may more clearly be explained in light of the observations here made. Elegy had always been a form for the most various of contents9 8, and the epigram enjoyed great popularity especially among the Hellenistic poets 99• Thus for Callimachus it would have been natural to compose a poem in celebration of a victory as an epigram in elegiac distichs, for which a long tradition already existed. Yet in his profound learning he was led to bring the tradition of celebrating victories in choral lyric into play to a far greater extent than had formerly been ventured. Thus compositions came into being whose characteristics we attempt to describe through comparison with the traditional genres and their attendant forms with the phenomenon of the 'crossing of genres' and the 'play of forms'. That Callimachus after an interlude of about two hundred years restored the genre of the epinician to life must not, then, be understood in the first instance as a reversion to choral lyric. It is rather, I believe, an assumption and continuance of the existing practice.

96

97

98

99

dedication in the Heraion, and the epigram on the dedication in Pelusium (section 4). The poet himself speaks at the begiMing (lines 1-8), before the speech of the Nile (lines 21-8, perhaps even earlier), in the iransition from the speech of the Argive to the dedication in Pelusium (lines 46-9), and at the end of the poem in the praise of Sosibius (lines 53-60). The epinicians without a myth are all, with the exception of I. 2, brief poems (cf. Hamilton [n. 34), 29; Gelzer [n. 1), 97ff.). N. 6, N. 11, and I. 1 contain only brief references to a myth, as perhaps also the Cmcip{ou v{IO'I in lines 15ff. On the public of the Callimachean epinicians cf. n. 41 above. The Victoria Berenices and the Eighlh Iambus became pure book poetry. at the latest, with their admission into the collections of the Aetia and Iambi respectively.The epigrams too became book poetry in the Hellenistic period (cf. Kroll [n. 66], 207f.; Reitzenstein [n. 70), 89f.; Fraser [n. 11), I, 560f.; Hutchinson [n. 66], 20-4); the extant agonistic epigrams, however, have come down to us almost exclusively as inscriptions on stone (but cf. 90f. above). Cf. A.W. Bulloch, Callimachus: The Fifth Hymn, Cambridge 1985, 34-8; Fantuzzi (n. 65), 443; Hutchinson (n. 66), 16. The meter of the epigrams is not exclusively. but certainly most often, the elegiac distich.

EPINICIAN POEMS

97

Callimachus took up the tendencies of the poets of victory epigram and transcended them: the employment of the epinicians of choral lyric, to be found to a limited extent even in the Hellenistic victory epigrams, grows in Callimachus to a part earnest, part playful coming to terms with the laws, the structure, the style, and the topics of this genreIOO.

100

I am grateful to Amy C. Clark for her valuable help in translating this article.

ASPECI'S OF 1HE S'IRUCIURE OF CALLIMACHUS' AEIIA

Annette Harder

1. Introduction

1bc structure of Callimachus' Attia has long been a matter of uncertainty. Ideas as different as that of Schneider, who believed that the lists in Hyg. Fab. 273ff. reflected the organization of the Attia, and of Eichgruen, who opted for complete 'Planlosigkeit', have been proposed 1• Although many problems are still unsolved, over the last decades some important results have been reached and we have acquired at least a general picture of the overall structure of the Attia and some of its organizing principles. The contents of the beginning of book 1 and most of books 3 and 4 are known through the Florentine Scholia and the Ditgtstis. Thus it has become clear that, apart from a great deal of irregularity and lack of symmetry, there is on the one hand a slight tendency to group aitia into clusters of related stories, as in fr. 7.19 - fr. 25 (scurrilous rituals/ Heracles)2 or fr. 100-1 (statues of Hera), while on the other hand there is in the final edition of the Attia a tendency towards ring-composition: in book I fr. 7.19 - fr. 21, i.e. near the beginning of the work, there is an aition from the return-journey of the Argonauts and the Argonautic theme recurs in the last aition in book 4 fr. 108-9, an event from the outward journey; in book I fr. 3-7 .18 the cause of the ritual at Paros is the death of Androgeos, who again figures in book 4 fr. 1033,i.e. towards the end of the Attia. Books 3 and 4 are framed by two poems dedicated to Queen Berenice 4 , while book 3, which began with the Victoria Btrtnicts, ends with a poem about the Olympic victor Euthycles (fr. 84-5). The whole of the Attia is framed by passages concerning the Muses and Hesiod (fr. 1-2 and fr. 112). We may therefore say with some confidence that the view expressed by Eichgruen, that the Attia were characterized by complete 'Planlosigkeit' 5, was necessarily mistaken. There is certainly no rigid 1

Sec 0. Schneidez,Callimachea2, Lipsiae 1873,44ff. and the discussion in R. Pfeiffer, Callimaclws, Oxford 1949-1953, 2, XXXIV; E. Eichgruen, Kallimachos und Apol/onios Rhodios, Diss. Berlin

2 3 4

Sec A.S. Hollis. ''Teuthis and Callimachus,Aetia book I", CQ 32, 1982, 117-20,esp. 118. See oo this connection A.S. Hollis, "Attica in Hellenistic Poetry", ZPE 93, 1992, 1-15, esp. 7f. See e.g. PJ. Parsons, "Callimachus: Vic10ria Berenices", ZPE 25, 1977, 1-50, esp. 46ff.; N. Krevans, The poet as editor, Diss. Prince10n 1984, 236f.; M.A. Harder, "Some thoughts about Callimachus SH 239 and 253", ZPE 61, 1987, 21-30, esp. 28. See Eichgruen (n. I), 166: "Betrachten wir die ... Anordnungder Aitia ... so flllt immer wieder die Planlosiglteitin der Gesamtanlagedes Werkes auf. Der Dichtet hat sich offenbar nicht die geringste MOhegegcben,ein gewissesSchema in die Aufeinanderfolgeder Einzelelegienzu bringen, obwohl in einzelnenDilchergelegentlich bestimmteGruppen von Aitia zu erkennen sind"; more recently C.R.

1961, 166.

s

HARDER

100

scheme, but the structure of the Aetia nevenheless seems to have been a matter of careful consideration. In this paper I wish to draw attention to some other aspects of the Aelia's structure. The starting-point will be the first part of the first book of the Aetia (fr. 1-25). I shall first discuss the sequence of these aitia, which seems to have been carefully planned and emphasized by the recurrence of certain elements from these stories in the later parts of the work. Secondly I shall investigate the passages in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius which reflect not only the contents or incidental phrases from these aitia, but also their arrangement and position in the Aetia, and discuss the implications this investigation could have fc:r our view of the interaction between Callimachus and Apollonius.

2. The grouping of aitia in Aetia 1. fr. 1-25 Our evidence for the arrangement of fr. 1-25 is the order in which the aitia are presented in the Florentine scholia6. After the prologue and the introduction of the dialogue with the Muses in fr. 1 and 2 the order of the stories is: (1) Charites at Paros (fr. 3-7 .18); (2) Apollo Aegletes at Anaphe (fr. 7.19 - fr. 21); (3) Heracles at Lindos (fr. 22-3); (4) Heracles and Thiodamas (fr. 24-5). The last three stories form one cluster: the question in fr. 7. l 9ff. ICO>C6e, 8roi_,

. [ ... ] µev OVTJP 'AvcupaiocE1C' aic[xpo'ic it 6' ~~l.~[ccpftµo1c]Aiv6ocaye18-uciT1v, TI...'CTIVt[...... t]ov 'Hpad11a Ct~l~Tll; concerns both the cult of Apollo at Anaphe and Heracles at Lindos, while the story of Heracles and Thiodamas seems to be inspired by the comparable story of Heracles at Lindos7. We may ask why this sequence of aitia is as it is, that is: why is, after the still rather elusive introductory part, which must have established the framework of the dialogue with the Muses 8, the first aition devoted to the Charites, the second to a story in which Apollo plays an important part, and the third to Heracles? It does not seem likely that this is

6

7

8

Beyc, Epic and RomLJncein t~ Argonautica of Apollonius, Carbondale/Edwardsville 1982, 7: 'The poem does not, so far as we can tell from the fragments, have any organizing principle". See in favour of a carefully composed Attia also Krevans (n. 4), 150ff. For the text sec Pfeiffer (n. 1), 3ff. er. l: Aor. Slf. (p. 31 Pfeiffer) n(apa)·d8E'tal 6(E)1C(al) aA.A_ [I ]µ01ov. See Hollis (n. 2), 118. Sec on the problems of the ttansition between the prologue and the dialogue with the Muses recently A. Kerkhccker, "Ein Musenanruf am Anfang der Aitia des Kallimachos", ZPE 71, 1988, 16-24; P. Bing, "A note on the new 'Musenanrur in Callimachus' Aetia", ZPE 14, 1988, 273-5; and M.A. Harder, "Between 'Prologue' and 'Dream' (Call. fr. la.19ff.)", ZPE96, 1993, 11-3.

TIIE STRUCTURE OF TIIE AEIIA

101

accidental, especially when as well as certain features of these characters which I shall discuss below we also take into consideration (1) the way in which several aspects of these aitia are highlighted by their recurrence later in the work, and (2) the evidence from other collections by Callimachus: the collection of Hymns shows a careful structure, which is generally thought to be by Callimachus, and the same can be said of the lambtJ. A closer look at the first part of the Aetia shows that it is focussing on characters to which we may attribute a certain amount of 'programmatic' intcrcst 10• The programmatic use of the Muses, as a legitimation of the poet's knowledge, is obvious 11• The recurrence of both the Muses and Hesiod (mentioned in fr. 1 and 2) in the Epilogue in fr. 112, which leads to a kind of ring-composition, draws attention to their importance. After the setting of the framework of the dialogue with the Muses the first aition is devoted to the Charites (fr. 3-7.18), who are asked to favour the poem in fr. 7.13f.:

vuv, J£LA.£J'Y(?~~l_L~J' £Vl'lfl1Cac0L£JA.l1tCOCLac X£iPJ~CeµLoic,Yva J.tOJtxouli> J.tEVCOCLtJV etoc

ell.at£

The purposeof the request to the Charites must be to provide the poem with charm and beauty and in this respect it is clearly programmaticl 2• As early as Homer we see that the Muses are supposed to provide the poet with knowledge (e.g. II. 2.484ff.). This idea recurs in Pindar (e.g. Pae. 6.54f.), where, in addition, the Charites figure as the goddesses who arc responsible for the poem's beauty and charm (e.g. 0. 14.Sf.). Both groups of goddesses arc regarded as essential for poetic excellence in e.g. E. HF 673ff. and Theoc. 16.104ff.1 3 Like the Muses, the Charites too are mentioned again in the Epilogue in fr.

112.

9

10

11 12

On the structure of the collection of Hymns see e.g. N. Hopkinson, Callimachus.Hymn to Demeter, Cambridge 1984, 13; Haslam (this volume), 111-25, esp. 115; on the Iambi see e.g. D.L. Clayman, CallimachusIambi (Mnem.Suppl.59), Leiden 1980, 48f. A3 'programmatic' I consider those aspects of the work which relate to views on poetry and/or the purpose or natureof a particular poem; these views may be expressed explicitly, but can also be implied by the work's organization and structure. As an example of the first category we may consider the prologue of the Aetia in fr. 1, where the speaker states his views on poetry. A3 an example of the second category 1 consider the framing of books 3 and 4 between the Victoria Berenices and the Coma Berenices, which suggests that this part of the Aetia was at some stage dedicated to Queen Berenice. For further details and references to literature see e.g. M.A. Harder, "Callimachus and the Muses", Prometheus 14, 1988, 1-14. For an echo of these lines in a similarly prominent position see Catullus l.9f. quod, patrona

,urgo,Iplus IUIO maneatperenne saeclo. 13

See further e.g. 0. Falter, Der Dichter und sein Gott bei den Griechen und Rt»nern, Diss. Wllrzburg 1934, 19f. and 26ff.; E. Schwarzenberg, Die Grazien, Bonn 1966, 44f.; R. Harriott, Poetry and Criticism before Plato, London 1969, 125f.; K. Deichgrllber, Charis und Chariten - Grazie und Gramn, Mllnchen 1971, 21 ff.

102

HARDER

The second aition is about the founding of a cult of Apollo Aegletesby the Argonauts at Anaphe (fr. 7.19 - fr. 21). Here too a programmatic aspect may be suspected 14. The

argument in its favour is twofold and concerns both the appearance of Apollo and the choice of an episode from the journey of the Argonauts as a subject. First of all Apollo in his role of protector of poets and in particular as instructor and protector of poetry in the style of Callimachus is mentioned several times by Callimachus in programmatic passages, of which the most famous are his instructions in the Prolog~ to the Attia and his rejection of Phthonos in the last part of h. 215. As far as we know, Apollo was not explicitly referred to as a protector of poets in the story of Anaphe, so if we regard his appearance here as programmatic this can only be on the basis of his role elsewhere in Callimachus. Secondly, in the Attia the aition of Anaphe is found at the beginning of the work, and another aition about the Argonauts, the story of the anchor at Cyzicus (fr. 108-9), is the last aition of book 4 (before the Coma Berenices) 16• Thus the Argonaut stories seem to be an important element in the overall structure of the complete edition of the Attia, even though we cannot (or can no longer) detect a programmatic aspect in the stories themselves apart from perhaps the connection ofThera (mentioned as neighbour of Anaphe in fr. 7.23) with the foundation of Cyrene (on which see below). The idea that they more or less frame the Attia may be supported by Apollonius' treatment of these two stories (see below). We may conclude then that gods who are considered as protectors of poets are groupedtogether so that they have a prominent position in the first part of the Attia and to a certain extent frame the whole work because they, or elements from the context in which they appear, are mentioned or alluded to again at the end. The cluster of gods is followed by a group of aitia focussing on Heracles (fr. 22-5, containing the stories of Heracles and the Lindian farmer and of Heracles and Thiodamas). Here programmatic interest, if present, would be of a different nature, but we must bear in mind that the Ptolemies claimed descent from Dionysus via Heracles and Deianeira (= the daughter of Dionysus)1 7 • In this way they connected themselves to the tradition of the Macedonian kings, for whom their descent from Heracles was an important aspect of the legitimation of their power and their establishment as Greek kings 18. The treatment of 14

15 16

17

18

It was already suggested by C. Gallavotti, "II prologo e l'epilogo degli 'Aitia'", SIFC 10, 1933, 231-46, esp. 238: "Quindi appare che, nel primo libro, le varie elegie avevano una detenninata disposizionc, e trauavano da principio quei miti piil vicini alle Muse, perc~ relativi al culto delle Cariti e di Apollo". Cf. e.g. fr. l.2lff.; fr. 114; h. 2.105ff. and 4.177; la. fr. 203.1. See P. Handel, Beobachtungenzw epischen Techni/cdes ApolloniosRhodios (7.etemaJa7), Mllnchen 1954, 50. Whether or not these stories were thus arranged because the Argonautic theme in itself had a certain programmatic value, apart from the role of Apollo, is not certain. Awvucou Cf. Ps.-Apollod. 1.8.1 (Dcianeira was a daughter of Oeneus) ;jv 'AA.8aiav Aiyouctv i1c: 7£VViicat; Satyrus FGrH 631 F l; Hyg. Fab. 129; on the relation between Dionysus and Althaea cf. also Noon. D. 48.554. In B. 5.165ff. Dcianeira seems to be regarded as a daughter of Oeneus. Cf. e.g. Theoc. 17.13ff. (and Gow on Theoc. 17.26); Salyrus FGrH 631 F l; and perhapsCall. fr. 780. See further P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford 1972, 1, 44f., 202f. and 666; A.W.

TilE STRUCTUREOF TilE AEf/A

103

Heracles in these stories in the Aetia varies. In the story of the Lindian fanner (fr. 22-3) he seems to be a glutton, who behaves badly to the fanner by killing his ox and enjoying his meal while the farmer is scolding him from a distance19. In the story of Heracles and Thiodamas (fr. 24-5) the emphasis is different and the bad impression is, as it were, corrected: here Heracles asks Thiodamas for food for his starving son Hyllus and only when Thiodamas refuses offensively Heracles kills his bull and feeds his son (thus-one might infer--preventing the early extinction of the line of descendants which eventually produced the Ptolemies). The sequel of the story concerns Heracles' defeat of Thiodamas and the Dryopes, who start a war in which Deianeira is anned to help Heracles, and the civilization of the Dryopes, whom Heracles moves to the Peloponnese, thus putting an end to their career as brigands 20 • Thus the second story offers a different and more flattering picture ofHeracles than the first, while at the same time containing elements which point to his status as ancestor of the Ptolemies21. After the aitia devoted to Heracles we lose track of the organization of the first book of the Aetia, but even as it is we may conclude that Callimachus seems to have chosen and grouped his aitia with care, providing his major work with a programmatic statement at its beginning.

3. The structure of the first part of the Aetia and the Argonautica The arrangement and subjects of the aitia in the early part of book 1 of the Aetia will be the starting-point of an investigation into the arrangement of similar stories and reminiscences22 of Callimachus in Apollonius23.

19 20

21 22 23

Bulloch, Callimacluu. The fifth hymn, Cambridge 1985, 12f. and on h. 5.35-42; L. Koenen, Eint agonistische lnschrift aus Agypttn und frahptoltmilischt KIJnigsftstt (Btitr.z./class.Phil. 56), Meisenheim 19n, 80ff. On the treatment of Heracles in the Victoria Btrtnicts see now Th. Fuhrer, Die Auseinandersetzwrg mit den Chorlyrilctrn in den Epini/ciendes Kallimachos, Basel/Kassel 1992, 107ff. Fardetailssee Pfeiffer (n. 1), ad loc. For details see Pfeiffer (n. 1), ad loc. and especially I A.R. l.1213ff.; on Deianeira's role in the battle against the Dryopes see also Nonn. D. 35.89ff. In h. 3.161f. Heracles appears as a glutton confronting Thiodamas. Speculations as to the exact relation between this passage, the passage in the Attia and A.R. 1.121 lff. seem rather futile. Forthe purpose of this article I use the word reminiscence in the chronologically neutral sense of a passage in one author which reminds us, his modern readers, of another author. For the dating of Apollonius the only fixed point is that he was librarian until 246 BC when Ptolemy Ill Euergetes appointed Eratosthenes as his successor; see R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, Oxford 1968, 140ff. We do not know whether this also meant the end of his literary activity at Alexandria. For the relative dating of the Attia and Argonautica we have almost no external evidence. The remark Kalliµaxou o C'tixoc (i.e. fr. 12.6) in the scholion on A.R. l.1309 icai.'tciµh, cix:i\µeUt µt'ta xpovov EIC'ttAfrc8ai is regarded as the only external evidence. This line, hete used in a context which has nothing to do with Callimachus, is varied in A.R. 4.1216 in

104

HARDER

With regard to the treatment of the Muses in the first two books of the Argonautica, it should be noticed that the Muses are mentioned only briefly in l.22f., and the presentation of the story-a description of the journey of the Argonauts in periplus-style--rests quite explicitly in the hands of the narrator 24• In this respect the narrative situation is comparable to that in Aetia 3 and 4, where the Muses no longer play an important part and the presentation of the stories is in the hands of 'Callimachus' or other, fictional, characters. Books 3 and 4 of the Argonautica on the other hand each begin with an invocation of the Muscs 25 , which may be comparnd to the emphasis on the role of the Muses in the first two books of the Aetia. This applies in particular to A.R. 4.1 ff.

aimt vvv 1CUJ1U't0V ye, 8ro, 1eal &,vro lCOUpt'IC Ko)..x{&c £VV£1t£ Mooca, dtoc 't£1COC. ~ yap tµoty£ aµcpad111v6octv~OV EA.lCC£'tat where the prominent placing of mhri seems to stress the activities of the Muse in a way which contrasts with the emphasis on the narrator's role in A.R. 1. lff.2 6 , whereas the sequel draws attention to the helplessness of the narrator 27 • The absence of the Muses in

24

25 26

27

the same context as in Callimachus and in 4.1764 (cf. Handel [n. 16), 41). The scholiast's comment, however, does not necessarily imply that Callimachus was imitated by Apollonius and does not justify conclusions about both works as a whole. Reminiscences of passages of Callimachus in Apollonius in different parts of his work have been regarded as internal evidence; cf. fr. 18.5-7 and A.R. 1.8; 1.41 lff. and 4.170lff.; fr.7.27ff. and A.R. 3.579ff. and 4.228ff. See further e.g. Hllndel (n. 16), 5lf.; Pfeiffer (n. I), 2, XLlf.; G.O. Hutchinson, lletlenistic Poetry, Oxford 1988, 86ff. (who adds that Callimachus' tendency to use the work of local historians makes it unlikely that he used the poeUy of Apollonius). This evidence, tenuous though it is, hasbeen thought to point to Apollonius using Callimachus rather than vice versa. For the opposite view see F. Wehrli, "Apollonios von Rhodos und Kallimachos", Hermes 16, 1941, 14-21. Cf. A.R. 1.2 µv~coµa\, 20 µu811ca£µ11v, 23 µv11cwµ£8a. This may also account for the rather t1£V cioim;c. Although the word hasbeen puzzling VffOCl"ltOpEc in A.R. 1.22 Mouta\ 6' i>nO(l)'lltopEC taken to mean 'inspirers' (cf. e.g. Theoc. 16.29 Mo\Ca!&>V ... i>ncxp~tac with Gow ad loc.), others (e.g. Handel [n. 16), 10 n. 2 and M. Fusillo, II tempo de/le Argonaltliche, Roma 1985, 365f.) rightly insist on taking the word in its normal sense of 'interpreters' and regard it as a deliberate variation of the Homeric situation. See also Eichgruen (n. I), 105ff.; on the use of the first person singular G. Williams, Tradition aNt Originality in Roman Poetry, Oxford 1968, 36f. See for this idea R.L. Hunter, "Medea's flight: the fourth book of the Argonautica", CQ 37, 1987, 129-39, esp. 134. It may be worth adding here that the overall structure of A.R. 1-4, in which books I, 2, and 4 are full of aitia, whereas in 3 the love-story of Medea is prominent, seems to bearsome resemblance to that of the Aetia, where book3 contains the love-stories of Acontius and Cydippe (fr. 67-75) and Phrygius and Pieria (fr. 80-3). As we do not know exactly how long and how prominent these stories were in the Aetia we cannot infer too much from this. On aitia in Apollonius see Eichgruen (n. 1), 97ff; Fraser (n. 18), 627ff.; Fusillo (n. 24), 116ff.; Hutchinson (n. 23), 93ff.; T.M. Paskiewicz, "Aitia in the second book of Apollonius' Argonautica", /CS 13, 1988, 57-61; M. Valverde Sanchez, El aition en /as Argonaltlicas de Apolonio de Rodas, Murcia 1989. See E. Livrea, Apollonii Rhodii Argonauticon liber quartus, Firenze 1973, ad loc.

THE STRUCI1JRE OF THE AEf/A

105

A.R. 1 is compensated for to a certain extent in l.24ff., where the first hero in the catalogue of Argonauts is Orpheus, the son of the most important of the Muses, Calliope, who tells the story of the Argonauts in Callimachus' Aetia. As for the Charites, there is no direct reference to them in Apollonius, but the end of theArgonautica is reminiscent of the end of the first aition in theAetia. A.R. 4. l 773ff.

il.cx't' ap\C'ti\ec28, µaicapc.ov yevoc· aY6e 6' ao16al

£; £'t£0C yAUICepo>'ttpatelevaei6etv tic £'tOC av8p0>1tO\C contains a fonnal ending in which an address of the heroes is coupled with a request for lasting fame. This pattern is similar to that of fr. 7. l 3f.: in both cases an element of the hymnic style29 is transferred to a narrative work:30.The word yAuicepO>'ttpat recalls the Callimachean ideal mentioned in fr. 1.11 and 1631. Thus a reminiscence of Callimachus' treatment of the Charites at the beginning of the Aetia may be detected at the opposite end of the Argonautica. This arrangement recalls the treatment of the invocations of the Muses in the Aetia and Argonautica: invocations of the Muses as well as of characters in the stories (Charites/Argonauts) appear at contrasting points in the works in passages of programmatic interesL As for Apollo we have to look at Apollonius' treatment of the story of Apollo Aegletes at Anaphe and the similarities and differences between his treatment and that of Callimachus. First we must consider Call. fr. 7 .23ff.: Ai1YAT1't1'1V L'Ava1cp11vu, Aaiccovi6t yehova 8LTlPTJl, n:]p~[ov evl µ]vftµ111ica't9eo ical M1vuac, CXLPXµtvocox: 1 i;pcoec ax' Aifttao Kutaiou J £1tAeovAiµovi11v · a-one r.cciPX"ai11v Here Callimachus is asked by Calliope to remember first of all one of the last adventures of the Argonauts on their return journey. He begins the story of Anaphe with lines which recall A.R. l.lff.: 28

29 30

31

On the lext, containing Fraenkel's cip1criitc, see F. Vian, Apollonios de Rhodes, Argonautiqru:s. Paris 1974-81, ad loc.; the manuscript-reading ciplCt'iJmvis defended by Livrea (n. 27), ad loc. er. e.g. It.Hom. 6.19f. (to Aphrodite) x11ip' H,uco~Mq,o'iJ3e n:aA.atyevwv dta Cj)(l)'t(OV µvitcoµat 01 IT6vtOlO ICQ't(lC'tOµa ical 6ta n:i'tpac Kuaviac l3actA.11oc£tp11µocuvTttITdiao XPUC£lOVµ.eta IC(OQC ru~uyov itAacav 'Apyro The differences and similarities between the two passages may be described as follows: (1) in Apollonius the narrator declares his own intentions, whereas in Callimachus similar words arc used by the Muses in an order addressed to the narrator, cf. µVT)coµat and tvl µ]VT)µTllICµe.c8a hymn itself, Z11voc £Ol ti 1C£VclU.o. Then Apollo: poet's god follows king's god (n.b. esp. h. 1.70-2, 78f.). Better not forget his sister (h. 3.1 ou yap £MXcppovael66vte.ccl ).a8f.c8ai-dangerous not just for singers, as Oineus and many others could testify, and as the poem variously reminds). The hymn to the island (unthinkable without Pindar) reverts to Apollo (the twin births being consistently kept in strict segregation), but also to Z.Cus,inasmuch as Leto's pre-natal troubles (contra h. 3.24f.!) are a counterpart to Rhea's post-natal ones, and Ptolemy is brought to the fore in both poems (climaxing h. 1, occupying the ccnter of h. 4). Hymns 3 and 4 form a structural pair by virtue of their length and their disjointed tail sections 7• The Athena and Demeter hymns are marked off from the rest and linked to each other by their dialect, and by their each featuring a crime-andpunishment tale enclosed within a ritual frame, and they clearly form a pair!. The Demeter hymn (unlike the Delos one) hardly balances the Z.Cusone, though, even if she too was bornof Rhea,so the best way to view the collection might be as 4 + 2, but the sheer length of the central two suggests a more symmetrical architectonics. The Hymns are not formally framed as the lambs and Aetia are, but just as in the lambs the more deviant poems (those that inttoducc elements novel to the genre) come only in the wake of the more orthodox ones, so in the Hymns the elegiac and doric ones(= the ones without yova{) come at the back not at the front The Z.Cushymn may be the first, but it is also the shortest Perhaps Z.Cusno less than Apollo knows to judge cocp{aby ttXVTtand not by the Persian chain, but he is not known for artistic subtlety or small-scale activities, and there is something inherently anomalous about a poet of Callimachus' principles singing the god of thunder, the ael µeyav (2, and n.b. 3 £MX'ri\pa in light of Pi. 0. 4.1 e).antp u1t£ptat£ j3povtiic). It's an anomaly that the poem acknowledges and exploits. The bulk of the poem is expended on the Z.Cus' birth and infancy, crisply settling the competing claims of Arcadia and Crete for the birth and settling down to a detailed account of what was done with the newborn infant Z.Cus'role is entirely passive; no Herakles-like exploits in the cradle for him. Moving on to his 6

Bornmann(n. 4), xvif.

7

FurtherP. Bing, The Well-ReadMv.se,GOttingen 1988, 126f. n. 57. FurtherN. Hopkinson, Callimachus: Hymn to De~ter, Cambridge etc. 1984, 13-7 ("each is to be read in the light oflhe other", 13: I would extend this to all six).

8

116

HASLAM

en

childhood, the poem promisingly proclaims all' xai6voc wv bppciccao xciv'ta 'tWla (57), but gives no details (contrast the childhood exploits of the next two hymns), and proceeds forthwith to his installation in Heaven, insisting that he did not get Olympus by lot, as lying singers of old told9, but by violence, and leading on to flattery of Ptolemy. So far the poem has given a straightforwardly chronological biography. 2'.eus is now in power: great things will follow. In the hymn's opening sentence 2'.eus was characteriud as 'driver of the Pelagonians [i.e. router of the ?mudbom=?giantsntitans], justice/punishment-dealer to the Uranids [?=Cyclopes]'. But if more was expected, the poem fails to deliver. Instead, it abruptly bids the big god a big farewell (91), xaipt µ.iya Kpovi6ttandas if admitting that the hymn has rather short-changed its addressee (Du-Stil since 6) by not dealing with his lpya, defensively asks 'Who could?' (92 'tta 6' epyµa'ta dc ictv ad6ot;), a rhetorical question it actually proceeds to answer. Whereupon the sign-off is reaffirmed (94 xaipt xa'ttp, xaip' at>8t), accompanied by concluding prayer for blessings (moral and material). The explanation offered for the break-off is usually taken at something like face value. A poem on 2'.eus' £pya would after all be a very long one, witness A.B. Cook, and so at variance with Callimacheanism. Now of course programmatic aversion to 'big' poems is implicit (as it becomes explicit in the next hymn), but let's not kill the effect. The justification for cutting the poem short can claim to be praise, purports to be such ('Your deeds arc just too much for any singer, almighty one'). As always, Callimachus covers his ass 0eaving the door open for pietist readings like P.M. Fraser's). But it just doesn't hold up. It may fool 2'.eus, but it doesn't fool us, or shouldn't. It's a subterfuge; we recognize it (or not) for what it is, a bold-faced inversion of one of the most conventional motifs of praise-poems, the embarrassment of riches that provides the poet with ample choice from the myriad routes open to him. A poet may profess momentary uncertainty over his choice of route, but it is unthinkable that he should actually walk away from what he has undertaken, defeated by the magnitude of his task. The next poem, honouring a more congenial god, wastes little time in restoring the norm and exposing the hollowness of its temporary abandonment: EC'tlyap ruuµvoc· tlC av OUpEa cJ>oi~v ad6ot; (2.31). The Apollo hymn, despite proclaiming that the chorus' song will go on for days on end (30), is not much longer, and is terminated even more abruptly. But even though the god's major attributes arc disposed of within the space of four lines (43-6: archery [though connected with the paean, 20-4, 97-104], song [to be returned to!], prophecy, medicine) it conveys no sense of stopping short of its target, and it comes bearing on its tail Apollo's personal stamp of approval, in the form of his exchange with Pthonos. That exchange comes after the ill ill 1taiflov(a) section (97-104), which gives some impression of 9

Lines 60-7 function formally as a kind of footnote, justifying (and signalling, cf. Pi. 0. 1) the unonhodoxy of the preceding statement. The poet rejects the Homeric account (just as scholars faulted certain Homeric passages) on grounds of its implausibility: in' icai111 yapcourE I it11>..ac8a1 (63f.). Nobody seems to blink at this, but isn't it patently untrue? What lottery ever had pri:zesOf equalworth? lj/EU6o(µT)V a(ov'tOC a KEY ltE!t\80lEV aKO\l1JV forsooth!

CALLIMACHUS' HYMNS

117

rounding off the poem inasmuch as it is ring-compositional (21), and the segregation of the fable is completed by the startling reversion to third person (matched at the other end by return to direct address of the god), coupled with stark introduction of a personified emotion, quite alien to Callimachus' normal style. It stands in isolation as total as any partof-a-whole can, its relation to the rest of the poem left as unstated as that of Apollo's retort to Pthonos within itlO, and the poet's closing prayer for Momos only compounding the lack of explicitness. The indirectness is typical of Callimachus, and this particular image-the poet under attack, pugnaciously defending himself against malignant critics by wheeling out Apollo in person to commend his kind of poetry-is precisely what he conjures up in the Attia prologue (cf. Respublica's address to Cicero in Cat. l); the poet aligns himself with Apollo by aligning Apollo with him (cf. American politicians and The American People). But whereas in the elegy it was the poet himself whom the god addressed, here in the hymn the special relationship between poet and divine patron (and here client) is more obliquely affirmed. Not that anyone can miss the implied equation between what Apollo said the bees take to Deo and 'the sort of poem this is/the sort of poetry I write': distance doesn't mean obscurity. And for all its segregation, we must recognize that the section is an integral part of the poem, making an issue of the hymn's diminutiveness and belligerently framing the terms in which that is to be consbUed. If the Artemis hymn keeps going on beyond where it seemed to be running down, that may be at least partly because the Zeus hymn did the opposite, and also perhaps, within the terms of the text, as insurance against the bard's incurring the goddess' wrath if he treat her brother better than her. Artemis offers less material for hymning than either Zeus('?) or Apollo, and it is in line with Callimachus' modernist upsetting of the proper proportional relations of things that she gets more space. Delos offers less material than any god, with but a single claim to fame--when the 'which of the myriad stories to choose from'?' motif is applied to her (28f., ostentatiously, < h.Ap.20-5, cf. 207ff.), its fraudulence is transparent. No prizes for guessing which hymn is the longest. The Delos hymn repairs the omission of Apollo's birth from the Apollo hymn; and it is here that the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, little more than glanced at there (Pytho + etymon-of something else), comes into its own. Artemis herself could not be shut out more completely, receiving mention only in a simile (Iris sat like one of Artemis' hounds, 229); she will return in the next hymn, as a paradigm for Athena. Excluded along with her is Ortygia, her birthplace in the Homeric Hymn, often identified with Delos despite the Homeric Hymn's separation of the two 11• Callimachus' 10

Pthonos' line makes no sense (that is, no sense appropriate to the context), and it may be corrupt. To read for ou6' hardly helps: ncxi6tc for novtoc (A.H. Griffiths)? The alternative-not unthinkable?-is to allow him a nonsensical criticism. Callimachus presumably had Apelles' ~+i..; in mind (cf. Luc. Cal. 5): Apollo is no Bigears. By Callimachus himself in the Aetia, fr. 18.7, cf. h. 2.59, where perhaps more equivocal. Earlier Pi. Pae. 7b, er.Phanodemus ap. Ath.9.47 = 325 F 2 Jacoby. Cf. Od. 5.123, S. Tr. 213 ~AptEµw '(}p'tU"flClV.

oux

11

118

HASLAM

hymn suppresses Ortygia (though it cannot have been easy to resist the blandishment of quails), but gives us Asteria instead-merging Homer with Pindar. The elaborately executed fantasy of every place taking to its heels at Leto's approach is Callimachcan extrapolation from the Homeric Hymn, a metaphor extravagantly reified (hAp. 47f. ai. 6t µci).' e-tp6µrov 1Cal t6ti61cav, ou6e tlC etA.TtI 4>oiPov 6el;ac8a1, + the preceding catalogue) 12. The importation of Asteria, evidently from Pindar (Hymn l(?), fr.33cd Sn [c6 cictpov]; Pae. 5, cf. 7b), contributes an image to complement Leto: little Asteria floating free (35f., 53), borne wherever wind and wave may take her (192-4), her haphazard movements contrasting both with labouring Leto and with fleeing islands; Asteria who successfully evaded Zeus' attentions (38), Leto pregnant with his son and harassed by his wife (56f., 215, etc.) 13. Both protagonists arc on the move; and sooner or later, the myth declares and the hymn must ratify, their paths will cross. The occasion is built up to as a classic climax, emotively culminating in Asteria's magnificent invitation (203f.): "HPTt,tout6 µ£ pel;ov, otot q,U.Ov·OUyap (XJC£\A.CXC I i>µetepac tcpUA , and is splendid when it comes: i't0>xexp0>µevov ~µap (128 [meaning?]). His actual invitation, his last line, is hardly less magnificent than Asteria's (132): iivi6' iym·ti xepicca; Ka).ei µ6vov EU:1181.llav. 'Quid plura? Just summon Eileithuia'. But for someone who knows the Homeric Hymn, where Eileithuia is detained from attendance on Leto in labour for nine days and nights (hAp. 90-116), response to this cannot be pure. Obtaining Eileithuia may not be quite so simple a matter as Peneios perhaps imagines. M6vov is delectable. The effect is at least partly one of dramatic irony. We are in possession of privileged information, by virtue not of what the poet has told us but of this hymn's predecessor hymn. The poem is continually playing the Homeric Hymn off against itself, no less than Rosencrantz and

12

13

See A.W. Bulloch, ''The Future of a Hellenistic Illusion", MH 41, 1984, 209-30, who offers a psychoanalytical interpretation of such characieristically Callimachean behavior. I chose the word fantasy with tpav'tada in mind. This corresponds to what F. Williams (this volume) calls surrealism. ASleria's rejection ofZ.Cus enables what will be the biggest para prosdolcianin the poem; Hera's nonanger against her after she accommodates Leto (244, after the build-up of 215-43!). The paradox is ~\OC6' cxv8££At't0KOV'tOVI). explicated, with flourish (247f. OUVElC'EJ,1£ioI 6iµv1ov OUK[1t1X't11CE, That still leaves her anger against Leto (n.b. 55-8): acknowledged and resolved with an insouciant wave of the wand (259 ou6' "Hp11vtµic,,cEV, t1td-:x6).ov i~iA.t'toZcic!).

CALLIMAOIUS' HYMNS

119

Guiltunstern plays Hamlet14.I do not see the relationship as polemical, or even as one of challenge 15. Rather the Homeric Hymn, The Birth of Apollo, is something that is there, a constant presence behind the text, an icon with power (as distinct from the gods themselves, mere icons), liable at every moment to make its presence actively felt. The reference to Eileithuia here docs more than draw attention to the difference between this hymn's version and that one's1 6• Its effect in context is to complicate still further our response to the narrative, already coping with the theatricality and the unreality of the characters. There is a counterpoint between what's going on in the narrative's own terms (Callimachus' poem qua The Birth of Apollo) and what's going on when the earlier hymn is activaled (Callimachus' poem qua The Return of the Birth of Apollo), and unless we can follow both simultaneously we are pulled between the one and the other. We can read it 'straight', i.e. as a self-sufficient closed system, or we can read it as nothing but mischief; but either way is reductive. 1be challenge is to keep one's balance. It is not only interplay with earlier literature that generates this sort of interpretive tension. The nobility of Peneios' offer meets with matching nobility from Leto: cco,eo xaipcov I cml;eo (150f.). In a poem whose operations are so much more sophisticated than they lay claim to being, surely we do not need to suppress consciousness of the absurdity of the situation this brings about-Leto refusing the haven she has so earnestly craved: if this is how she is going to behave, how will she ever find a place to give birth? How, one may wonder, will her eventual acceptance of Asteria be motivated? (There is xapltoc l>i to\ aµolP,,, too, at the end of her speech, 'I'll find a way to repay you [or, to repay you for your kindness]', which has to set off thoughts of Peneios' future history.) And if Pencios' offer was para prosdokian, so too is Lcto's rejection of it: despite Ares' show of force Peneios stood firm and stayed (aor.!) his swift eddies (149}-eic6Ke oi. Kou1lc tKideto nA. But of course this is artificial. We know her destination is Delos, and suspension of disbelief docs not come into it. Callimachus does not go as far as Euripides sometimes does in malcing the inevitable seem about to be avoided or the impossible about to happen, but his poems always preclude ingenuousness in accepting their ostensible postulates. When Peneios stays his streams, we are aware that this jeopardises the plot.

eccer'

14

15 16

Comparethe Demeter hymn, h. 6, whose narrative is a displaced version of \he Homeric Hymn. The theme of the Homeric Hymn is evoked (9, 12, 15f.) only IO be vehemently rejecled as unsuitable for a hymn (17 µ11µ11'tlXU'tan>..!), but contact with the Homeric Hymn is not severed. We have a wood-cutter (h.Cer. 229 ot&x-yapav'ti'toµov µi-yacpipupov i>M"toµoio-indeed she docs!), a muchpraycd-for son (1to>..u8tcu 47 - h.Cer. 220 ito>..u«pTJ'tOC), a Demeter who first disguises and then reveals herself, >..iµocby way of divine vengeance (66[t) and '!Melissa (50}-all('!) daughters of Melisseus (cf. [Apollod.J 1.1.6-7); preCallimachean tradition is out of reach. Perhaps it does not matter too much. We can still recognh:e the ~liai-melissai connexion (ash-trees producing honey prior to the genesis of bees), and appreciate the nicely modulated way it is effected (47-50 M£Aia1 ... milk ... exl 6£ YAUK'U lC'flP\OVel3pCllC.I YEV'tOyap i;a1nva'ia 1tavaicp{6oc epya µ/M£A.tCC'flC);the figure is immediately repeated (52-4 Koi>p'fl't£Cc£ ... cro icoup{,ov'toc) 20• The young god's phenomenally fast growth (55f.) resumes the narrative of the Theogony (492f.). 19

20

Not qllite the next saage: the swaddling momentarily intervenes, 33. In Hesiod it is the substitute stooe tha1is swaddled, Th. 485, directly after the hiding in the cave. Callimachusejects the stone and normalizesthe sequence. The Hesiodic text reads as if it is Gaia not Rhea who does the hiding and theswaddling. What does otAa in 52 mean? (The sentence goes: otAa 6£ KolipTJ'ttC CE1tEplnpllAlVci>Pxitcav'to I 'tElJXEaKE7tATJYOV'tEC.) McLennan (G.R. McLennan, Callimachus: Hymn to Zeus, Roma 1977, 85f.) seems to recognize that this is a question that (while the text intertextually insists on its being asked) not only can not but should not be given a definite answer, but he spoils this by pronouncing "What seems clear, however, is that otAa goes with ci>px11cav't0", in the face of Homeric ot)..ov KEKATJ""fOV'tEC. What should be clear is tha1what it goes with is no more clear than what it means. The text allows it to be taken with ci>px11cav't0,or with KEKATJyovuc,or for that matter with 'ttlJXEa(for why must it be adverbial?). The iext evades the question of its own meaning even as it raises iL This is just one example of Callimacheanre-creation of the son of exegetic problems (both semantic and syntactic) that attended the Homeric texts-inherently insoluble.Attempts to determine e.g. whether o6' civiiKoocat h. 4.116 is spoken by Leto or the narrator, or who answers the question to the Nymphs at h. 4.83 (or indeed just what the answer means: "open to only one interpretation", Mineur) are analogously misdirected. It is obviously a bad thing to disambiguate what the text does

122

HASLAM

When it's a matter of Hesiodic or Homeric data, no signposting is necessary. Lexical triggers may be given, but the texts have canonical status, and familiarity with them (the major Homeric Hymns included) is assumed. More recondite sources may receive identification as such. The story of Acontius and Cydippe is the prime example, with the local antiquarian named at the end of it. In Hymn 5, To the Bathing of Pallas, we have the story of the blinding of Teiresias: heralded at the outset, µu8oc 6' ouic iµoc all' et£pCOv (56). It's not the nonnal (Hesiodic) version, but one we happen to know was told by Pherecydes (someone who has a much stronger presence in Callimachus than we can trace}21• Acconiing to this version, Teiresias' offence was to have seen the goddess naked, as she was skinnydipping with his mother, Chariclo2 2 . When his mother begged her to restore his sight, she said she couldn't, but gave him compensatory gifts, comprehension of bird-language and a comel staff. We have only a summary of Pherecydes' account, but we can see that Callimachus followed it closely. Athena's speech to Chariclo, constituting nearly a quarter of the poem, is a consolatio---the very model of a modem consolatio. To exculpate herself she adduces the laws of Kronos regarding people who see gods against their (the gods') will (98-102); to explain the irrevocability of the blinding she adduces the fact that it was so fated at the moment she gave him birth (103-6). Whether any of this cuts any ice with the distraught Chariclo (or with her son-but he had only a walk-on part) we are not told. As exemplum for Chariclo the goddess adduces the mother of Actaeon: her son too will be punished for the same offence, when he catches sight of Artemis bathing, but his punishment will be harsher, feasted on by his own hunting-dogs and his bones scattered over the hillside. Six great couplets are devoted to impressing upon Chariclo the comparative lightness of her son's punishment How many sacrifices will Actaeon's parents make to see their son blind

21

not We risk overinterpreting Callimachus not by reading more than is there, but by reading less, by attempting to delimit meaning in defiance of the text's sedulously contrived ambivalences. (It is rather different with Vergil, but cf. e.g. At:n. 6.401 t:xsangut:s tt:rrt:at umbras [descriptive or proleptic'?J, 4.664 sparsasqut: manus [outspread or blood-spattered'?]-more typically, because imagistically integrated, 668, rt:sonatmagnisplangoribusat:ther.) 3 F 92 Jacoby: [Apollod.) 3.6.7 (marred by a lacuna), plus a defective snippet given by IT Od. 10.493.

22

In Hippocrene, in Callimachus (71 I 'fanco enl 1epavm 'EAi1ecovi61),but perhaps not in Pherecydes. i.v Apollodorus is in lacuna at the relevant point, the Homeric scholium breaks off at M>UOJ1£V11V tii'11(what follows is irrelevant to Pherecydes, I believe): if reliance can be put on the tcin, a river rather than a spring seems indicated. Callimachus looks to the Tht:ogony prologue (6-7, I;\ 'i1t1tou K"f>TIVllC •••I a1epotatco1 'EA11emvi-n.b. the justification for Callimachus' hiatus before 'EA11ecovi61, oddly missed by Bulloch), Hippocrene being the most mythologically resonant of the Heliconian Muses' bathing-spots (cf. At:tia prologue and epilogue. fr. 2.1, fr. 112.6). Helicon invariably recalls the Muses in CallimachuS--Overtly at h. 4.82, where Leto's arrival there triggers a blatantly narration-interrupting question of the Muses by the poet ( ... i,x:,wt: xaiTTJv I ct:1oµtV11v'EAi1emvoc. - eµal(!) 8t:al t:inatE Moucm, ~ />'euov ... ;)-as if the story's arrival at the word Helicon presents the poet with just too good an opponunity to pass up.

CALLIMACHUS' HYMNS

123

(107-9)'? Chariclo should count herself lucky: Actaeon's mother 'will say you were oll3ic't11and roaicov' (117). Callimachus has pulled out all the stops here. As rhetoric it is terrific stuff, but in terms of a real human situation it is positively sick, even sicker than the Thetis and Niobe exempla in the Apollo hymn. Not everyone likes this. Bulloch comments that it goes "almost beyond the limit of acceptability" (one wonders what it would take to go actually beyond the limit), and elaborates: ''To Callimachus' discredit, Athena verges on the extreme of rhetorical exaggeration, almost to the point of undermining her own credibility" 23• In other words, it is in poor taste. But is anything to be gained by rapping the poet over the knuclclcs for showing inadequately good taste'? Matthew Arnold's sister once told of her brother's being "stretched at full length on the sofa, reading a Christmas talc of Mrs Gaskcll's which moves him to tears and the tears to complacent admiration of his own scnsibility''24. Callimachus is no Mrs Gaskell, nor yet a Matthew Arnold, and critics have no business wishing that he were. Surely it's time to shed these lingering vestiges of the sort of attitude that led M.M. Gillies to splutter that the Argonauts' unanimous choice of Heracles over Jason to lead their expedition in Apollonius' epic was "an insult to the dignity of the hero" (as indeed it is) 25 • If we come to these poems prepared to take them as we find them, we shall recognize that their affectiveness is continuously destabilized, both by their obtrusive stylization and by their intenextuality. The presence of the poet is forever making itself felt, ironizing his characters and his situations even-indeed, especially-at their most emotive points 26• We are not supposed to 'believe' in them. The version of the Actaeon story told here, according to which Actaeon unwittingly caught sight of Anemis bathing, is of course a double of the Teiresias story which embeds it. But since it is not attested earlier than this very poem, it is often supposed that Callimachus made it up, that he doctored the traditional form of the myth precisely for the sake of the parallelism 27 • This seems to me out of the question, for at least two reasons. First, this sort of ad hoe tailoring of paradigms to make them better fit their context may be characteristic of Homer, but it runs counter to all we know of Callimachus' mythopoeic habits to imagine that finding nowhere any tradition that Actaeon's offence was to have seen Artemis bathing (whether inadvenently or voyeuristically) he nonetheless took it into his head to fabricate a paradigm for Teiresias by assigning his offence to Actaeon. Secondly, the story self-evidently belonged to Actaeon and Anemis before it was 23

24 25 26

27

A.W. Bulloch, Callimachus: the Fifth Hymn, Cambridge 1985, 219, 220. A reviewer singled out Bulloch'sview of this passage for commendation: "B. is not blind to occasional weaknesses (e.g. 107-18)" (W.G. Amou, LCM 10, 1985, 142). I have shamelessly stolen this from M. Lynn-George's stimulating review of J. Griffin's Homer on life and tkalh in JHS 102, 1982, 239-45. M.M. Gillies, The Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius, Book 1/1, Cambridge 1928, xix. This applies to the gods themselves, of course. II is at the points where the gods are most active that the poet's control is most ostentatiously in evidence. They have the autonomy of Punch and Judy. Cf. A. Henrichs' paper in the present volume. Most influentially H. Kleinknecht, "AOYTPA THC nAAAA60C", llermes 14, 1939, 336f.

124

HASLAM

transferred to Tciresias and Athena. A nymph-attended goddess, bathing in a mountain spring, disturbed by a young hunter: roles custom-made for Artemis and Actaeon, and crcakingly uncomfortable for Athena and Teircsias2B. Callimachus had authority for both stories. What is original to him is his bringing the two together. It is just the same with the larger components of the poem, the Teircsias myth itself and the ceremony which encloses it, the ritual washing of the Argive Palladium. Some have supposed that the Tciresias talc was in fact the cult myth associated with the Argivc fcsrival 29 , but that too is surely out of the question. Comparison with the Athenian Arrhcphoria and the Cccropidcs myth is ineffectual, for there the connexion is aetiological, the focus of the myth and the ritual alike being the casket containing the arrheta, whereas the Tcircsias tale has no such aetiological import--quite apart from the inconvenient fact that it is sited not in the Argolid but on Helicon. It is jullt not the stuff of which cult myths arc made. The talc is a mythological exemplum, and its association with the ritual is not a cultic one but a literary one. Once we rid ourselves of the notion that the Argive wash-and-brush-up ceremony came into Callimachus' hands with the Tcircsias tale already in attendance, we arc free to recognize that once again what Callimachus has done is effect a large-scale callidaiunctura, a piquant juxtaposition if you will. He has taken two quite different Baths of Pallas--thc Argivcpalladium's annual wash in the Inachus (from Hagias/Dercylus Argolics,it seems) andan offbeat version of the blinding of Teiresias not by Hera but by Athena while taking a midday dip in Hippocrenc (from Phcrecydes, it seems}-and brought them together; the two A.OU'tpa IlaA.A.a6oc have to share the title between them (Aco'tpoxoot 1, 15, 't0 A.Oetpov 51: Amo, M.OOV'tO 72-3). He contrives a link between them, making Teiresias' seeing the goddess a negative exemplum for the men of Argos. This link is quite adventitious, as the emphasis on the involuntariness is enough to show (ou1Ce8€Amv52 78 [- 113!]), but it neatly supplies the formal unity that even a hellenistic poem must have. A characteristic sample ofCallimachus' use of objetsrrouves. Though the exemplary import of the Teiresias story is unmistakable (51-3), that is not its express purpose. The tale is told--to young women, not to men-as a way of filling the interval until the goddess emerges. At the start of the poem, her appearance was understood to be imminent (2-3). 'Here she comes now' is a mode of opening that presents some challenge to continuation. The Apollo hymn, which took on the same challenge, resorted to the notion of a chorus to keep the idea afloat (and displaced the eventual epiphany) 30 , but

28 29 30

lbe point was made by von Wilarnowitz, Hel/enistischeDichtung 2, Berlin 1924, 23 (ineffeclUally countered by Bulloch [n. 23], 19). The case is argued most fully by Bulloch (n. 23), 17-25. My disagreement with Bulloch on this and some other matters should not obscure my great admiration for his work. There is an intriguing alter ego relationship between Callimachus' Apollo hymn and the choral Apollo hymn that it images, which thwans attempts to fix the points at which the poem shifts into and out of the latter. (It is interesting to compare e.g. Ep. 15 Pf., which images an existent epitaph; see D. Meyer's paper in this volume. In the hymn, unlike the epigram, the line dividing the two is

CALLIMACHUS' HYMNS

125

the Lavacra Palladis sustains it differently. There are no singers, and the voice is single throughout31. When after thiny-two verses Athena has still not appeared, she is summoned: e;t8' 'A8ava£a· itapa tot Kata8uµtoc i.A.a(33, Du-Stil first here); again ten lines later: e;t8' 'A8ava£a ... (43); and again twelve lines later: itO't\ll' 'A8ava(a, ro µh, e;t8t-'you come out, and meanwhile (µocta-until you do) I'll tell these women a story'. There is a droll quality to this, and the mimetic illusion is punctured. The fiction is formally sustained (ta'ic6e), but its status as fiction is laid bare, and it's clear that the goddess will now have to wait until the story's over; the timing is under the poet's control32. Sure enough, once the tale is told, £PXet' 'A8ava£a vuv chpedc (137), 'for real this time', and with the ensuing xa'ipe (140, 141) we encounter again that son of splitlevel COrTelationof the situational and the generic that we noted at the outset of the Anemis hymn, for it does double duty r-,s ceremonial greeting and hymnic sign-off, Hail and Farewell. The Hymns, it goes without saying, are literary texts 33. To call them religious is simply to say that they inscribe themselves within the genre. If we ask, Why hymns?, the best answer might be, Why not? There was much mythological material about gods, and generically contextualizing it as hymnic had multiple poetic advantages over more straightforwardly narrative forms of presentation. The birth-and-apetai format of the rhapsodic hymn was well suited for refurbishing the traditional quaint theogonies. Callimachus' generic versatility is matched only by his stylistic sensibility. The lambs rewrite and reanimate iambus (merging Hipponax and Archilochus), the Heca/e does the same for epic, and the Hymns do the same for hymn-Homeric Hymn fundamental, Alcaic (and/or Sapphic) and Pindaric and contemporary hymn assimilated along the way.

31 32 33

blurred.) On the epilogue as epiphany see H. Erbse, "Zurn Apollonhymnos des Kallimachos", Hermes 83, 1955,411-28. It is not female (''presumably an official or priestess", Bulloch [n. 23], 3): a feminine gender would be ruinous (esp. at 55f., irruption of iyw). Cf. n. 26. The µiv seems to me an exceptionally nice touch. He does not pause after c~181to see if she will comply. Catullus 42 (adestt htndtcasyl/ab1) makes an illuminating general comparison. The political dimension, unlike the religious (which is intrinsic), is incidenial-which is not to say it is unimportant. (The absence of Hymns to Aphrodite or to Dionysus is nolable.)

GODS IN ACTION: 11IE POETICS OF DIVINE PERFORMANCE IN 11IE HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS Albert Henrichs

As a hymnic poet praising the gods and their deeds Callimachus revives an old genre and adjusts it to a changed world, to different religious expectations and to a new poetics. Much has been written about the 'religion', the 'religiosity' and even the 'theology' of Callimachus, and more recently about the 'troubled religious perception' suggested by his Hymns 1• But more attention needs to be paid to Callimachus' poetic construction of divinity before we can attempt to answer questions about religious meaning. Instead of asking, What do the gods in Callimachus mean?, I propose to inquire what they do. A basic observation underlies this paper: gods in Callimachus' Hymns are on constant alen and more active than gods in other Greek religious poetry such as the Homeric Hymns, Pindaric epinicia, and tragedy. The intensity of all this divine activity imposes a fast pace on the Hymns and affects their structure; it is often epitomized in action-packed lines, locutions or exhonations such as epya 6e X£tpiov (h. 1.66), ta 8up£tpa 1eaA.ii>t 1to6l Cl>o'il3oc apaCC£l (h. 2.3), aqxxp 6' ci>1tA.iccao,6a'iµov (h. 3.86), xipa xipa de eµe,ATtto'i(h. 4.204), e;t8', 'A8avafo (h. 5.33, 43), and ydvato 6' a. 8d,c (h. 6.57). What I want to investigate are the details of this process: How do Callimachean gods enact their divinity? A concrete investigation of their poetic representation by Callimachus, and of their divine presence in the Hymns, may help us to come to an understanding of why they work so much harder than gods do elsewhere in Greekpoetry. More specifically, I am looking for consistent patterns in Callimachus' presentation of divine action: - the way an epithet is linked to divine powers, either directly or by suggestion; - the connections between ritual performance and poetic performance, and the way ritual is depicted in the poems as a link among the god's actions; - the way Callimachus piles up epithets to generate action patterns for gods; 1

Extremely divergent perceptions or Callimachus' attitude towards 'religion' can be found in A.W. Bulloch, "The Future or a Hellenistic Illusion: Some Observations on Callimachus and Religion", MH 41, 1984, 209-30, quotation on p. 219; A.-J. Festugi~re, "Une religion sans inquietude. Les hymncs de Callirnaque",in A.-J. Festugim (ed.), La vie spirituelle en Grice a I' epoque hellenistique, Paris 19n, 64-71; H. Staehelin, Die Religion des Kallimachos, Diss. Zilrich 1933 (= Tilbingcn 1934). All three studies treat the poet's 'religion' as if it were an autonomous entity separate from his poetics.

128

HENRICHS

-

the use of enumeration, counting, to amplify the status and power of divinity; the way the poet controls the dynamics of divine performance by cutting short a count, in order to emphasize the integration of one god's identity into a larger pattern; - the poet's interest in precocious divine children and adolescents; - his ability to portray epiphany in concrete anthropomorphic terms ('divine footwork'). I have identified and enumerated the various categories of representing divine performance here so that their individual function can be appreciated. In the poems themselves, some of the most striking effects come from the sudden combination of a number of these features at once. What I have particularly emphasized in this paper is the dynamics of divine representation: how busy gods arc doing things in Callimachus. He uses some of the most common poetic procedures, as well as some very innovative techniques, to show them in action. Gods in Callimachus, like the gods of Prodicus, like Hellenistic kings or like Isis in the so-called 'Praises of Isis', have to keep busy and compile a record of unusual, even extraordinary, divine achievement2. Callimachus shows them doing so and achieves his own extraordinary poetic performance in the process.

I. Epithets and Divine Action Divine epithets arc a conventional feature of hymnic style. Callimachus in particular is a master of the art of piling up epithets which praise individual gods by making reference to their genealogy and birthplace (h. 1.4, 91), properties and functions (h. 1.94; 2.11, 47; 3.110, 234, 236), cult-places (h. 2.19, 70; 3.225f., 228, 259), festivals (h. 2.7lf., 80) and honors (h. 1.2, 91; 2.34f.; 3.225, 228, 259, 268; 4.5f., 26f., 316; 5.19, 43f., 53; 6.2=119, 138). By providing instant proof of the 1toA.urovuµi.a (h. 3.7, cf. 2.70) of the gods, the accumulation of divine epithets testifies to the range of their powers and the popularity of their worship.

I.I The majority of divine epithets is designed to suggest aspects of divinity that are germane to the concerns of the Hymns but lie outside their narrative scope. Their function is mainly honorific and encomiastic, and they portray the gods in a static state of divine superiority and achievement (e. g. h. 1.2 ad µtyav, aih, avalC'ta, 4.26 aEl ac-ruq,V..1IC't0C,4.316 1t0Au~roµ£ 1tOA.UA.Al"t£, 5.43 xpuc£01tl1"-T1~).A small but distinctive group of epithets, however, emphasizes concrete aspects of divine performance located either in the mythical past (h. 1.3 ITT1A.ay6vrovV..a-r11pa, 611Cac1t6A.ovOupavi6T1tC1, 3.110 Tt"tUOIC"tOVE, 5.43 1t£pCE1t"tOA.1) or in the indefinite cultic present (h. 1.91f. 6wtop icirov, I oorcop a7tT1µoviT1c, 2.69 ~0T16p6µ10v,3.22 and 4.27 ~0T186oc). Such action-oriented

2

Cf. A. Henrichs, "The Sophists and Hellenistic Religion: Prodicus as the Spiritual Father of the Isis Aretalogies". HSPh 88, 1984. 139-58.

GODS IN ACTION

129

epithets intensify the perfonnative thrust of the Hymns, but they rarely translate into concrete narratives of divine perfonnance.

1.2 In the rare cases in which Callimachus does relate a specific epithet to a particular narrative of divine performance, the poetic articulation of the connection ranges from straightforward aetiology to subtle allusion. Apollo's epithet N6µ1oc (h. 2.47) is followed by a brief aetiological narrative which explains the epithet in terms of the mythical past and of his service to Admetus, and this in turn opens up into a vivid portrait of the god's potent gaze and his power to multiply the herds in the present (48-54). In the next section (55-64), Apollo is praised as the divine builder of cities (55 x6luxc, 56 xoAi£Cct) who laid his first foundations (57, 58, 64 0£µ£0..ta) when he was four years old (below, 6.2). Callimachus does not connect this aspect of Apollo's performance with any epithet; none was available. But the two key words in his narrative suggest that qua hymnic poet Callimachus is appropriating for his Apollo the spheres traditionally circumscribed by epithets like TioAt£UCand 8£µ£>..touxoc, which are reserved for Zeus and Poseidon respectively.

2. Ritual and Epithet The major Homeric Hymns as well as Pindar's epinician odes, hymns and paeans conventionally presuppose or recreate a cultic ambience as a condition of their own perfonnance. Cult hymns from later periods such as Philodamus' Delphic Paean to Dionysus (ea. 340 B.C.) or the Isis hymns of Isidorus (ea. 100 B.C.?) are products of a different religious climate; yet they too recall the cultic settings and performative occasions to which they owe their existence 3 • Unlike their Homeric, Pindaric or Hellenistic counterparts, the Hymns of Callimachus were never performed in a cultic context4. To confonn to the generic convention, Callimachus goes out of his way to simulate the conditions of ritual, cult and collective performance; at the same time, he is anxious to define and sustain his individual identity as an Alexandrian poeta doctus. As Mary Depew and Michael Haslam have argued so well in their contributions to this volume, it is exactly this interplay between age-old generic conventions and a new artistic self-awareness, between 'the anxiety of influence' and the self-assertive stance of an idiosyncratic poet,

3

4

Philodamus of Scarphea, Paian 1-4, 31-6, 105-14, 118-27, 131-40 in L. Kappel, Paian. Studien zw Geschichle einer Gattung (Untersuchungen zw antiun Literatur und Geschichle 37), Berlin/New York 1992, 207-84 and 375-80, and B.L. Rainer, Philodamus' Paean to Dionysus: A Literary Expression of Delphic Propaganda, Diss. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1975; lsidorus, Hymns 2.21-8, 3.28-33, 4.1-6, in V.F. Vanderlip, The Four Greek Hymns of /sidarus and the Cult of Isis (American Studies in Papyrology 12), Toronto 1972. See the discussions in N. Hopkinson, Callimachus: Hymn to Demeter, Cambridge 1984, 32-43 and A.W. Bulloch, Callimachus: The Fifth Hymn, Cambridge 1985, 3-13.

130

HENRICHS

between serious poetic forms and lighter touches that sometimes seem cute or flippant, which gives these Hymns their unique poetic and religious flavor. Much as in real life, ritual performance in Callimachus has to do with solidarity and community, and with fundamental religious institutions such as temple cult (h. 2.77-87; 3.37f., 237-58; the cultic frames of Hymns 2, 5 and 6), animal sacrifice (h. 2.55-64, 78f.; 3.199f., 260f.; 4.316-24; 5.107), first-fruit offerings (h. 4.275-99), processions (Hymns 5 and 6), and the choral dance-song (h. 1.52-4; 2.8, 12, 28-31, 85-7, 93; 3.3, 170-4, 18lf., 240-7, 266f.; 4.79, 279, 3()()..15).By projecting cults and rituals into the imaginary situations of his poems and onto the participants in the narrative events, the poet makes connections between past and present (especially through ritual aetiology: h. 3.197-205; 4.312-5; below, 2.1 and 4.1), between gods and monals (h. 1.70-90; 2.9-16, 25-31; 3.20-5, 122-41; 5.119-30; 6.134f.), and between ritual and poetic performance (h. 2.1731, 69-71, 105-12; 3.134-41; Hymns 5 and 6). In some of the more complex settings, the fiction of ritual performance requires the close cooperation of the divinity, the poet's voice and the collective of imaginary performers-whether singers of the Delphic paean (h. 2), 'bathpourcrs' of Pallas (h. 5) or women celebrants at a festival of Demeter (h. 6)--who function as a projection of the poet's own audience and its ritual expectations. All three components perform simultaneously in the two examples I have chosen for discussion; in both instances ritual refrains and divine epithets reinforce the ritual focalization of the narrative.

. 2.1 In one of the aetiological episodes which make up the narrative core of the Hymn to Apollo (97-104), Apollo's achievement as the divine archer who slays the Pythian serpent functions as a performative instantiation of his common epithet tlal~A.oc, even though the epithet itself is conspicuous by its absence; the audience is expected to supply it (99 £1a113oA.i.t1v provides the clue). The role of the suppressed epithet has been delegated to the 'hymnic refrain' (98 icpuµviov) ii, ii, 1tainov, which frames the narrative at its beginning and end (97, 103f.) and whose origins the narrative purpons to explain. When the people of Delphi saw how Apollo killed the monster by 'shooting one swift arrow after another' (lOlf.), they 'invented' (98 tupeto MOC)a truly performative utterance, the ritual paeancry: ii, ii, xainov, 'iti ~D..oc (103)5• Divine performance is here aetiologically linked to ritual performance; at the same time, the foundation myth is projected into the cultic present of both the unidentified narrator and the projected ritual performers through the use of the narrative first person (97 ii, ii, 1tainov aKOuoµev) and the performative imperative (25 ii, In the three Hymns with cultic frames, first-person statements interrupting ii, cp8eyyec8t). the narrative proper invariably function as focalizers which draw attention to special

5

On Callimachus' aetiology of lhe paean.cry as lhe ritual centerpiece of lhe Hymn see C. Calame (lhis volume), 44-5 and H. Erbse, "Zurn Apollonhymnos des Kallimachos", Hermes 83, 1955, 411-28, repr. in A.D. Skiadas (ed.), Kallimaclws (Wege der Forschung 296), Dannstadt 1975, 276300, at 29lf.

GODS IN ACTION

131

moments of ritual or poetic perfonnance6. Especially in ritual contexts, the first person tends to alternate abruptly with second or third-person ritual personae (h. 2.10-8, 97-104; 5.1-4, 13-7; 6.1-6, 11~33) 7 •

2.2 In the Hymn to Demeter, the interplay between divine epithet, ritual perfonnance and narrator is more allusive. The ritual refrain 6aµa1:ep, µeya xaipt, xolu1:p6cpe 11:ouluµrotµve (h. 6.2=119) frames the narrated myth ofErysichthon and his punishment by Demeter, which fonns the centerpiece of the poem (24-117, cf. 7.2). It is Demeter's power over nourishment that creates Erysichthon's insatiable hunger, and the benefits produced by this power arc highlighted, ironically, in the two epithets that suggest an abundance of food and function as a counterpoint to the narrative. The image of Demeter as Mother Earth and the evocation of her agrarian wealth and abundant nurture provide the ritual antidote to the threat of starvation narrated in the myth 8• Significantly, it is at this juncture, while acting as an intermediary between the imaginary ritual occasion and the mythical past, that the voice of the poet again draws attention to itself by adopting the first person singular (l 16f.). In the closing movement of the hymn, however, as the singular changes to the plural (121, 124, 127), the narrator resumes the function he had at the beginning of thepoemand merges his voice with the collective voice of ritual performance.

3. Piling up Epithets In other cases epithets which arc essentially static nevenheless generate independent narratives emphasizing divine performance. Typically, it is a series of epithets, never just one epithet or two, which triggers such action-patterns. In the most emphatic instances, it is the same adjective that is repeatedanaphorically three, four or five times, as if the poet were exploiting the ritual and psychagogical efficacy of repetition in order to gear himself up for action on behalf of thedivinity, gathering momentum through the accumulative effect of the epithet

6

7

8

M. Depew (this volume), 57 speaks of "first-person descriptions of the circumstances under which thepoem is beingpcrformcd". but the use of the first-person singular or plural for the narrative voice is rather sporadic in the Hymns (2.11, 16, 97; 5.3, 14, 55f.; 6.6, 17). When usedby Callimachus in the context of ritual, the first-person voice lacks a definite identity; modern critics have variously identified it as 'master of ceremonies,• a 'priest' or the poet as 'chorus leader'. but Callimachus has left it intentionally fluid so that he can pose simultaneously as 'both poet and participant' (J.R. Heath,'7he Blessingsof Epiphany in Callimachus' Bath of Pallas", CA 1, 1988, 72-90, at 87f.). Second-person imperativesurgingritual performance are common in Pindar, in the choral odes of Greclt tragedy, and in cult hymns; they are also usedto great ritual effect in Callimachus' Hymns (2.8, 17, 25; 5.lf., 4, 13, 17, 33, 43, 45f., 55, 137; 6.1, 3f., 118; cf. Depew [this volume], 65). Cf. Hopkinson (n. 4), 78.

132

HENRICHS

3.1 The Hymn to Zeus begins with an enumeration of six of Zeus' epithets, including .itK'taioc and Au1Caioc,which reflect conflicting traditions about the god's birthplace (h. 1.2-4). Callimachus' witty assessment of the competing claims represented by the two geographical epithets (5-9) leads to the telling of Zeus' birth myth, with emphasis on Rhea'sdouble performance, both giving birth (10-5) and having to create her own source of water to wash the baby in immediately thereafter (16-36). Typically, Callimachus devotes much more space to the catalog of rivers-to-be (18-27) and to the innovative tale of the water miracle which remedies the emergency (l6f., 28-32) than to the old story of Rhea giving birth (15). By contrast, the binh-pangs of Leto are described in vivid detail (h. 4.206-14, cf. 4.1). Rhea's most performative moment is not the actual birth, but when she tells earth to give birth too and 'raising her mighty arm strikes the rock with her staff' (301). The raised arm of the goddess striking the rock that will release the water is a vivid imageof divine performance.

3.2 Everything Apollo wears or owns is golden (h. 2.32 and 34 xpucro}-xoluxpucoc yap 'Ax6llIDv Kal 11:ouAUK'tEavoc, and proof for the god's wealth can be found at Delphi (34f.). The effective pairing of the two xolu-compounds generates another pair of epithets: Kal µtv a.El 1CaAoc1Cala.tl vfoc (36). Comparable on stylistic grounds, the second pair represents a shift of narrative emphasis from wealth to eternal youth and to the telling of a concrete instance of divine performance (38-41, see 6.2). 3.3 At h. 3.110-8, the progression from Anemis' golden weapons and girdle ( 11Of.) to her golden chariot (111) and golden reins (112) serves to introduce a series of questions in which the poet asks the goddess where her chariot, drawn by four binds with golden antlers (99-109), first took her. This is a nice example of how Callimachus employs the repeated epithet to channel animal performance into divine performance (4.2.3) and divine performance self-consciously into poetic performance. 3.4 When Apollo was born on Delos, the island's foundations, its lake, the olive tree and the lnopos river all turned golden-four consecutive hexameters begin with xpucta, xpucci>t,xpucttov and xpucc'i>t(h. 4.260-3). Out of this gilded landscape Callimachus distills a brief narrative of divine performance, with emphasis on the self-revelation and self-praise of the sacred island. The nymph who personifies Delos lifts the new-born god 'from the golden (xpucfot0) ground' (264)-the fifth consecutive instance of this epithet-, puts him to the breast and proceeds to reveal her newly acquired identity (268 aut11 qrotou16e) as Apollo's nurse (cf. 276 Koupotp6cpoc) and eponymous island, and to compare herself favorably with the cult-places of other gods (265-73). Combining hymnic convention with an emphasis on naming (Asteria will be renamed Delos, and Apollo will be named Delios after her) and with the motif of divine epiphany (her own as well as Apollo's), Delos is here portrayed as singing her own praise while she is suckling the divine baby. In a curious conflation of birth myth and encomium, of breast-feeding and

GODS IN ACTION

133

poetic performance,Delos has to work very hard indeed to establish her new identity in poetryas well as cult.

4. Strength in Numbers Accumulation of epithets is one device by which Callimachus creates concrete cases of divine performance; accumulation of numbers is another. Counting numbers has the same climactic effect as piling up epithets: expectations are raised, momentum is generated and attention is drawn to the sum total of the count, and especially to the last item in each series. When a stylist of Callimachus' caliber counts the number of gifts or marks of attention received by a god, the numerals punctuate the narrative, and his count has the effect of an amplifier, enhancing the status and power of divinity (4.1-4.2.2). Similarly, when he counts the number of times a god engages in a particular activity, he makes an emphatic statement about divine performance (4.2.3-4 and 5.2).

4.1. Apollo's Birth and the Number Seven As Leto is about to give birth to Apollo, Pactolian swans, destined to be the god's sacred birds, accompany Leto's birth-pangs with their melodious song as they fly seven circles around the island (h. 4.249-52). Later, when Apollo invents the lyre, the seven songs of the swans will become the model for the seven strings on the lyre (253-4). The swans didn't have to sing an eighth time because the god was ready to be born and 'jumped forth': 0"(6oovOUICE't' a£icav, o6' eK"9op£V (255). In this charming story animals perform first so that Apollo in tum can perform. The god's performance alternates between future and present, between his invention of the lyre and his active participation in his own birth. No midwife was needed, and in striking departure from the Homeric account, Eileithyia's presence is not mentioned; the phrase o6' eid3op£Vthus acquires a performative urgency which it lacks in Homer, where the birth goddess is at hand (h.Ap. 119 EK6' £0op£,cpo 9 • By manipulating various performative categories, Callimachus has skillfully cpoox:6£) woven an aetiology of divine performance into his telling of the god's birth in order to create the impression that the very first moments of the god's life were already packed with action.

9

On Callimachus' response to the Homeric version of Apollo's birth myth see M.W. Haslam (this volwne), 117-20.

134

HENRICHS

4.2. Accounting

for Artemis

Callimachus' creative playing with numbers is more complex in the Hymn to Anemis. There the number of the cities she is given by Zeus (4.2.1), the number of the dogs she receives from Pan (4.2.2) and of the golden-homed binds she catches alive (4.2.3), and the number of the first shots she takes with her bow (4.2.4) are integral elements in a tripartite narrative, in the course of which the goddess systematically acquires the tools for her own performance as a huntress. In departure from standard hymnic convention, Callimachus does not take the essential traits of Artemis' divinity for granted;instead. he inttoduces Artemis as a child who is endowed with a divine identity but initially lacks divine credentials. Ironically, the Hymn thus starts by dispensing with the conventional conditions for its own performance. For Artemis to become the goddess that she is, and that the Hymn purports to praise, she and Zeus both have to act, and act together; their interaction is such that divine performance becomes a measure of the poet's own ingenuity. Far from recounting the myth of the god's physical birth, as he does in the case of Zeus (cf. 3.1) and Apollo (cf. 4.1), Callimachus qua poet assumes the persona of Zeus qua father and endows Artemis before our own eyes with an array of divine trappings which amount to a metaphorical creation of her divinity from the father, rivaling Athena's birth from the head of Zeus (cf. h. 5.131-6).

4.2.1. Artemis' Gifts Hymn 3 begins with little Artemis sitting on her father's lap and asking Zeus with the persistence and insatiable appetite of a child for one gift after another-a wish list of gifts that ultimately define her traditional divine character as a virgin goddess, a huntress, and a helper in childbirth: 6f. 66c µoi 1tap8evit1v aicovtov, a1t1ta, cpula.cce1v, I 1Cal JtOA.UCllVUµlllV,8 6' iouc !Cal 'tO~a. 13 µot £~TJ1COV'tax:op{n6ac ''21C£av{vac, 15 µoi aµvo6poµ.{11c(106), doubtless to outdo Pindar's young Achilles (below, n. 21). Artemis' feat would be magnified rather than diminished by the poet's witticism if unlike their divine mistress the extraordinary dogs were still too young to hunt. A. fr. 245 Radt; [Apollod.] Bibi. 3.(32).4.4 = J.U. Powell, Collectanea Ale:candrina, Oxford 1925, 7lf.; Ovid Met. 3.206-25; Henrichs in J. Bremmer (ed.), Interpretations of Greek Mythology, London 1987, 273 n. 62. Counting gifts: e.g. II. 9.121-34 - 262-73, cf. 19.243-8 (enumeration of Agamemnon's gifts for Achilles); Theoc. l l.40f. (the Cyclops promises eleven fawns and four bear-cubs to Galatea); Verg. Eel. 5.65-71 (pairs of gifts for the deified Daphnis). On the gods as recipients as well as givers of gifts see W. Burkert, "Offerings in Perspective: Surrender, Distribution, Exchange", in T. Linders-G. Nordquist (eds), Gifts for the Gods. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium (Boreas 15), Uppsala 1987, 43-50. P. Borgeaud, The Cult of Pan in Ancient Greece, Chicago/1...0ndon 1988, 47-73, esp. 63, where the exceptional status of the dog-raising and gift-giving Pan of the Hymn to Arte,rus as an accomplished performer in his own right as well as Artemis' sidekick is not recognized.

GODS IN ACTION

137

In grouping the dogs by their colors and breed, as well as their gender, Callimachus playfully employs conventional poetic strategies to keep his numbers under control. But he does more than just play with numbers. He also divides the dogs into two larger groups according to their performance, that is their hunting skills, and he does so in two parallel relative clauses which are functionally comparable to the hymnic device known since Eduard Norden as der Relativstil der Pradikation 20 • The six male dogs, differentiated by their color, are fierce and fearless attack dogs 'who could pull down even lions by clutching their throat and drag them still alive to the pen' (91-3 o'{ pa A.rovtac I aimruc 21. By ao epUOV't£C,O't£6pa;atV'tO 6tpacov, I ttA.KOV£'ClCwovtac ex' a'l>A.lOV) contrast, speed and scent rather than ferocity are the qualities that distinguish the seven bitches, 'who were the fastest in pursuing deer' (94f. at pa 6tcol;at I COK\C'tal vt(3pouc). The process of arguing by accumulation reaches its climax as Callimachus adds two more infinitives governing four more species of animals that these trackhounds can hunt (95-7).

4.2.3. Four Hinds Plus One By praising Pan's dogs, Callimachus praises Pan while simultaneously continuing his praise of Artemis. Without Pan's dogs, Artemis could hardly be the huntress she aspires to be. It thus comes as a complete surprise when we are told a little later that when Artemis spies five supernatural binds 'bigger than bulls, with gold shining from their antlers' (102), the goddess decides to dispense with the dogs and rely entirely on the speed of her own feet. 'Running swiftly, without the hunting dogs' (105f. @Ka 8rouca, I v6cq>t 1CUvo6poµ{ric22), she catches four of the deer alive to use as a four-in-hand for her 'swift chariot' (106 8oov apµa). The fifth deer escapes providentially, 'at Hera's behest,' to become the Cerynean Hind in one ofHeracles' tabors (107-9). Because it is so unexpected, this narrow escape underlines the poet's virtuoso control of the narrative and of the actors in it (5.1). In retrospect, the performance of Pan and his dogs has merely set the stage for the supernatural performance of the young Artemis, who worsts the dogs and makes them seem superfluous by doing their job23.

20

21

22 23

E. Norden, Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungenzur Forml!ngeschichtereligu1serReik, Berlin 1913 (= Dannstadt 1956), 168-76,still the standardanalysis of hymnic style. Theferocity of Artemis' male hunting dogs as well as her own supernaturalspeed which enables her to hunt v6ccpl1CUvo6poµi11C (4.2.3) are clearly modeledon Pindar's young Achilles, who when barely six years old killed 'wild lions and boars' civtu 1CUviov and brought their bodies, still gasping for their last breath, to Chiron while Athena and Artemis were watching (N. 3.47f. cµa-ra6t napa Kpovi&xvI Kiv-raupov cic8µaivov-ra 1C6µ1Ctv). Cf. Hener (n. 10), 402f. nn. 123-4; F. Bornmann, Callimachi Hymnus in Dianam (Biblioteca di Stlldi Superiori 55), Firenze 1968, 49; Haslam (this volume), 112-3. Above,n. 21. Haslam (this volume), 113.

138

HENRICHS

In this clever vignette of Artemis the huntress, speed is everything, but speed is a quality that is itself on the move, and it keeps moving in the direction of Artemis until it becomes a permanent acquisition of the goddess. At least seven of the thirteen hunting dogs she received from Pan arc 'swifter than the winds' (94), but Artemis is fast enough to catch up with the deer without canine assistance. By hamassing the speed of the deer to her own chariot, Artemis herself can now remain at case and relaxed while speeding quickly off to her next journeys, on which Callimachus follows her without delay.

4.2.4. Three Targets and a Moral Divine performance is once again measured, quantified and even made the subject of a moralizing interpretation when the poet asks Artemis how often she tried out her silver bow (h. 3.119). Callimachus' answer consists of a climactic enumeration of four targets, on which the goddess practiced her shooting: her first aim was an elm tree, the second an oak, and the third an animal, but her fourth and most important target was a city of unlawful monals, against whom Anemis unleashed her wrath (120-4) 24 • The severity of the punishment is described in the long list of the ills that befall the impious city (125-8). Conversely, those cities upon which Artemis smiles receive blessings which are the exact opposite of the evil city's ills (129-35). Callimachus ends his reflection on divine justice by expressing the wish that he too along with his true friends be among those favored by the goddess (136f.) 25 • For Callimachus to enjoy divine favor is equivalent to being a poet and caring always about poetry (137). His poetry will be about Artemis, he vows, about all her labors, her dogs, her bow and arrows, and her chariots ( 138-41). What began as a list of shooting targets has quickly metamorphosed into a demonstration of Artemis' power to harm her enemies and help her friends; it ends with a first-person declaration of faith in which poetic performance is recognized as the vehicle of divine performance, while the very hymn which the poet is in the middle of composing becomes his best claim to divine favor in the present, as well as a promise of more poetry to follow in the future. Providentially, the poet's present and future voice is one and the same-the hymn promised for another performance is thematically identical with the present poem.

24

25

The climactic series of three attempts plus one has Homeric precedent, and Callimachus echoesthe Homeric phraseology; see Herter (n. IO), 409. Similarfirst-person prayers for divine favor for oneself and one's pluloi can be found in threeother Hymns (l.69, 2.11, 6.116f.); such pleas are conventional (Hopkinson [n. 4], 171f.). Invariably in Callimachus, they facilitate transition from one topic to another (cf. Wilamowitz, HD [n. 12), 2, 56).

GODS IN ACTION

139

5. Narrative Control of the Count If counting gifts, possessions or repeated actions is a measure of divine performance, how is that performance perceived when the poet stops counting? In three of the four cases discussed so far, the count amounts to a climax of riches or accomplishments (4.1, 4.2.1-2, 4.2.4), and at the end of the count, the divinity stands taller than ever. But when Artemis goes hunting, she catches only four of the five deer (4.2.3). The one anomalous case needs to be reconsidered (5.1), and the reason why the poet took such extravagant conttol of his narrative at the expense of the divinity will explain another case of a divine performance cut short by the poet (5.2).

5.1 Hera intervenes so that the fifth hind can escape and can be caught sometime in the future by Heracles (h. 3.98-109). Fortunately, Artemis needs only four deer to draw her chariot. Her failure to catch the supernumerary hind is a transparent case of felix culpa. Without seriously diminishing the status or the performance of the divinity, it opens up various kinds of narrative possibilities, none of which is pursued by the poet. First, it demonstrates the perils of a polytheism in which the performance of one divinity can be undercut by the intervention of another, a theme that looms large in the Hymn to Delos. More importantly, perhaps, it illustrates the meanderings of a poetic imagination that counteracts one divine performance (Artemis) with another (Hera), only to substitute the promise of a future heroic performance (Heracles) as the ultimate solution. As narrator Callimachus is evidently showing off by hinting that he knows more tales than he can tell. He also plays off one Heracles tale that he leaves untold against another which he is about to tell and which turns out to be infinitely more unorthodox and hilarious. Two episodes later a gluttonous Heracles waits anxiously at the gates of Olympus for Artemis to return from her hunt with prey large enough to satisfy his appetite-steers, boars and wild pigs rather than hares and deer (142-61). In the end one cannot help feeling, however, that Artemis herself is outperformed by the poet, who conttols her movements and determines where she succeeds and when she fails.

5.2 Narrative conttol is also the issue in the opening section of Callimachus' Hymn to Demeter. In her search for Persephone, Demeter does things in threes ( 13-6}-she crosses the Achelous and each of the other rivers thrice (13 tpk, 14 tocca.K1), and thrice (15 tpic) she sits on the ground next to the well Callichorus in Eleusis without drinking, eating or washing. In the Homeric Hymn to Demeter the goddess roams the earth, abstains from food and goes unwashed for nine days (47 rvvfiµap), but she does not repeat the same routine three times, and she sits by the well only once (98ff.). When gods engage in the same activity more than once, they do so for a reason. In Callimachus, Demeter has to work harder than in the Homeric Hymn to find an outlet for her emotions. Her obsessive performance, including her repeated refusal to perform basic functions, magnifies the futility of her search as well as the intensity of her grief to the point where one begins to

140

HENRICHS

wonder what Demeter will do next. But alas, we will never know, because Callimachus abruptly changes the course of his narrative by reminding himself that the events which caused Demeter's tears are better left unmentioned (17). The Abbruchsformef26 preserves religious decorum; it also draws attention to the conventions of hymnic poetry and to the kind of performance, divine as well as poetic, that is proper for praise-poetry. More to the point, it generates new narrative momentum and enables the narrator to propose a number of more suitable topics, each introduced by 1ealltov (18, 19, 22) 27• With the third 1e6:lliov he finally settles on the Erysichthon myth, in which Demeter makes her epiphany (7.2) and takes punitive action (2.2) against the man who felled her sacred trees. Her punishment of Erysichthon is the starting point for one of the longest continuous narratives in all of the Hymns. Here and elsewhere, the dynamics of divine performance arc tightly controlled by the narrator. By turning Demeter's tears into her triumph, he makes it his triumph as well.

6. Precocious Performance: Divine Children Gods often perform sudden and unexpected feats, and they succeed instantly. Callimachus brings out this conventional aspect of divine performance by using terms like alva (h. 2.54; 3.87), ai>ti1ea (h. 1.16; 3.10; 4.257; 6.42, 66) or t~a1ttVT1C(h. 2.5; 3.103; 6.60; cf. 1.50 and 4.116). But gods also succeed at a much earlier age than mortals. Precocious divine children arc prominent performers in Callimachus' Hymns. Their age ranges from the embryonic state via childhood to adolescence. They constitute a category of divine performance which has Homeric precedent, but Callimachus' treatment is radically different and reflects some of the most universal cultural and artistic concerns of the Hellenistic period. Unlike Apollo and Hermes as newborns in the Homeric Hymns, whose miraculous powersarc taken for granted, divine children in Callimachus have to earn their divine credentials through hard work (Z.Cus), prenatal effort (Apollo) or special pleading (Artemis), a technique which exploits the contrast between the human constraints of childhood and the superhuman power of divinity28.

26

27

28

On its use by Callimachus see M.A. Harder, "Untrodden Palhs: Where Do They Lead?", HSPh 93, 1990, 287-309 at 296. A comparable narrative device are lhe series of questionsaddressed lo a divinity and answered by t~ poet (3.113-124, 183-186;4.28f.). Contrast h. 4.82-85, where lhe answer is apparently given by lhe Muses, a technique used in lhe Aitia (M.A. Harder,"Callimachus and lhe Muses", Prometheus 14, 1988, 1-14);at h. 1.8, lhe answer is proverbial,and lhe identity of lhe speaker remains ambiguous. Cf. h.Merc. 13-153 and h.Ap. 127-32. On lhe exceptionally intimate representation of children and lheir ways in Hellenistic poetry in general and in Callimachus' Hymn to Artemis in particular see Herter (n. 10), 379-407.

GODS IN ACTION

141

6.1 Zeus grows up in four rapid stages, but he is already grown-up as a child, and everything he devises is 'accomplished': KaA.a µev ,iil;eu, KaA.a 6' hpacpec, oupavte Z£U, I ol;u 6' «V111nlcac, 'taxtvol 6£ 't0l aql8ov lOUA.Ol.I CLAA'£'tl Jtat6voc £0>V hppaccao 11:civta'tWta (h. 1.55-7). This sets the stage for the rejection of the Homeric and Hesiodic accounts of how Zeus came to power: Olympus was not allotted to him, but he earned it through the works of his hands (66 £PY« 6e xeipci>v). 6.2 The unborn Apollo prophesies twice from the womb of his mother in the Hymn to Delos (h. 4.86-99, 162-95); both prophecies deliver a political message 29. In his second oracle the god predicts the future Coan birth of Ptolemy II Philadclphus and hails him as a 8eoc cxlloc (165) who will ward off the invading Celts jointly with Apollo in a ;uvoc ae8A.Oc (17lff.) 30 • The regressive focus on the divine fetus thus produces a prophetic voice which makes the poet a mouthpiece of two patrons of the arts, the Delphic Apollo and the deified king. Divine performance becomes synonymous with royal performance through the medium of the poetic voice (cf. h. 1.79-90), as the god, the king and the poet join forces (cf. 8). In the Hymn to Apollo, the god appears as an adolescent who built the horned altar on Delos when he was just four years old (h. 2.58 't£'tpain1c 'ta 1tpci>'ta8eµdlta 4»oij3oc &lil;e.cf. 1.2) and invented the lyre when he was still a child (h. 4.253 o1taic, cf. 4.1). A series of epithets praising his golden accoutrements and Delphic treasures (3.2) culminates in the statement that Apollo never grows a beard and remains eternally ephebic (h. 2.32-7). The contrast between the complete lack of facial hair and the god's flowing locks generates an elegant and forceful image of the youthful god's healing power. His hair drips oil, but no ordinary oil; it is panacea itself, and wherever the panacean drops r:yivov'to fall to the ground, that city will thrive free from ills of any kind, «1C11ptaJtCLV't' (38-41). Perceivedas a divine personification and daughter of Asclepius in other poetic ttaditions, Panacea is depersonalized here and reduced to her performative essence in order to maximil.C Apollo's own performance 31 . Like Apollo's ga7.e which fertilil.Cs the flocks (50-2, cf. 1.2), the salutary drops from the god's head externalize the god's healing power and make it poetically tangible and transparent.

6.3 Artemis is presented as an 'infant child' (h. 3.5 1ta'ic E'tt Koupi~ouca) who sits on Zeus' lap, besieges him with her long list of 66c µot's (4.2.1), and tries repeatedly to

29

30 31

The oracular fetus is "a surprising novelty even for a Hellenistic audience" (W.H. Mineur, CallimachlLs:Hymn to Delos. Introduction and Commentary[MnenwsyneSuppl. 83), Leiden 1984, 120). On the fusion of poetics and politics in I.heHymn to Delos see P. Bing, The Well-ReadMuse: Present and Past in Callimachusand the HellenisticPoets (Hypomnemata90), GOuingen 1988, I 2843. Cf. Mineur (n. 29), 16-8, 168, 177f. Cf. F. Williams, Callimachus: Hymn to Apollo. Oxford 1978, 44.

142

HENRICHS

touch his chin like a suppliant, but her arms can't reach him (h. 3.26-9) 32. Even though her gesture falls shon (the first of two instances of a less than perfect divine performance in this Hymn), it will be richly rewarded (4.2.1). While still a child she acquires all the hallmarks of her divinity and performs great feats as a huntress (4.2.2-4), but Callimachus never tells us when she reaches adulthood 33. Like Apollo, the eternal ephebc, Anemis remains forever at a particular age as the archetypal Parthenos as which she is addressed by the poet the moment she mounts her chariot ( l l0ff.). While not quite as precocious as her brother and cenainly less accomplished than Zeus, Anemis is the most childlike and the most personable of Callimachus' divine children. Among all the Callimachean gods, she is also his most innovative creation, precisely because her performance is so unpredictable, and because she is so clearly the product of the poet's own ingenuity34.

7. Divine Footwork Scenes of divine epiphany are used structurally in each of the three Hymns that have a cultic opening (h. 2) or a cultic frame (h. 5 and 6); epiphany is, after all, not only a mythical convention, but also a function of actual cult In mythical narratives, gods appear readily in physical form and interact directly with monals. In actual cult, however, gods walking the earth were a much rarer sight, and seeing the cult image was often the closest thing to being in the presence of divinity. For most worshippers, epiphany was not so much a face-to-face encounter with the divine as it was an intense state of mind, a heightened expectation or even more concretely a dream vision obtained through incubation or a healing miracle3S_As Callimachus' subtle comments in the Hymn to Apollo suggest, cultic epiphany as a concrete manifestation of divine performance took place in the eyes and in the heart of the believer (7.3); it is a phenomenon that belongs in the realm of religious psychology36. 1bc difference between mythical and cultic epiphany accounts for a striking feature in Callimachus' handling of the epiphany theme. Of the three divinities whom he associates 32

33

34 35

36

On the iconography of the divine child with outstretched anns and on the literary antecedents of Anemis' suppliant gesture (which falls shon only in Callimachus) see Hener (n. 10), 386-90 and Bornmann (n. 21), 18f. Wilamowitz, HD (n. 12), 2, 52 n. l; Hener (n. 10), 386 and 402f. Herter (n. 10), 392 and 407. Cf. H.S. Versnel, "What Did Ancient Man See When He Saw a God?Some Reflections on GrecoRoman Epiphany", in D. van der Plas (ed.), Effigies Dei: Essays on the History of Religions,Leiden 1987, 42-55; R.H. Sinos, "Divine Selection: Epiphany and Politics in Archaic Greece", in C. Dougheny and L. Kurke (eds), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece (forthcoming, Cambridge University Press). See H. Kleinknecht, "AOYTPA THC nAAAAt.OC", Hermes 74, 1939, 300-50, repr. in Skiadas (n. 5), 207-75, at 272f.

GODS IN ACTION

143

with epiphany. only Demeter appears in a full-fledged thcophany. Significantly. she makes her epiphany in the course of a Strafwunder which is located in the distant mythical past (h. 6.40-65). not the cultic here and now; because her epiphany is part of an extended narrative, it stands near the center of the Hymn, and not at its beginning. Unlike Demeter, Apollo and Athena make no physical appearance in the course of their respective Hymns. Rather than making the two divinities visible to the implied cultic audience in the poem's present, Callimachus goes out of his way to raise the expectation of an epiphany that he knows will never happen. In the cultic opening scene of the Hymn to Apollo, the god seems only a footlength away from the door that leads into his temple (h. 2.1-16), but he never enters his shrine; likewise, Athena's statue has not yet come into view at the close of her Hymn. even though the poet hastens to assure us that her arrival is imminent (h. 5.137 epxet''A8avaia WV atpu:ec)37. By combining an emphasis on raised epiphanic expectations with a cultic setting that includes temple cult, the parading of the cult statue and choral performance, the Apollo and Athena hymns create an action-loaded scenario which simulates the ritual and psychological conditions of cultic epiphanies, as opposed to the different narrative conventions of the mythical epiphany imbedded in the Hymn to Demeter. It could be argued, of course, that the ultimate locus of the epiphany of Apollo and Athena is neither their temple nor their statue but the body of the hymn itself, including its mythical narrative 38 • On this reading, Callimachus recreates the ritual ambience and loaded atmosphere of cult epiphanies in order to play them off against the mythical image and narrative presence of the gods as he himself, the hymnic poet, is able to visualize them. The real epiphany takes place in his own poetic imagination. 'The•dramatic opening' and the expectation of an imminent epiphany in Hymns 2 and 5 create an exceptionally dynamic setting for divine performance. Athena is peppered with ritual imperatives asking her to appear (h. 5.33, 43, 55 i:;t8t), and Apollo almost kicks in the door of his own temple with his foot (7.3). Apollo's foot pounding the temple door reminds us that the divine body and its parts attract so much poetic attention because they are central to the anthropomorphic conception of divinity 39 . In his Hymns, for instance, Callimachus refers to the Epyaof 2.eus' hands (h. 1.66, cf. 6.1) and to the nod of his head (h. 5.131-6), to the mighty arms of Athena (5.5) and to the raised arms of Rhea (h. 1.30, cf. 3.1) and Leto (h. 4.107f.), to Artemis' outstretched hands (h. 3.27, cf. 6.3), to Lcto's shoulders (h. 4.209), and to Apollo's protective eye (1.2) and attentive ear (h. 2.105). But in poetic accounts of divine epiphany from Homer to Horace the most marked part of the

37

38 39

ApolloandAthenaevidently move in opposiie directions.According to some interpreters(including Wilamowitz, HD [n. 12], 2, 78), Apollo would be leaving his temple; for a refutation see 0. Weinreich,GeMt und Wunder. Zwei Abhandlungen zur Religions- undLiteraturgeschichle, Stuttgart 1929, 66f. n. 64 (= Religionsgescluchlliche Studien, Dannstadt 1968, 70 n. 64). Erbsc (n. S), 28lf., 286f. and 29lf. CC. K. Keyssner, Gottesvorste/lung und Lebensauffassung im griechischen Hymnus (Wiirzburger Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft 2), Stuttgan 1932, 127-35.

HENRICHS

144

divine body is the foot or gait40. By adopting this convention in all three of his 'mimetic' Hymns, Callimachus recogniz.es the epiphanic function of the divine gait. By giving each scene of divine arrival a different perfonnative emphasis, he makes the divine foot and the mobility of the gods key elements in his poetic representation of divine perfonnancc.

7.1 In the case of Athena, the emphasis is not on the divine foot per se but on her leaving (or not leaving) the temple: the triple repetition of i:;i8i in the first half of the Hymn (h. 5.33, 43, 55) culminates in £PXtt' 'A8avaia vuv atpticec at the end (137) 41 • But the Athena of the cultic frame is as deceptive as the summons for divine perfonnance. The 'goddess' who is urged to leave her temple is in reality the cult statue waiting for her ritual bath in the river Inachus; the statue is still waiting at the end of the poem. Divine performance thus turns into nonperfonnance, at least for the ritual setting. Athena's actual epiphany takes place elsewhere, in the myth of the punishment of Teiresias, which is the ccnterpiecc of the Hymn. Teiresias 'saw' the goddess when she didn't want to be scen42• The Teiresias myth would not have been told if the statue's exit had not been delayed. The cultic frame thus makes room for the mythical narrative, which in tum supplies the epiphany promised in the frame. By exercising his narrative control so imaginatively, and by playing Athena's perfonnance in cult off against her perfonnance in myth, Callimachus sets new poetic standards; once again, the poet has outperfonned the divinity (cf. 5.1). 7.2 In the narrative of Demeter' s punishment of Erysichthon, her self-revelation comprises two stages: she first appears disguised as her own priestess, and then in her divine fonn as a goddess (h. 6.40-60). The extra effon of the divinity reflects the intransigence of her human opponent, who would not listen to Demeter in disguise. At the height of her anger, the goddess reveals her true dimensions, which are awe-inspiring: 'her feet (i8µata) touch the ground, but her head touches Olympus' (58). The image of the deity who assumes a gigantic seiz.e is a conventional motif in divine epiphanies, but here it exceeds all nonnal limits43• Though still grounded in the visible world, and standing on her feet, the goddess has grown beyond human comprehension. 7.3 In the epiphanic opening of the Hymn to Apollo (2.1-8), divine perfonnance is coordinated with the miraculous perfonnance of the world of nature as trees, animals and 40 41

42

43

E. Fraenkel, Horace, Oxford 1957, 204 n. 4; Williams (n. 31), 18. Kleinknecht (n. 36), 210f. argues unconvincingly that i~1iva1 refers in all instances to panicipation in the procession rather than to the goddess leaving her temple. On the epiphanic connotations of Teiresias' encounter with Athena see Heath (n. 6), 77, 82f. and especially N. Loraux, Les experiencesde Tiresias.Le feminin et l' homme grec, Paris 1989, 253-71. In the ritual frame the male onlookers are warned not to make the mislake of Teiresias by watching the bathing of Athena's statue (51-4). Callimachus correlates the frame quite deliberately with the myth via epiphanic language (52-4 i'.6,iic,i'.6111 and ECOlj/El't;' (fr. 194.102). Callimachus, I think, does see Antimachus as 'one of us'. That this would not indemnify him from criticism is a given in the contentious world of Hellenistic poetics 72.

72

The author gratefully acknowledges support from the McKnight-Land Grant program al the Universityof Minnesota.

DIE EINBEZIEHUNG DES LESERS IN DEN EPIGRAMMEN DES KALLIMACHOS

Doris Meyer

"Lesen ist gelenktes Schaffen" (J.-P. Same) Daß man einen Epigrammdichter an seiner Fähigkeit mißt, gattungsbedingte Vorgaben originell zu variieren 1, kommt nicht nur Kallimachos als einem der innovativsten antiken Dichter, sondern auch den ihn auslegenden Philologen zugute, gehört doch der vergleichende Blick auf die literarischen Vorläufer seit Aristoteles zum Handwerk der Literaturwissenschaft2. Dennoch ist die Zahl derartiger Untersuchungen zu den Epigrammen bisher begrenzt. Ich möchte daher an wenigen Beispielen Charakteristika der kallimacheischen variarioMS zeigen, die mit der Entwicklung des Epigramms zur Buchgattung und mit der Ausbildung einer Lesekultur in der betreffenden Zeit zusammenhängen 3. Zwei Fragen sollen dabei Ausgangspunkte für die Untersuchung bilden: (1) in welcher Weise wird die traditionelle Rolle des fiktiven Lesers in den Epigrammen weiterentwickelt? (2) kann man von dort auf die Einbeziehung des realen Lesers in die Konzeption der Gedichte schließen, wie es von einer sich etablierenden Lesekultur zu erwarten ist? Fragestellungen zur Erzählperspektive und zum Autor-Leserverhältnis werden seit einiger Zeit auch von der Hellenismusforschung aufgegriffen. So zeigt G.B. Walsh am Beispiel von Ep. 15 (Pfeiffer, im folgenden: Pf.), wie die traditionelle Dialogfonn des Epigramms in ein inneres Gespräch des Dichters mit sich selbst umgefonnt wird4. Er konstatiert dort die Entwicklung des Epigramms von einer Gebrauchsdichtung mit ihren zweckbedingten Fonnen zu einem Vehikel des individuellen persönlichen Ausdrucks und beschreibt damit einen modernen, subjektiven Zug der hellenistischen Dichtung 5• Mit dieser Auslegung reiht sich Walsh in eine lange Tradition der Epigramminterpretation ein.

2 3

4

5

Zur Variation im Epigramm: S.L. Taran, T~ Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden 1979; P. Laurens, L' Abeille dans L' Ambre. Celebration de I' epigr~ de I' epoque aleJCandrined la finde la Renaissance, Paris 1989, 66ff. R. Pfeiffer, Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie. Von den Anfdngen bis zum Ende des Hellenis1'UI.S,Manchen 19782, 114. Den Einfluß der Schriftlichkeit in der alexandrinischen Epoche auf die Kreativität der Dichter zeigt besonders gut P. Bing, T~ Well-Read Muse. Present and Past in Callimachus and t~ Hellenistic Poets (Hypomnemata 90), Göttingen 1988; vgl. auch M.A. Harder, De Muze in het Museum, Groningen 1992. G .8. Walsh, "Callimachean Passages: The Rethoric of Epitaph in Epigram", Arethusa 24, 1991, 77103; vgl. ders., "Surprised by Seif: Audible Thought in Hellenistic Poetry", CPh 83, 1990, 1-21. Zur Kaiegorie der Innerlichkeit als Kennzeichen moderner Dichtung vgl. B. Gentili, "Die pragmatischen Aspekle der archaischen griechischen Dichtung", A&A 36, 1990, 1-17.

162

MEYER

Seit der Antike bemüht sich die literatunheoretische Reflexion darum, dem Epigramm im System der literarischen Gattungen einen Platz anzuweisen, der ihm aus mehreren Gründen nicht selbstverständlich zuzustehen schien: das Epigramm war keine große Dichtung, sondern zunächst für den Alltagsgebrauch bestimmt, wenngleich seine Entwicklung zu einer Kunstform schon in den frühesten Beispielen angelegt ist. Vielleicht wurde es gerade wegen seiner unabdingbar schriftlichen Existenz für geringer geachtet als die konkurrierende Vortragsdichtung, denn Schriftlichkeit bedeutete Gebundenheit des Wones an den Schreibgrund, die zugleich eine als Nachteil empfundene Immobilität beinhaltete 6• Die Theorie befaßt sich daher mit der Entstehung des Epigramms als eines ernstzunehmenden literarischen Kunstwerkes, das hieß: sich mit den Konsequenzen seiner steinernen Herkunft auseinanderzusetzen. Die Epigrammtheorie des 16. Jh. 7, namentlich J.C. Scaliger in seinerPoetikvon 1561, bemüht sich zuerst in systematischer Weise um eine Herleitung des Epigramms aus der Statueninschrift. Demzufolge sei das Buchepigramm Inschrift zu einer Überschrift, die die nicht mehr vorhandene Statue venrin. Scaliger ist damit zum Initiator einer Auffassung geworden, die von zwei Teilen eines Epigramms, Überschrift und Inschrift, ausgeht. Im Jahre 1771 leitet G.E. Lessing 8 in ähnlicher Weise die Teile des literarischen Epigramms aus dem Denkmal her: ein erster, beschreibender Teil vertrete den sinnlichen Denkmalsgegenstand und solle die 'Erwartung' des Lesers reizen, ein zweiter, erläuternder Epigrammteil hat nach Lessing die Funktion, diese Erwartung 'aufzuschließen'. Die hier stark verkürzten Beispiele der neuzeitlichen Theorie sind jedoch nicht so sehr aus dem Anspruch ihrer Urheber heraus zu verstehen, eine historische Erklärung für die Genese und Eigentümlichkeit des Epigramms zu liefern. Sie werden richtiger als Definitionsversuche oder logische Deduktionen in der aristotelischen Wissenschaftstradition beurteilt, die sich zudem an dem zum Idealtypus aufgewerteten Paradigma der kaiserzeitlichen lateinischen Epigrammatiker orientieren. Beginnend mit J.G. Herder9

6

7

8

9

Das mündlich verbreitete Won erhält den Vorzug vor dem materiellen Erinnerungsmal bei Pi. N. 5, lff. Zu ähnlichen Uneilen in der Neuzeit vgl. Th. Bin, Das antike Buchwesen in stintm Verh4ltnis :rlll'Lileralw. Mit Beilrllgen :rw TexJgeschichle des Thtolcril, Catull, Proptrz und anderer AIIIOren(2. Neudr. der Ausgabe Berlin 1882), Aalen 1974, 502; H. Hommel, "Der Ursprung des Epigramms", RhM 88, 1939, 139-206. Aufgrund seiner Affinitat zum jeweiligen steinernen oder bronzenen Denltmalgehöne das Epigramm einem Zwischenbereich zwischen bildender Kunst und Sprachkunst an. So bedient sich der erste Autorenvermerk in einem Epigramm eines Ausdrucks, der sonst filr die Schaffung von Kunstwerken steht: uu~E EAqE'iov wllllv(Ion v. Samos, um 400. Diehl, Anth. Lyr. Gr. 1 [ 1], 87). Zum folgenden vgl. M. Lausberg, Das Einze/distichon. Studien zum antiken Epigramm, München 1982, 78ff.; W. Peek, Gritchischt Grabgedichte (SQAW 7), Berlin 1960, 1-5; Laurens (Anm. 1), J. 14. G.E. Lessing, "Zerstreute Anmerkungen über das Epigramm und einige der vornehmsten Epigrammatisten", in: Silmtliche Schriften 11 (hg. v. K. Lachmann), Stuugan 18953 , 214-315; dazu Lausberg (Anm. 7), 84-6. J.G. Herder, "Anmerkungen über die Anthologie der Griechen, besonders über das griechische Epigramm", in: Sllmtliche Werke 15 (hg. v. B. Suphan), Berlin 1888, 205-21, 335-92; dazu Lausberg (Anm. 7), 86f.

DIE EINBEZIEHUNG DES LESERS

163

bringt die Entwicklung der historisch-kritischen Methode neue Impulse auch in der Epigrammforschung. Die Frage nach der Entstehung des Buchepigramms aus der Steininschrift wird in der Folge zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Epigrammbuches 10• Aber auch in der historistischen Tradition wirkt die Theorie der zwei Teile im Epigramm, einem, der das Denkmal vertritt, und einem zweiten, erklärenden Teil nach. Als ein Beispiel läßt sich hier die Interpretation anführen, die L. Wcber 11 für das Gedicht des Heraldeitos AP 7.465 (= Hcraclitus I Gow-Page) gibt: er unterscheidet dort einen cpideiktischen Anfangsteil, der durch die Beschreibung des Grabes ein nicht mehr vorhandenes Gemälde ersetzen soll, von einer echten, seines Erachtens vom Stein kopierten zweiten Gcdichthlllftc 12. Die Ansicht Webers soll hier für eine Richtung stehen, die nach den Unterscheidungskriterien für echte und fiktive Inschriften fragt. So werden bei W. Röslcr beschreibende Elemente im Buchepigramm damit erklärt, daß das Buchepigramm im Unterschied zum Steinepigramm erst "verbal entfalten" muß, "was vorzustellen ist", während die Steininschrift voraussetzen kann, was an Ort und Stelle zu sehen war 13• Die Verlagerung der wichtigsten Funktion des Epigramms von der Information zur Imagination-also zu dem, was vorzustellen ist-sieht auch der zu Beginn zitierte G.B. Walsh als ein Charalctcristikum der hellenistischen Gedichte, wenn er das Epigramm als eine Wiedergabevon Gedanken versteht, die in der dargestellten Situation nicht eigentlich geäußert.sondern nur hörbar gemacht werden, sich dabei aber der cpigrammcigencn Sprechweiseund Thematik bedienen. Als ein Ergebnis der hier stark vereinfachten Geschichte der Epigrammforschung kann betrachtet werden, daß das Buchepigramm ein fiktives, an die Vorstellungskraft appellierendes Gebilde ist, das eine ursprünglich reale Kommunikationssituation in die Darstellung integrien. Die Akzentuierung des Gesprächsrahmens bringt neben der formalen Verinnerlichung zugleich eine Psychologisierung durch die stärkere Betonung des subjektiven Elements mit sich. Ich möchte im folgenden zeigen, wie dieser Prozeß mit dem besonderen kognitiven Verhalten einer beginnenden Lesekultur zusammenhängen könnte. Um den Leser in den kallimacheischen Epigrammen-oder durch diese hindurch-zu erfassen, bedarf es besonderer Hilfsmittel: ich möchte im folgenden das aus der Sprechakttheorie übernommene Modell der Rezeptionsforschung zugrundelegen, bei dem

10

II

12 13

R. Weißhlupl, Die Grabgtdichlt tkr gritcluschtn A111hologit(Abhandl1U1gtntks archllologischtpigraphischtn Seminars tkr Univtrsittll Witn 7), Wien 1889; R. Reitzenstein, Epigramm IUld Skolion, Gießen 1893; ders., "Epigramm", RE VI, I, 1907, Sp. 71-111; U. v. WilamowitzMoellendorff, Sappho IUldSimonides, Bedin 1913, 210ff.; ders., Htlltnistischt Dichl1U1gin tkr üit tks Kallimachos 1, Berlin 1924, l 19ff. L. Weber, "Steinepigramm und Buchepigramm", Hermes 52, 1917, 536-57. Die Kopie vom Stein wirdbei Weber zu einer historischen Zwischenstufe auf dem Weg zur Entstehung des literarischen Epigramms. Zum Gedanken des Ersatzes durch Beschreibung vgl. auch Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Sappho IUld Simonitks (Anm. 10), 231. W. Rösler, "Über Deixis und einige Aspekte mündlichen und schriftlichen Stils in antiker Lyrik", WJA N.F. 9, 1983, 27.

164

MEYER

davon ausgegangen wird, daß ein literarischer Text eine kommunikative Handlung darstellt, an der Autor und Leser wesentlich beteiligt sind

In seiner kurzen Abhandlung "Für eine Literaturgeschichte des Lesers" bemerkt der RomanistHarald Weinrich 14 : Ich unterstteiche aber, daß die beiden Positionen des Autors und des Lesers als Rollcri aufzufassen sind, deren Perspektiven nicht ohne weiteres aus der Biographie der schreibenden oder lesenden Personen abgeleitet werden können. Es gibt daher in der Literatur nicht nur den Autor und sein Wert, sondernes gibt immer auch als korrespondierende Rolle den Leser dieses Werkes. Die literarische Kommunikation ist eine Interalction in vcrtciltcn Rollen.

Wir können diese einfache, aber in den Konsequenzen weitreichende Feststellung am Beispiel des Formulars früher und klassischer griechischer Grabinschriften verdeutlichen. Die Versinschrift, deren ursprünglicher Zweck es ist, eine Information von einem Autor 15 an einen Leser zu übermitteln, bedient sich dazu einer fiktiven Kommunikationssituation. Dabei wird die Leserrolle mit einem als itapo6Ei'tTtC, o6oixopoc oder ;evoc apostrophierten Gegenüber oder mit einem schlichten 'Du' bezeichnet, das aber nicht explizit sein muß 16• Den Part des Autors übernimmt ein fiktiver Sprecher: das Denkmal selbst, eine darauf dargestellte Figur oder der Tote 17• Zur Unterscheidung dieser Rollen von dem realen historischen Verfasser des Textes und von der Vielzahl seiner konkreten

14 15

16

17

H. Weinrich, liltralwr für ltstr. Essays IUldAufslitzt zwrlittraturwisst11Jcha/t, München 1986, 2136, Zitat 22. Der Begriff des Autors soll hier fllr den Auftraggeber der Inschrift als •Sender' der Botschaft verwendet werden. Es versteht sich, daß es sich nicht um den Schreiber handelt. Eine Beschreibung des archaischen Grabepigramms mit den Kategorien der Sprechalcttheorie versucht U. Ecker, Grabmal und Epigramm. Studitn zwrfrühgritchischen Sepulchra/dichtung (Palingenesia 29), Slllttgarl 1990. Den Begriff der fiktiven Rollen erläuten W.J. Ong, "The Writer's Audience is always a fiction", PublicatiollJ of the Modern language Association of America 90, 1, 1975, 9-21. W. Peek, Griechische Versi11Jchriften.Bd. 1: Grabepigramme, Berlin 1955 (GV) Nr. 1224 (Attilca, um 540 v. Chr.) und 1225 (Athen, Mitte 6. Jh. v. Chr.); vgl. auch Laurens (Anm. 1), 72f. Direkte Apostrophean den stillen Leser: Peek GV, Nr. 1342 (Thcssalien, 3. Jh.). Die Frage: "Wer spricht in frühgriechischen Epigrammen'?" nimmt in der Forschung einen weiten Raum ein, wobei die Ich-Inschriften im Zentrum der Diskussion stehen. Die Gefahr der Überinterpretation des epigrammatischen Ichs als Fixierung eines mündlichen Rituals, so J.W. Day, "Rituals in Stone: Early Greek Grave Epigrams and Monuments", JHS 111, 1989, 16-28, oder Ausdruck naiv-personifizierenden Denkens, so H. Hauste, "ZnonOIEIN-'Y«l>ICTANAI. Eine Studie der frUhgriechischen inschriftlichen Ich-Rede der Gegenstände". in: Serta Phi/o/ogica AenipontaM III, (hg. v. R. Muth u. G. Pfohl), Innsbruck 1979, 23-139, könnte vermieden werden, wenn man es dabeibeUlßt,daß dieses Ich in erster Linie der Darstellung der Sprecherrolle dient Dieser AIL'l3tzwird venreten von A.E. Raubitschek, "Das Denkmal-Epigramm", in: L'Epigrammt Grecqut (Entretiens swr /'antiqu.ite classiqut 14), Gen~ve 1968, 1-36. Eine maßvolle Position nehmen Lausberg (Anm. 7), 103 und Laurens (Anm. 1), 50 hierzu ein. Grundlegende Gedanken zur ersten Person in der antiken Dichwng: W. Rösler, "Persona reale o poctica? L'interpretazione dell'io nella lirica greca arcaica", QUCC 19, 1988, 131-44.

DIE EINBEZIEHUNG DES LESERS

165

historischen Leser spricht die Literaturwissenschaft hier von dem 'filctiven Autor' und dem 'fiktiven Leser', die beide der textinternen Ebene zuzuordnen sind, während realer Autor und realer Leser der textexternen Ebene angehören I B. Doch während wir die Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten des fiktiven Erzählers in der griechischen Dichtung aus zahlreichen literarischen Selbstdarstellungen recht gut kennen, ist die Seite des Lesers bisher wenig erforscht. Der Grund liegt natürlich in der Sache selbst: mit Ausnahme des Epigramms, das ja die früheste leserorientiene Verskunst darstellt, gehön der fiktive Leser in keiner der traditionell mündlichen Gattungen zum Repenoire.Untersuchungen zu den expliziten oder nichtexpliziten fiktiven Lcserrollen in der modernen Literatur haben jedoch gezeigt, daß solche Rollen einerseits zwar stark typisien zu sein pflegen, andererseits aber oft den Möglichkeiten realen Leseverhaltens entsprechen. Vermittels der Leserrollen erfahren wir-das ist die methodische Konsequenz dieser Beobachtung-möglicherweise etwas allgemeines über die Erfahrungen einer Epoche mit dem Lesen. Im folgenden soll daher gefragt werden, welche Typologie von Leserrollen oder Lesesituationen sich in den kallimacheischen Epigrammen finden läßt und worin sie sich von den herkömmlichen Formen unterscheidet. Fiktive Kommunikationssituationen zwischen Autor und Leser finden wir in den frühen Grab- und Weihepigrammen der beschriebenen einfachen Struktur, später auch in Dialogepigrammen. folgende Typen fiktiver Leser, die wir bereits in den vorkallimacheischen Epigrammen antreffen, können wir erkennen: den Passanten, der seinen Gruß spricht (Ep. [3], 40 Pf.), den neugierig fragenden (Ep. 4, 10, 15 Pf.), das Gegenüber, das belehrt werden soll (Ep. 21, [36), 49, 55, 60 Pf.), den mitfühlsam Trauernden, (Ep. 9, 13 Pf.), den Überbringer der Todesbotschaft (Ep. 12 Pf.). Obwohl die hier erstellte Typologie die traditionellen fiktiven Leserrollen in Grabgedichten aufgreift, die ja in der Tat reales Leserverhalten angesichts eines Denkmals widerspiegeln, gibt es doch einen Unterschied: die Bedingungen des Lesens scheinen gerade nicht mehr selbstverständlich zu sein, sie werden im Gedicht thematisiert. Das läßt sich anhand der fiktiven Lesesituation in Ep. 15 Pf. verdeutlichen:

"Ttµov611."tk 6' e.cci;µa 6a{µovac, oü c' äv E1tqvrov, ti µ11Ttµo8rou 7tatpoc E7t11V Övoµa Ct11A.1ll ical M118uµva,tcii 1t6A.tc.~ µeya q,11µ1 xfipov avtäc8at cov 7COClV Eu8uµiV11.

18

Ein fiktiver Autor oder Leser isl nichl jede beliebige Figur, die im Text schreibend oder lesend dargeslelll wird, sondern die Rolle, in die der reale Autor schlüpft, ohne sich mil ihr ganz zu identifizieren, bzw. die Rolle, die er seinem Adressaten zur Identifikation anbielel Eine Figur wie der dileuantische Platonleser in Ep. 23 Pf. gehört der erzählien 'Welt im Text' an. Die im folgenden zu !reffenden lemlinologischen Unterscheidungen basieren auf der Darsiellung bei H. Link, Rezeptionsforschung. Eine Einführung in Methoden und Probleme, Stungan 1976.

166

MEYER "TlfflOnoc." Und wer bist du? Bei den Göttern, ich hl1uedich nicht erkannt. wenn nicht der Name des Timotheos, deines Vaiers, auf der Siele wllrc und Methymna, deine Heimatstadl Wahrlich, gro8es Leid, meine ich, trim deinen Gatien Euthymenes.

Das Besondere dieses Epigramms besteht darin, daß anstelle des fiktiven Dialogs zwischen Sprecher und Leser, wie er in den hier zum Vorbild genommenen Epigrammen üblich ist. nur die Aktion des Lesens dargestellt ist. Die Sprecherrolle ist entgegen der Konvention nicht mehr die Rolle des Infonnanten, da der Inhalt der Verse durch die Subjektivität eines Lesenden gebrochen vennittelt wird: der Leser des Kallimachosgedichteswiederum erfährt den Inhalt durch die Gedanken eines anderen, fiktiven Lesers19 • Auf diese Weise erzeugt derText die Illusion einer realen Lesesituation vor dem Stein20 . Das komplementäreBeispiel einer fiktiven reinen Autorrede bietet Ep. 56 Pf.: cJ>T1etV Ö µt: C't11CacEuatVE'tOC(OUyap C'(CJY'fE yiyvcocKco) Vt"TICcivti µE TilCi6h,c

aYJCEtc8atXCXA.KElOV aA.tKtopa Tuv6api611tcl· 7ttetcicocJ>ai6pou1tat6l cJ>i).o~EVi6Eco. Es sagt Euainetos, der mich aufgestellt hat-'tapo 'tOUC ye ~ 6taßac btt6V'tacä u CKtAacelv ill Kt'tP11 µ{µvevci11:etpec{11tc\ 6oveuµeva IC'Ul,la't' atllatc. w:p6c8e6t oi CCllCOC lcxev evaV'tfov·oi 6t l,l\VäµcpO> 1,1.u1C118µ.6it 1epa'tepoictvevhtA11~av1eepaecctv, ou6' äpa l,l\V'tU't86v21:ep UVO>XA\CUV CXV'tt60>vtec. ci>c 6' in' evl 'tpT1'tO\C\V eupp\VO\xoaVO\C\ Ö'tt µiv 't' civaµapµa{pouct cpßcatXUA,cn0>v rip 6).oov Ktl,I.Kpäcat, in' ai ATt"fOUC\V au'tµ;\c, 6etvoc 6' i~ a-in&vKEAE'tU\ ßp6µ.oc,on6't' a{~Tl\ ye 8o~v cpA6ya cpuct60>V'ttc vet68ev· locäpa 'tO> EIC C'tOl,I.Q'tQ)V oµci6euv,'tOV6' ciµcpe,i:e 6,itov at8oc ßcillov ä 'tEC'tEPOKfl • ICO'UPTtC 6t i cpapµa1e'lpu'to21,

187

128S

1290

129S

1300

130S

All dioOoflhnendioHallOlluefeatpmachthauen,IChriuderSohndeaAi1011 mit SpeerundSchild zumKampf',vomSchiffabspringend. Z111lelch halleerdenachimmemden, mit spitzenZlhnen[d.h. denDnchondhnen, dieJ11011 spller lllsslen wird) aeflllllenErzhelmgenommen unddasSchwertum dio Schulter,nacktan Ooslllt, teils dem Ares alelchend,teils dem Apollonmit dem aoldonen Schwert.AufdemBrachfeldsichumachauend erbllclcteer das eherneJochder StiereundbeiIhmden 1111einemStockparbolteten Pflug von hartem Stahl.Er trat nlher,pflanzteden mlchtiaen Speer prade mit demSchaftondoIn die Erde und lohnteden Helman den Speer.Dannaina er 101,allein mit dom Schildpr(lstet, und folate den zahllosenSpurender Stiere. Diese nun lcamonaus einer vtlborpnon, unterirdischenHöhle,wo Ihre feste, von RauchschwadenolnphUllte Stallun1sich befind,boldo1ualolchhervor;flammendesFeuerwar Ihr Atem.Bs orachrakendie Holden,alsllo • llhen: Juon aberllOlltesich breit hin und erwartete den Anarlff,wieein Fels In der Brandunadon von ondlolOIISlllrmonppohachten Wo1onatandhlll. Vor sich aotzteer aolnenSchild1oaondie Slltre. Die11lo8en boldelaut brUllendmh Ihren11arkenHörnerndqepn, aber sie konntenIhnnicht vomFleck beweaen,10 18hrsie Ihmzu1e1iten.Wie wennIn den durchbohrtenSc:hmclztle11cln die ledernenBlasebalge der Schmiede balddas vernichtende Feuer aumackem lassen, bald ihren Hauch unterbrechen und ein gewaltiges Brausen entsteht, wenn das Feuer vom Boden aufschießt: so

21

1295 µ{µvtv Merkel Stall µ{µvu (gehalten von Vian), vgl. Anm. 25; 1300 bevorzugt Vian civaµopµupouc1 Pap. Mil. 121 (civaµoopµ.), Ruhnken stall civaµapµa{pouc1, vgl. Anm. 30. Derselbe Papyrus bietet nach 1302, wie es scheint, Reste von drei sonst unbekannten Versen, s. M.W. Haslarn, "Apollonius and the Papyri", /CS 3, 1978.63. Zu Fränkels Umstellung von 1265-7 hinter 1292 vgl. Hunter (Anm. 1), 239.

188

SIER hauchten die Stiere die eilende Ramme mit lautem Schall aus ihren Mllulem. Brennende Glut umgab den Helden und schlug an ihn wie ein Blitz. Aber Medeas 2.aubermiuelschUIZlC ihn.

Wenn im folgenden eine Nachbildung dieses Passus in der Arcs-Panic des Dcloshymnos plausibel gemacht werden soll, so mag man angesichts der Verschiedenheit der mythischen Gegebenheiten von vornherein die Frage stellen, wo der gemeinsame Schnittpunkt beider Erzählungen zu suchen ist. Mit anderen Woncn: was könnte Kallimachos bewogen haben, als Parallele für die Aristic des Pcncios ausgerechnet ein thematisch so inkongruentes Geschehen wie Jasons Stierkampf im Bewußtsein des Lesers zu evozieren? Die Antwon hierauf ergibt sich, wie ich glaube, einmal aus der gemeinsamen Herkunft beider Akteure. Der thcssalischc Flußgott wird durch die literarische Anspielung neben den repräsentativen Helden Thcssalicns gerückt, die Bewährung seiner cipe-r,i soll als Analogon oder auch, wenn man der mythischen Chronologie folgt, als Präfiguration der herausragenden heroischen Leistung Jasons erscheinen. Denn auch Jason hat es in gewisser Weise mit Ares zu tun. Der Ort des Geschehens ist in den Argonautika das am Phasis, 11:apa XEV..OC U.tccoµtvou 11:01:aµoio(1277) 22 , gelegene 'Feld des Ares' (vt:toc "Ap11oc, 11:t:liiov 'Ap,itov [ 1270) u.ä.); von Aictcs heißt es 2.1205f., er könne es mit Ares aufnehmen 'im furchtbaren Kampfgeschrei und der gewaltigen Kraft'23. Kallimachos konnte also wohl darauf vcnraucn, daß für den aufmerksamen Leser, wenn er vom Wettstreit des thcssalischcn Protagonisten mit dem im barbarischen Norden sitzenden Ares hörte, der Gedanke an die literarische Novität des Apollonios nicht eben fern lag. Wie im Dcloshymnos handelt es sich auch in den Argonautika um einen Agon zwischen sehr ungleichen Gegnern. Der Held der Handlung ergreift jeweils die Initiative und löst die Reaktion der durch unartikuliertes Brüllen und ungcschlachte Gewalt charakterisierten Gegenseite aus24. Beidemal bildet das Entsetzen, das die Umgebung, Thcssalicn bzw. die Argonauten, packt, den Hintergrund für die Aristic des Helden (Kali. 139f., A.R. 1293). Bei Kallimachos bleibt es bei der Drohgebärde des Ares, der unter lautem Geschrei mit der Spccrspitzc gegen seinen eigenen Schild schlägt, während die Stiere des Aictcs wirklich angreifen und brüllend mit ihren Hörnern gegen den Schild Jasons stoßen (Kali. 136f., A.R. 1296f.). Der Hauptakteur zeigt sich vom Auftreten der

22

EÄ.iccoµivou (Herwerden für das unpassende tov 6· ... i:Ä.iccoµEvov)wird gesLUlZtdurch das kallimacheische • (nTJVElOC) i:Ä.iccoµEVOC füa TEµltEWV 105 meint hier und im folgenden 'an gleicher Versstellestehend'). In der RUstungsszenedes Aietes 3.1226 heißt es von seinem Brustpanzer (konlnlStierendmit Jasons Nacktheit 1282): tov oi nopEVE~EVap(~acI ccpwitipTJlCcJ>Ä.E"fpaiov WApTJC Üno IEPCi.M(µavta. Es ist wohl Zufall, daß Kallimachos seine Iris sich gerade auf dem Mimas postieren lllßt, wo der Gigant begraben liegt (Mineur [Anm. 1], 105). Die Exposition des Geschehens nimmt in den Argonawilcanaturgemäß bedeutend mehr Raum ein als bei Kallimachos, wo Ares schon vorher handelnd aufget.reten (62-5) und sein Eingreifen in der Peneios-Rede vorbereitetisL

c·

23

24

DIE PENEIOS-EPISODE

189

gegnerischenSeite unbeeindruckt: µ{µve1v steht an beiden Stellen (148 bzw. 1295)25 , und beidemal wird die Bedrohung durch ein episches Gleichnis veranschaulicht, das vom Schmiedehandwerk hergenommen ist; dem Kontext entsprechend betont die generalisierende Darstellung des Apollonios (1299-303) mehr das visuelle Moment des aufschießenden Fcucn, während es in der individualisierenden Gestaltung des Kallimachos (141-6) auf den akustischen Effekt ankommt. Der Wirkung von Medcas cpapµaica (1305) läßt sich Lctos Intervention ( 150-2) zur Seite stellen. Neben den Konvergenzen finden sich, wie nicht anders zu erwarten, auch einige pointierte Abweichungen oder Variationen im Verhältnis beider Partien. So verbinden sich im Helden des Apollonios die Vorzüge des Ares mit denen des Apollon (1282f.), während Kallimachos allen Nachdruck auf die wcsensmäßigc Geschiedenheit beider Gottheiten legt. Spielt die Handlung der Argonautika im barbarischen Kolchis, so bringt bei Kallimachos die Anlage der Erzählung zwar eine räumliche Trennung der Kontrahenten mit sich, aber das eigentliche Geschehen ist auf griechischem Boden lokalisiert. Der kallimachcischc Ares sitzt auf einem Berggipfel, während die Stiere des Aietes aus einer unterirdischen Höhle hervorkommen (mit diesem Zug und mit den P6auÄ.a icaptepcx Ä.1yvu6tv'tl 1tip1~ dÄ.uµeva icaKVii>t1290f. mag man im Deloshymnos den ica'tou5aioc y{yac Briareus und das Ai'tVaiov Öpoc 1tupl 'tucp6µevov 141-3 vergleichen). Die unterschiedliche Plazicrung der Schmiedegleichnisse-bei Kallimachos vor, bei Apollonios hinter dem 'µ{µve1v'-Motiv-erklärt sich aus dem Umstand, daß das Gleichnis in den Argonaurika zur zweiten Phase des Kampfes überleitet und Jasons icap'ttp{a zuvor schon durch ein anderes Gleichnis illustriert wurde (1294f.). Zu erwähnen ist schließlich die wechselnde Korrelation personaler und nichtpersonalcr Figuren: der Fluß Pencios stellt sich zu Jason, Ares zu den Stieren; beachtenswert ist hierbei vielleicht, daß Flußgötter in der Antike traditionell in Sticrgestalt vorgestellt wurden26. Nun könnten die angeführten Beziehungen ein Abhängigkeitsverhältnis wohl nicht endgültig beweisen, wenn nicht noch etwas anderes hinzukäme. Apollonios und Kallimachos verwerten hier beide dieselben drei Stellen der archaischen Epik: den Titanenkampf und die Typhonomachie in Hcsiods Theogonie sowie den Anfang der homerischen Schildbeschreibung 27. Da diese Reminiszenzen beidemal nur motivische Funktion haben und sich nicht unmittelbar aus der dargestellten Sache ergeben, läßt sich m. E. sicher folgern, daß sie in der jüngeren Gestaltung dazu eingesetzt sind, den Leser auf den 25

26 27

Mag das Uberliefene Prasens bei Apollonios auch sprachlich möglich sein (s. Vian z. St.), so scheint mir hier doch der Sinn zu fordern, daß der Nachdruck auf der Standfestigkeit Jasons, nicht auf der Beslllndigkeit der cnv..ac liegt, also µiµvcv (Merkel) wie bei Kallimachos. Vgl. West zu Hes. Th. 789; H.P. lsler, Acheloos, Bern 1970; ders., "Acheloos", L/MC 1 1, 1981, 12-36. /I. 21.237 Skamandros µEµuicwcTJUtEtaüpoc. Die Anklänge sind, für beide Autoren getrennt, in der Mehrzahl längst notiert. Vgl. neben den Kommentaren einerseits Campbell (Anm. 1), 83, andererseits H. Reinsch-Wemer, Callimachus H~siodicus, Berlin 1976, 176-82 u. ö. Apollonios und Kallimachos scheinen beide in mehrerem auch von der pseudhesiodeischen Aspis beeinflußt (Campbell a. O.; Reinsch-Wemcr 239f.), aber da sie sich auf verschiedeneSiellen beziehen, sehe ich hier davon ab.

190

SIER

inrcnextuellenZusammenhangmit der zeitgenössischenParallele hinzuweisen.Bezeichnenderweise geschiehtdas in der An, daß die eine Nachbildunggerade solche Motive heranzieht. die der anderen fehlen. Kallimachosnimmt aus der ersten Stelle (Hes. Th. 664-710) den grandios gesteigerten Ausdruck des Kampfgetösesvariierend auf28,Apollonios das Elementdes Feuen und des Gluthauchs,der vom Blitz des Zeus ausgeht29• Der Iliaspartie (/1. 18.468-77)entlehnt Kallimachos(144f.)das Bild des mit seiner ,ropcryP'll arbeitenden Hephaistos, Apollonios das technische Detail der intermittierenden Blasebllge30. Das Schmiedegleichnisim ganzen ist bei beiden durch den hesiodcischen Typhoeuskampf inspiriert.Als don Zeus dasUntier mit seinem Blitz erschlägt, bricht es krachend zusam-

men: cpAo~ 6k icepauvm8ivtoc cb:iccuto to'io clvaictoc o-!Speoc~ ß,'\CCT\\C\V tAl6NHC 1ta\1taÄ.oicCT1c 7tÄ.1lYivtoc, 1toU~ 6k 7teÄ.o'>P1l ica{etoya'ia aütµfh 8ec1tec{11\, ica\ miiceto icacc{upoc l»c tqvTl\ UK'ait11&v~ eutp~tO\CxoaVO\C\31 8aÄ.cp8e\c,'ikc{611poc,iSKep 1Cpateponat6cect\V, o-!Speoc~ ß,'\CCTI\C\ 6aµat6µevoc ,rop\ 1C11Ä.ian ~ICfta\ ~ x8ov\6{11\ 'Ücp''Hcpa{ctouKaÄ.aµ1l\C\V• &c:clpa ~iceto ya'ia cD.cu Kupbc ai8oµivo\o, ~'ive 64 µ\V 8uµ&\ aicaxcbvic Taptapov e'UP')V. 21

29

30

31

860

865

Kali. 140 totoc -rap cm'ac,d&oc @pllj,lcv ~xoc, 147 t~µoc fr1vt' clpcapocca1C1oct6coc cuiroic:>.o,o - Hos. Tlt. 703 totoc yap 11:1 µi-,ac {1110 &t111oc opciipc,,705 t6ccoc &t111oc t,evw 81Bivlp,&, ~uv,6vu1v, Dazu Kall, 136 111681 3' icµ11paY11CE - Hos, Tlt, 679 • yf\ &l lUT' icµ11paY11CE, 142 cclov,11, - 680 • c1,6µ1voc, l45r. -1,11,1 - acwbv ... !ax1ticw - 678 -1,11,1kwbv &l111p!ax1,wie denn die pnze Partie Tlt.678-83, wo du durch du KamprplOlo eneuate, bil ln die Unterweltreichende Erdbeben boschrlebenwlrd, zusammen mit Tlt. 850-2 und mlt II. 20.56-66 (val. 59 11avuc a•iccc!ov-ro1163cc110).u11(&al(OC ~,a„c mit Kali. 142) Im Hlnterpund der ka111machelschen Darstclluna steht, nur daß hier das Motiv aur orlalnolle Welae ln einen Vqlelch transronnlen lsL Val, rerner Kall. 134mit Hea,Tlt, 675, 146 mit 704. A.R. 1303&cri\vcp).öyca cpuc,6111vuc 1- Hea, Tlt, 692 lcp~v cp).öyca 1l).ucp6covnc1.A.R. 1304toY 8' i\µcpC111 &f\1ovcat8oc(i\µcp1111 KorrekturMerkolarur ~cpl n) - Hoa.Tlt, 696• ,obc:8' i\µtllQ 81pµbc ciutµ~ (zum VonachluOvgl, A.R. 1301),In cptlcca,... civllj,l11pµ11!pouc11 lltlp nÄ. 13001, kontaminiert Apollonloa II. l8,470r, cptlc111 ... c ATfYOUC1v ciutµijc scheint überdies zu verweisenauf den korrupt überliefertenund vielleicht interpoliertenVers Hes. Th. 48 (Mouca1 Zijva) apxoµEVai a· uµvEUCI8Eai Arnoucai t' ao16ijc. Der Hesiodvers wllre dann vielleichtherzustellenäi>xoµEVai8' uµvruc' ÖtEt' ao ATJyt>\ICIV cioi6ijc. So Peppmüllerstau UltOt' EÜtpTJtO\I xoavo10,s. West z. St

DIE PENEIOS-EPISODE

191

Wenn man die Funktion der drei Gleichnissein ihrem Kontext betrachtet. lllßt sich sagen. da8 die Korrelation der pragmatischen und der Vergleichsebene am strengsten bei Apollonios durchgeführt ist. Das auffllligstc, ft1r1ason gcfllhrlichsteMerkmal der Stiere wird in dem Gleichnis prlzise abgebildet, und wenn der Dichter mit dem Ausdruck ev\ ,:p,,,:oüav eupp\VO\XOCXVO\C\ (1299) wörtlich an Th. 863 erinnert (vgl. auch • ,ropoc cäuc a-1292 mit Th. 867), so verweist er den Leser indirekt auch auf die Situation, die in der 'Vorlage' durch dasSchmiedegleichnisillustriertwurde:die Stiere des Aictes sind so urweltlich-monströs wie Typhocus, ihr Feueratem ist wie ein Blitzschlag (1305 [ä] ,:e c,:epo,rli - • ,:e c,:epoKJIVTh. 854) und zugleich der versengendenGlut lhnlich, die von dem in Brand gesetzten Monster abstrahlt. An der Hcsiodstellc selbst dient du Gleichnis nicht der Abspicgelung des Hauptgcschchcn~r Tötung des Typhocus durch Zeus-, sondern es veranschaulichtdessen llußcreWirkung, so als sei das eigentliche 6e\V6vgar nicht anpmcssen wiederzugeben.Diese relativ lockereEinbettungder Gleichnisthcmatikin den Kontext bedeutet freilich wenig gegenüber der spielerischen Gestaltung des Kallimachos, der den von Ares crzcu1ten Lllrm und das gerlluschvolleDurcheinander in der Hephaiato1-Schmiededarin konversierenlllßt,daß daseine die Ursacheund dasandere die Folp eines Erdbebens ist. Auf diesem skurrilen Vergleichshintergrundfindet dann der metallene Klang des von der Speerspitze getroffenen Schildes seine 'Parallele' in dem Aufeinanderprallender Schmiedeutensilien,deren ohrcnbetllubendcsGetöse dem sensiblen Dichter auch schon unter normalenUmstandenein Greuel pwesen zu sein scheint (v1l. h. 3.54ft'. [oben S. 183); zur Thematik auch fr. 115.1lff, ?H1lcal1fr. 260.68f. Pf. • 74.27f. (144) kombinien Kallimachos da1 Holll1). In der Wendun1 ucp•'Hcpau:to\o 1n>payPT1c /lla.r-Modv (1.0.) mit einer Remini1zenzan den metonymi1chenAusdruck Th. 866 • ucp• 'Hcpau:,:ou,i:czÄa~T'I\C\V, doch funaicrt der punktuelleAnklan1 wie bei Apollonios nur all Sipal einer weiterphenden Bezugnahme.Wir wissen nicht. welcherOnsname sich hinter dem UberliefenenAlt&NHCTh. 860 verblr1t, aber es handelt sich aupnscheinlich nicht um den Ätna, wo Typhoeus nach der splteren Tradition begrabenliest (s. West z. St.). FUr Kallimacho1 i1t die1er Befund Anlaß 1enu1, die mytholo1ischen Daten ppneinander a1111111pielen, indem er Briareu1unter den Ätna setzt (val. Anm. 13), freilichnicht ohne mit "n>cpo~ivolo (141), die zualelch den hesiodeischen VeraschluB der Wendun1 5paoc1n>p\ cal8o~ivo,o (867) virilen, anzudeuten,daß nach 1Kn1iaerAuft'a11un1eben cG.u, 1n>poc Typhoeu1fUrdie vulkanischeTKtiakeitdes Ätna verantwonllchl1t. DerTyphoeuslcampf1Utvielen modernenHe1lodlnterpretenal1 lnterpOlation,und e1 Dlchter-Oelehnen den Reiz mag sein, daß die Pfflie auch 1chon fUrdie alexandrinillc:hen eines philologischen ~TltTJµa besaß. Gegen die Möglichkeit, daß beide Autoren unabhängig voneinanderan den /ocus dubius geraten sind, sprechenjedoch die oben (S. 184ff.) angeführtenaus der Hesiod-Nachfolgcnicht ableitbarenKonvergenzensowie die Tatsache, daß beide sich gleichzeitigin der Adaptationweiterer Stellen der archaischenEpik treffen (oben S. 189f.).

192

SIER

Ab.epticn man die Annahme eines literarischen Zusammenhangs zwischen den Partien bei Apollonios und Kallimachos32, so ist klar, daßdie Priorität den Argonautilcagehören muß. Beweisend dafür ist neben der allgemeinen Erwägung, daß Apollonios schwerlich an der Parallelisierung seines Helden mit einem Fluß interessiert gewesen sein dürfte, auch die kallimachcischc Gestaltung selbst. Das gesuchte Motiv des gegen seinen eigenen Schild stoßenden Ares (136f.)33 gibt sich als die 'reflexive' Umsetzung eines Geschehens zu erkennen, wie es in den Argonautilca(1296f.) vorliegt. Ebenso ist kaum zu bezweifeln, daß der geradlinige Kontextbezug der Schmiedethematik bei Apollonios gegenüber der gleichsam um die Ecke gedachten Relation im Dcloshymnos das frühere darstellt; und denselben Schluß legt der Umstand nahe, daß die Entscheidungssituation, die der Aristic des Helden jeweils voraufgeht, in den Argonauti/ca von dem Agon selbst durch einige hundert Verse gctrcMt ist, während die Pcncios-Episode beides unmittelbar zusammenfaßt (oben S. 184). Schließlich mag eine kleinere Unstimmigkeit auffallen, die Kallimachos vermutlich mit voller Absicht eingeführt hat. Der heroische Gestus des oÜK aU'tlc exaCeto (148)34 ist nach der lautstarken Drohung zuvor zwar an sich wirkungsvoll, aber er paßt eigentlich nicht zur vorausgesetzten Situation; denn Ares will den Pcneios ja nicht zum Zurückweichen, sondern zum Weiterfließen veranlassen (vgl. 8oac 6' ec-t11ca'to 6ivac 149), während das oÜK qa~t'to an eine Haltung denken läßt, wie sie Jason gegenüber den angreifenden Stieren an den Tag legt ( 1298). In der Fülle von Anklängen und Berührungen, die das Werk des Apollonios und die kallimacheischen Dichtungen verbinden, finden sich nur wenige verwertbare Anhaltspunkte für eine relative Chronologie, und da scheint, jedenfalls nach gängiger Forschungsmeinung, in der Regel Apollonios der Nehmende zu sein35. Der vorliegende Fall ist nicht allein als 7.cugnis für die Argonautilca-Rezeptiondes Kallimachos von Interesse, sondern er gewinnt zusätzlich an Bedeutung dadurch, daß der Dcloshymnos der einzige unter den kallimacheischcn Hymnen ist, der eine einigermaßen fundierte ungefähre Datierung 32

33

34

35

Campbell (Anm. 1), 83 verweist aur die an Apollonios angelehnte Darstellung von Jasons Agonbei Ovid Met. 7.104-6: ecce adamanteis Vulcanum naribus efflant I aeripedes tauri, tactae uaporibus herbae I ardent, utque solent pleni resonare camini etc., und bemerkt 123 Anm. 2, daß resonare camini auffallend an den Deloshymnos 144 8Epµac'tpm 'tE jlpcµoucw in:Ä..anklingt Wie es aussieht, hat der 'Leser' Ovid hier genau die Parallele gezogen, die Kallimachos intendiert hat. Die Erklllrer zitieren X. An. 4.5.18 aval(pay6vuc öcov i6uvav't0 µiylC'tOV, 'tClCäcni6ac npoc 'ta 66pata bpoucav (vgl. 1.8.18). Vgl. auch Petron 59.3 (über die Homeristen!) intrauit factio statim hastisque scuta concrepuit. Das fonnale Vorbild des Kallimachos ist II. 20.260 µtya 6' aµq>l Ca.lCOCµun 6oupoc al((1>1Cijl.Aber mit Blick auf das anschließende 11(acnlc) 6' EMÄ.l~EV iv01tÄ.lovist zugleich an das Motiv des Waffentanzes (Gigante Lanzara [Anm. 1), l 13f.) zu denken: vgl. h. 1.52-4 ('tEUXEanEnÄ.11yovuc53) und v. a. A.R. 1.1135f. (vfol) ivonÄ.lov t:ii..iccov'to l 1Cal cana ~l~ECCl Ell[l('tl)llOV(t:iÄ.lCCOV'tO tesL, wpxiicav'tO codd.), was doch wohl im Deloshymnos zitiert wird. Vgl. V. a. /1. 18.160 (Hektar) Oll\CQ)6' ouxaC['to naµnav. Vgl. den Überblick bei Hutchinson (Anm. 1), 87ff.; auch P. Bing, "Callimachus' Cows: A Riddling Rccusatio", ZPE 54, 1984, 7f., und M.A. Harder (in diesem Band), 103 Anm. 23.

DIE PENEIOS-EPISODE

193

aufgrund äußerer Kriterien erlaubt36; wir erhalten damit auch für die umstrittene Zeitbestimmung des Argonautenepos ein wichtiges Indiz. Terminus post quem für den Deloshymnos ist die in den Versen 185-7 angedeutete Niederschlagung eines Aufstandes von 4000 keltischen Söldnern im Dienst Ptolemaios' 11.,die um 275 v. Chr. anzusetzen ist. Kallimachos erwähnt dieses Ereignis als Pendant zu dem in 171ff. beschriebenen Angriff der Galater auf Delphi (279/8 v. Chr.), d.h. um der Parallele Ptolemaios-Apollon willen (~uvoc äEBloc171), und man kann aus der Tatsache, daß es sich bei dem Vorfall um ein historisch vergleichsweise unbedeutendes Datum handelt, nicht zuverlässig ableiten, der Deloshymnos müsse bald nach 275 entstanden sein 37. Zur Bestimmung der unteren Grenze bieten die Verse 166-70 einigen Anhalt. Wenn dort die unumschränkte Herrschaft des Philadelphos über Festland und Inseln betont wird, so kann dies, auch wenn man bei dem als Prophezeiung Apollons gehaltenen Enkomion nicht jedes Wort auf die Goldwaage legen darf, schwerlich noch nach dem Seesieg des Antigonos Gonatas bei Kos gesagt sein, der der ptolemäischen Dominanz in der Ägäis ein Ende machte; unter den vorgeschlagenen Datierungen der Schlacht scheint die auf das Jahr 255 v. Chr., im 2. Syrischen Krieg, am besten begründet zu sein 38 • Trifft dies zu, dann wurde das dritte Buch der Argonautilca,auf das der kallimacheische Hymnos Bezug nimmt, vor 255 verfaßt und-da die poetische Idee der Peneios-Episode sich erst voll erschließt, wenn der Leser die Bezugnahme realisiertvor diesem Zeitpunkt auch schon veröffentlicht. Entgegen mancher Spätdatierung konvergiert dieses für Buch III gewonnene Ergebnis mit dem Ansatz u.a. von Wilamowitz,

36

37

38

Diskussion und Literaturangaben bei Mineur (Anm. 1), 16-8; Schwinge (Anm. 1), 77 Anm. 88; Bing (Anm. 1), 91-3. Darüber, daß V. 165 (8coc äU.OC)nicht notwendig die i.J. 272/1 v. Chr. erfolgte Einrichtung des Kults der Theoi Adelphoi Ptolemaios und Arsinoe voraussetzt, s. Mineur (Anm. 1), J6f., Bing (Anm. 1), 92 Anm. 3. Nach Mineur wurde der Deloshymnos als Geburtslagsgedicht fUr Ptolemaios Philadelphos am 7. März 274 vorgetragen (10-6. 18), wllhrend Bing (Anm. 1), 93 in der Eroberung Korsikas durch Cn. Comelius Scipio iJ. 259 einen TerminMsante glaubt sehen zu dOrfen,da V. 19 von der ll>o{vaccaKupvoc die Rede ist. Zu den Beziehungen zwischen dem Deloshymnos und lbeoc. 17 s. W. Meincke, UntersMchwngen'" den enkomiastischen Gedichte11 Tlieotrits, Diss. Kiel 1965, 116-24; F.T. Griffith, "The Date of Callimachus' Hymn to Delos", Maia 29-30, 1977/8, 97-100. Die Prioritätsfrage scheint auf immanentem Wege nicht entscheidbar zu sein; nach der hier vorgelegten Interpretation ist Theokrits Gedicht (entstanden zwischen 278 und 270 v. Chr.) aller Wahrscheinlichkeitnach das frühere. Sou. a. Mineur (Anm. 1), 17f. nach Wilamowitz, Textgeschichteder griechischenBllkolilc.er,Berlin 1906, 173. Eher könnte man umgekehrt argumentieren, daß die poetische Überhöhung des mehr marginalen Vorfalls voraussetze, da8 sein Hergang dem Leser nicht mehr genau im Gedachmis war. Zur Parallelisierung Apollon-Ptolemaios s. Schwinge (Anm. 1), 79; Bing (Anm. 1), 128ff.; Gosling (Anm. 3), 509ff. Vgl. H.-J. Gehrke, Geschichtedes Hellenismws,MUnchen 1990, 201: "Da8 die Seeschlacht von Kos ... am ehesten in das Jahr 255 gehört, haben Buraselis (K. Buraselis, Das hellenistischeMakedonien Mnddie AgcUs,MUnchen 1982) und jetzt vor allem Walbank (N.G.L. Hammond-F.W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia 3, Oxford 1988, 587ff.) so plausibel gemacht, wie dies Uberhauptmit unserem Material möglich ist".

194

SIER

der die Publikationdes Epos "auf das Ende der sechzigeroder die ersten fllnfzigerJahre" des 3. Jh. bestimmtel9. Zum Schlu8118t sich fragen, welche Absicht Kallimachosmit der Adaptation der epischenPartie verfolgthabenmag. Wie oben (S. 188)bemerkt,erzielt der Dichtermit der Anspielungeinen ethopoietischenEffekt; der Heldenmutdes Pcneios und die blindwütige Drohungdes Ares werdendurch die Anlehnungdes Geschehensan Jasons Stierabenteuer auf eine fUr den verstehendenLeser reizvoll-indirekteWeise charakterisien.Eine andere Frap ist, ob Kallimachos, wenn er die Szene in diese Pcnpektive stellt, primlr die

pnannte Wirkungintendiertoder ob umgekehrtdie Konzeptionder Pcneios-Episodcvor allemdaraufangelegtist, das Werkdes Apolloniosins Spiel zu bringen.Die Gestaltungder Ares-Partie, ihr fUr kallimacheischePraxis ungewohnt'epischer' Charakter (vgl. oben S. 182ff.),empfiehltdoch wohl die AMahmeder zweitenMöglichkeit,wenn sich auch nicht leicht abschltzen llßt, in welchem Sinn Kallimachosdas Verhlltnis zu seiner 'Vorlap' verstanden wissen will. Der Dichter der Argonautilca dürfte die Metamorphose,die der Aristie seines Helden im phantasievoll-skurrilenGeschehen des Deloshymnos zuteil wurde, mit pmiachten Oefllhlenbetrachtethaben,ist doch die Ironie,mit der Kallimachol den epischen lSy1eoceinsetzt, unverkennbar. Aber handelt es sich dabei um ein freundschaftlich-neckendesSpiel zwischen Dichterkollegen,oder liegt in der kallimachei1ehenMimesisnoch etwu mehr und möglicherweiseein prinzipiellerHinweisauf die diffizile poetologischePosition des Apollonios,der als Ubeneugter und praktizierender Kallimacheerein als thematisches~ konzipiertes,in einem durchphendes, viele tausend Vene umfusendes Epos UberHeroen der Voneit geschriebenhat, wie es Kallimachos selbst in Theorie und Praxis ablehnte (fr. l.3ff.)? Vielleicht sollte man diese Frage vonichtshalber unentschieden lasscn40, aber die Anlage der Pcneios-Episodelldt doch immeminzu einer Vermutungein. Ich habe eingangszu zeigenversucht,daßdie Szene in stilistisch-erzlhltechnischer Hinsicht eine Zweiteilung aufweist. Der fllr Kallimachos charakteri1tiachen Verschmelzungepischermit lyrisch-dramatischen Elementenin den von Leto und Peneio1ptragenen Abschnittensteht die betont epische Form der Ares-Partie ppnUber, und daßdies keine bloß lußerliche Differenzierungist, gibt das unterschiedliche Btho1 beider Teile, der Kontraat zwl1chen der plumpen Oewalttltigkeit de1 Krte11aone1 und den 1ubtilenOedankenbeweaunpn aeiner Oeaenspleler, zu erkennen (oben S. 179ft'.).Nun i1t beachten1wen,daß Kalllmacho1,wenn nicht alle• tluacht, auch H

40

Wllamomlll(Anm. 1), 2, 168, N1&Urllch llelll 1lch bei dlGNmwie bei jedem Vera11ch, die A,,0,11, ..,,.. IIIUlch11111 nxlnn, du ProblemderPro,Atloll,,11ndU lll lhecxedlCh mGallch, da8 Kallimachol sich auf eine llltereVersion als die uns vorliegende bezogen hat; Spekulationen darüber möchte ich jedoch nicht nachgehen. (Kaum relevant filr die Frage der Proekdosis sind die vermutlichen Plus-Verse nach A.R. 3.1302, vgl. Haslarn [Anm. 21), 61ff.) Zur Datierungsproblematik der Argonau1ikavgl. die Literatur bei Schwinge (Anm. 1), 83ff. und Hunter (Anm. 1), lff. Um hier fundiener urteilen zu köMen, milßaen wir, von anderen Unwägbarkeiten abgesehen, wissen, wie die Darstellung von Theseus' Stierkampf in der kallimacheischen He/caleausgesehen hat und in welch« Weise Apollonios darauf Bezug nimmt; Anklänge an die erhaltenen Fragmenae bei Campbell (Anm. 1), 79f.

DIE PENEIOS-EPISODE

195

bei der Rede des Pcneios (121-33) eine Stelle der Argonautika vor Augen hat. nur daß er in diesem Fall die Stilisierung seines Modells beiseite schiebt und durch etwas signifikant Verschiedenes ersetzt (oben S. 184). Wie läßt sich dieser ambivalente Umgang mit dem Vorbild verstehen? Meint Kallimachos an der einen Stelle: so hätte Apollonios dichten sollen. und an der anderen: so hat er gedichtet? Oder geht es. was wohl mehr für sich hat. um einen Unterschied der Gattungen (vgl. oben S. 181-4)? Ungeachtet aller Gemeinsamkeiten. die beide Autoren verbinden, mochte Kallimachos der Ansicht sein. daß der Versuch des Apollonios, die epische Tradition auf immanentem Wege, unter Wahrung der Großform und typischer Gestaltungsmuster, zu erneuern, eine halbherzige Lösung möglich machte. Ein solcher darstellte, die manches von dem preisgab, was die neue 'tEXV'l Vorbehalt würde durch das kontrastierende Nebeneinander von Anlehnung (Ares-Partie) und Abgrenzung (Peneios-Rede), das der Dcloshymnos in der Adaptation der aus den ArgonaUlikaübernommenen Motive z.eigt.jedenfalls treffend illustriert. Die Stilisierung des Herocnepos, so wäre der poetologische Sinn der Reminiszenzen auszulegen, mag der aü~11c1e von Gewalt- und Kriegsaktionen entgegenkommen, aber ihre Differenzierungsmöglichkeiten sind begrenzt, und wer als Dichter in z.eitgemäßer Weise dem Charakter der jeweils dargestellten Sache gerecht werden will, wird sich nicht an die Gesetze einer einzigen, über viele tausend Verse festgehaltenen Stilganung binden, sondern die xoA.un6ia pflegen, die in den kallimacheischen Dichtungen so virtuos in Erscheinung trin (vgl. Dieg. IX 33ff. zu fr. 203). Wie oben gesagt. kann man nicht sicher sein, ob Kallimachos seine Darstellung auf eine solch programmatische Aussage angelegt hat. und man mag gegen die hier erwogene Deutung einwenden, daß sie ihm ein allzu einseitiges Bild vom Werk des Apollonios unterstellc41. Letzteres ist freilich kein zwingendes Argument. Was Kallimachos von den Argonautilca gehalten hat, wissen wir nicht; aber es wäre nicht überraschend, wenn sein streitbares Temperament ihn--caqnivtiac tvEKa-die Grenzen etwas schärfer ziehen ließ. als er sie in Wirklichkeit gezogen sah.

41

Man könnte darauf hinweisen, daß das Stierabenteuer nicht eben typisch für den Inhalt der Argonawika ist, wie ja auch Jason selbst keineswegs ein Recke alten Schlages ist (Schwinge [Anm. 1), 93ff.; R.L. Hunter. "Short on Heroics: Jason in the Argona11tiA:a", CQ n.s. 38, 1988, 436-53; Hutchinson [Anm. 1), 8Sf.}, doch würde dieser Einwand an einem Anliegen des Kallimachos, wie es im YOl'llllgehendenvermutet wurde, vorbeigehen; vgl. auch Anm. 40.

CAILIMAOIUS BACK IN ROME Richard F. Thomas

The study of Callimachean elements in Roman poetry has been a real growth industry in the recent years 1• A number of general reasons, to some degree overlapping, may be seen as accounting for the increase: (1) first, and most obviously, there are the papyrological finds, particularly POxy. 2079 and the preface to the Aetia; although the preface was edited 65 years ago, its impact on Latin poetry is still being explored 2 ; (2) the publication of Pfeiffer's edition in 1949 and 1953 meant that Callimachus was accessible as never before-and the most extensive and original work on Callimachus and Roman poetry is in fact contained in the notes of the first volume. Two other reasons have more to do with changes in the reading and criticism of Roman poetry: (3) in the past two decades Latin studies, albeit somewhat late, have begun to move away from the formalist, unitary preoccupations of New Criticism. The journals are no longer brimming with explications of the structure, imagery, sound-patterns, and affective metrical rhythms of individual poems 1

In his recent useful bibliography of Callimachus Luigi Lehnus (BibliografiaCallimachea1489-1988,

2

Genoa 1989, 358-87) lists, under the various sub-entries of the section ''Fonuna a Roma" a lOlal (E) of 511 entries, which I have broken down, by chronology somewhat arbitrarily, and by Roman poet 62 wereproduced before 1900 (A), 37 between 1900 and the publication of the Aetia preface in 1'¥1.7 (B), 112 between that date and Wimmel's monograph of 1960 (C}-though Preiffer's somewhat earlier editions constitute the more productive event-, and fully 300 between 1960 and 1988 (D). As of that date there were 50 entries on "Fortuna a Roma" in general, 29 on Ennius, 137 on Catullus (the winner), 45 on Virgil, 30 on Horace, 19 on Tibullus, 83 on Propertius, and 87 on Ovid, and 31 on the rest I do not have the impressionthat the rate of production has decreased since 1988. pre-1900 1900-27 1927-00 1900-88 Total (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) In general 1 5 11 33 S0 Ennius: 0 3 7 19 29 Catullus: 45 22 2 68 137 Virgil: 2 7 34 45 2 4 1 4 Horace: 21 30 Tibullus: 12 1 3 19 3 14 Propertius: 8 58 3 83 22 Ovid: 15 13 37 87 Others: 3I 4 4 18 5 OVERAI.L 62 Sil 37 112 300 The general bulk of APh in recent decades might suggest that this acceleration is not confined to studies of Roman Callimacheanism, and the increase might at first sight seem to have to do with general increases in the number of publications, but I do not think that can be the whole answer. And Alan Cameron may make us rethink current onhodoxies in his forthcoming study of

Callimachus.

198

1HOMAS

of Catullus, Horace or 0vid 3• And more complex, and particularly less self-contained, ways of reading now proliferate; specifically, (4) the phenomenon of intertextuality, of allusion and influence, has become of particular interest to Latinists since the work of Pasquali, and specifically for Callimachus since Oausen's GRBS article of 1964. Finally, (5) there has been an improvement in the reputation of much Hellenistic poetry, reflected not only in the edition of Pfeiffer, but also in the editions of other poets by Gow, GowPage,Vian, and Parsons and Lloyd-Jones, and those on individual poems of Callimachus, Theocritus and Apollonius. This improvement is also reflected in the current series of workshops. This appreciation has in tum to some extent removed the resistance to seeing such poetry as a fit model for the great poetry of Rome. But have we overdone it? At times in discussions of Roman poetry the term 'Callimachean' seems to mean little more than 'clever', 'very Callimachean', little more than 'very clever', and in such cases it does not even seem to matter whether the 'cleverness' has any specific connection to Callimachus. Occasionally, moreover, we seem almost to be dealing with critical, rather than authorial, cleverness. This is particularly true with programmatic metaphor-hunting: sometimes spinning is just spinning, a big sea just a big sea, a little boat just a little boat. At the same time, in spite of Wendell Clausen's comments on the matter almost 30 years ago 4, the terms Hellenistic, Alexandrian and Callimachean tend still to be used interchangeably. If we mean some feature is Hellenistic, why do we keep calling it Callimachean? Are we unduly focussing on Callimachus at the expense of other Hellenistic poets? And are we doing so based on an accident of survival? And some critics of Roman poetry feel that even the emphasis on Hellenistic poetry is overdone. There is, in short, still a critical resistance to allowing such 'secondary' literature to be influential, particularly on Virgil. I myself was recently accused of "privileging the Hellenistic and neoteric over the Italian or Ennian tradition''5-though I don't think Ennius has much to do with Virgil's Georgics. What of those Hellenistic authors, and proto-Hellenistic authors, who have not survived as extensively as Callimachus? Nita Krevans' paper draws attention to some of the ways Antimachus may have mattered within the Alexandrian milieu 6• Does Propertius mention Philitas virtually as frequently as he mentions Callimachus chiefly, as Hutchinson claims 7 , because both are exemplars for elegy? For instance, Prop. 1.2, with its metaphorical play on Coan silk and the like might suggest a greater programmatic importance. And I have recently suggested that Virgil's old man ofTarentum may likewise

3

4

5 6

7

It would be wonhwhile lO study some of the ways in which New Critical concerns forestalled some of the fruitful lines of enquiry in place in the first pan of this century. in the works of Leo, Jacoby. Reitzensrein, F. Skutsch, et al. W. Clausen, "Callimachus and Latin Poetry", GRBS 5, 1964, 181-96. E. Fantham rev. in CP 86, 1991, 164. Nita Krevans (this volume),passim. G.O. Hutchinson, Hdlenistic Poetry, Oxford 1988, 280.

CAll..IMACHUS IN ROME

199

have an ancestor in the poetry of Philitas8• What about Eratosthenes, Euphorion and later Parthenius, all of whom are embedded in the Augustan poets. And what of Theocritus and Apollonius? Why, when Virgil can produce a book of poems generically and formally, and in many of its details, based closely on Theocritean pastoral-more so arguably than any Roman poem is based on a poem of Callimachus (the Coma is a special exception}--or when Apollonius' epic imposes its stamp so clearly on the Aeneid and was translated by a poet such as Varro of Atax, why, when all of this is so, do we never use the adjectives '"lbeocritean" or "Apollonian" in the same way that we use the word "Callimachean"-that is, as indicating a programmatic attitude, stylistic outlook, or general poetic and scholarly position? For that matter, what about archaic lyric? In D. Gerber's bibliography of Pindar, now somewhat old, there barely exists a "Fonuna a Roma", with the obvious exception of Horace, but it could be claimed that the self-consciousness, the metaphorical language and even the polemical and programmatic aspects of Greek lyric, deserve at least the same attention that has been accorded to Callimachus.Again, have we overdone it? In spite of the foregoing, my cautious response to this question is a qualified 'no'; that Callimachus does in fact deserve, from a number of aspects, the prominent position accorded him by relatively recent criticism; and this paper will attempt to justify that response. Given the range and scope of the topic I will necessarily at times be rather superficial. The clearest, most obvious, and most publicized, presence of Callimachus at Rome is in his capacity as a programmatic model, and this will remain so, whatever Alan Cameron's fonhcoming book may or may not teach us about the realities of the Aetia preface. I will not go into much detail here since the matter is so well-covered, too well covered, some may think. It is really the chief, or sole, subject of Wimmel's 331 pages9. The Augustan poets in particular may be represented by the following highly selective group of recusationes, preceded by the Callimacheanarchetype:

"uJ..tt£ BacKaviric 01..oovyevoc· a~8t 6e t£XVT\t 1Cpivtt£,]µfl cxoivcotTT£pciottiiv CO 6upiit£ µqa \j/O..6A.Oyoc utterly studiosus which he applies to himself while writing annalistic epic-something inconceivable in archaic Greek epic), to Plautus confronting and Romanizing Greek New Comedy. The prologues of Terence, the satires of Lucilius, and the De poetis of Volcacius Sedigitus, all of these evince a strong preoccupation with the metapoetical. Hutchinson, in his generally useful section on Hellenistic and Roman poetry claims (n. 7) that a strong Callimachean element resides in the Roman poet's preoccupation with talking about themselves. This is true particularly in their talking about themselves in relation to their tradition-that is, talking about each other.

16

See R.F. Thomas, "Callimachus, the Victoria Beren.icesand Roman Poetry", CQ 33, 1983, 92-101; Virgil. Georgics2, Cambridge 1988, 36-47 carptim.

CAILIMACHUSINROME

205

I would like briefly to enumerate, without any real detailed discussion, some of the areas which seem to me to show a debt more or less specifically to Callimachus 17• I will then proceed with some more detailed discussion of a single aspect of the relationship between Callimachus and Virgil, on whom I will focus partly because of the greater resistance to seeing him as a Callimachean poet throughout his career. It will be assumed that almost a fortiori others, such as Propertius and Ovid, function in at least equally Callimachean ways; and there is now good work being done on quintessentially Callimachean works such as the Fasti. Hutchinson devoted to the Aeneid only one of his 76 pages (n. 7, 328-9) on Roman and Hellenistic poetry, on the following grounds: ''The continuous endeavour for extremesof 'U'llfOC, of intensity, elevation, sublimity, leaves little room (say) for play betweenlevels of seriousness". It seems to me mistaken to categorize Virgil and the Aeneid simply as sublime, that is to assume that its content, tone, meaning and general essence are simply coterminous with its form, a presumption not peculiar to Hutchinson but implicit in Virgilian criticism from Heinze to Hardie. It partially explains why in the statistics with which I began Virgil loses so roundly to Catullus, Propertius and Ovid. We allow them to be playful, weird, bizarre, but Virgil is 'sublime' 18• I think there may even have been a 'back-formation' from the Aeneid to the Georgics which has led to resistance by some to allowing Hellenistic and Callimachean poetry to be as formative of the Georgicsas it seems to me to be. The result of this presumption, this generic fallacy, is a shutting off of the text, of its possibilities, and of its very richness and complexity 19 • Lapp in his study of tropes and figures in Callimachus20 acknowledges that many of the features he treats are already in Homer, and the same goes for what follows. We are not dealing with exclusively Callimachean-Virgilian phenomena, but we are dealing with two poets who are demonstrably linked in other ways, and in what follows there is an assumption that Callimachus at least exerts some influence on Virgil. And this will be frequently confirmed in the actual details. Here then are some areas of contact:

Structure: the structural complexities of the Aeria are clear in spite of its fragmentary condition, and regardless of what we decide about the two editions 21: patterns are formed by openings and closings, by the position of Berenice at the opening of 3 and close of 4, by the framing of 3 by two epinicians, and so on. I have argued that Virgil in the Georgics

17

18 19

20 21

Considerations of space force me to be selective and superficial here; nor have I been bibliographically complete in any way. A good start on this subject has been made by Nicholas Horsfall, Virgilio:I' epopeain alambicco,Naples 1991, passim. Cf. the apologetic mode with which scholars approach the nymph/ship transformation in the Aeneid. We might see a similar shutting off occurring in treatment of Callimachus' Hymns, in this case resulting not so much from notions of the sublime, but rather because of their ostensible performative nature. The work of Mary Depew (this volume, 57-77) is valuable as an antidote to such sttaighlforwardreading. F. Lapp,De CallimachiCyrenaeiTropis et Figuris, Diss. Bonn 1965, 13. On the structure of the Aetia, see, most recently, Harder (this volume), 99-110.

1HOMAS

206

some extent imitated these structural pattems22. Likewise in the Hymns, there are large structural parallels, for instance in 5 and 6, as Hopkinson brings out. Structure is almost an obsession with Roman poetry, from patterns such as that of the parade odes of Horace, and his large architectural organizing of Odes 1-3, to the numerologicaland thematic patterns of the Monobiblos of Propenius, to Virgil's complex structures in all three poems. In Hellenistic poetry, structural attention seems, to the extent we can tell, to be a specifically Callimacheaninterest to

Chiasmus and visual patterns: these are really similar in effect to the preceding, The

influence of technopaigniashows itself even in Virgil-if we believe he transmitted Aratus' acrostic. Aspects such as chiasmus are a clear part of the art of Callimachus and of Virgil, and at times there seem to be direct links between the two poets. Alben Henrichs referred to the visual effects of the description of Apollo's golden atributes at Hymn 2.32 and 34 and particularly 4.260-3, where four consecutive lines begin with forms of xpoc-; at 3.110-8 Anemis receives a similar description. Wendell Clausen (seen. 4) has noted the tricolon with forms of aurumlaureus that Virgil applies to Dido at Aen. 4.138-9, a pattern which mirrors stylistically the Callimachean instance, and is appropriate on the thematic level in describing Dido on the point of performing an action emblematic of Anemis (hunting). We find a similar relationshipin what follows:

Et1Canb6ai-ca Jttvov-co,8 6u6ro xolla 'A,r:y£lV t'tUµOlClV oµo'ia, i'.6µ£V6' ro-c' i8fJ..mµEV o:'A.ri8ia YT1pucac8ai." 1eolla vci>6ov-caiaoi6oi

,tp£C(:h>C £'tl'l'CUµtT'll µ£µ£'>..riµevoc, £V8EV O1tai6oc e6paµ£ Kalli6JtT1v. µu8oc ic 11µ£-c£PT1v µu8oc OUKtµ6c, all'

(Hes. Th. 26-8) (Solon fr. 29 West)

(Aet. 3, fr. 75.76-7Pf)

€'t£prov

(Call. h. 5.56)

Like Odysseus and like the Hesiodic Muses, Callimachus would expect his fictions to escape notice. A. Harder notes Callimachus' play with truth in the Aetia, where the Muses are invoked in Books 1-2, other authorities in 3-4; in both cases there are indications of ironic attitudes as to the reliability of authority 33 • The Homeric narrator signposts Odysseus'plausible fictions, which are seen as such by the reader but not by Penelope. The Hesiodic-Callimachean tradition, which Virgil elsewhere embraces, warns that it is capable of such fictions, but produces them without immediate signposts. Virgil shares in this attitude, which I believe, he develops from Callimachus. Early in Georgics2, at the end of the invocation to Maecenas Virgil states: 45-46 non hie re carmine ficto I arqueper ambages et longa exorsa tenebo ('not here shall I detain you with false song, and through obscurities and long exordia'). So Callimachus' 'When l lie, may I be persuasive', and Virgil's 'I won't lie here', seem to me to occupy the same range. And just as, in Haslam 's assessment, Callimachus may in fact be dealing in fiction, so, Virgil, precisely in this section of the Georgics, in the same breath in which he tells farmers to learn cultivation according to their particular genus (35 proprios generatim discite cultus) has given us a list of grafts which are in all but one case impossible-fictions with regard to genus'J4.No poet will say he is dealing in ambiguity and lies, but Callimachus and Virgil both state, in contexts of dubious veracity that they at least have the potential to do so. Such signposting alerts us to the actual ambiguities that lie in the vicinity. Ambiguity and lies take on a special potency when they occur in the context of political or ideological situations. Quintilian, who continues the discussion of rhetorical ambiguity that begins in Aristotle and continues in Rome through the Auctor ad Herennium and Cicero, enumerates the conditions under which such ambiguity is permissible (Inst. 9.2.65ff.). These include cases where speaking openly is indecent, and when speaking

33 34

M.A. Harder, "UntroddenPaths: Where do they lead?", HSPh 93, 1990, 302-3. See Thomas (n. 16, 1988),ad loc.

CAILIMACHUS IN ROME

211

ambiguously gives greater elegance and novelty. But the first reason is of special interest: si dicere pa/am parum tutum est ('if there is danger in speaking openly'). Let us return to Hymn 1, which presupposes, in the view of many scholars, a contemporary political level behind the story of 2.eus' forceful (non-lottery) elevation to the realm of heaven. The supposition is that the hymn refers either to the tripanite division of Alexander's kingdom, and to Ptolemy Soter's receiving of Egypt, or more lilcely to the seizure of power by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285 joins father in power; 283-2 succeeds him)35 • If so, then the oddities of the poem, the shon shrift it accords 2.eus, and the choice of the more violent tradition for his accession are all instances of a poet's need to speak less openly, one of the generative conditions, as Quintilian saw, of ambiguity 36• Back to Virgil. In our commentaries Mynors and I both talk about the relationship of theGeorgics' opening prayer to Hellenistic encomium, but neither of us links it specifically to Callimachus' First Hymn, as I now think we perhaps need to do. Virgil's situation is different, but emerges from that ofCallimachus on the manner of2.eus' ascendancy, and is in a sense a rewriting of that situation: Octavian's future realm is debated by Virgil, and it is one in which he will make the choice, as the verb uelis at 1.26 makes clear--'whether you wish to have control of the eanh, sea or sky'. Virgil, perhaps in the interests of his larger poetic purposes, has a four-pan division rather than the three-pan one of the tradition: Octavian will occupy the lands, the sea, the heavens or the underworld. Jupiter is completely absent from this prayer, both from the pan addressed to Octavian, and from that which earlier addresses the 12 deities relevant to agriculture-this in spite of the fact that Varro's prayer, on which Virgil's was modelled, started with Jupiter. In a clear sense, then, Virgil has replaced Jupiter with Octavian, and in doing so has foregrounded the contemporary political level that existed only on an allusive level in Callimachus' first hymn. But in both poets we find 2.eus/Jupiter associated with the poets' monarch or princeps. Virgil has also, I think, adapted Callimachus' utterance about truth and ambiguity in poetry, not by reproducing, as he was to do later in Georgies 2, the actual statement, but by providing an actual instance of ambiguity. In Callimachus the statement that immediately generates the utterance about plausible lying has to do with the undesirability of being allotted Hades from Hymn 1: 'tlC 6i ic' £7t'OuA.uµ1trol'tE ical "At6l lCA.f\povepuccm, I oc µa).a µTI veviri1..oc; (61-2) ('who but a fool would draw lots for Olympus and Hades?'). Virgil, in rejecting Hades as an option for Octavian, does so from two perspectives (36-7): quidquid eris (nam te nee sperant Tartara regem, / nee tibi regnandi ueniat tam dira eupido). The traditional and primary reading has been 'whatever you become (neither docs Tartarus expect you to be its king, nor would you conceive a desire for such a terrible realm)'--dira is thus a sort of transferred epithet, going with cupido but looking to the locus of the rule, Tanarus. But I have suggested another level of meaning

35 36

See 1. Griffin, Latin Poets and Roman Life. London 1985, 187 and n. 15, with citations. See also Hutchinson (n. 7), 39 for parallel qualifications of the panegyric element in h. 4, although he plays them down more than one might.

1HOMAS

212

can also exist, if we read ueniat as a jussive, rather than a potential subjunctive, and if we take dira simply with cupidt>-'and may you not conceive the terrible desire to be rex'31• Incidentally, some MSS read both ne (for nee) and sperent for sperant in the first line; it looks as if some ancient reader had the prohibition ne sperent, which would require taking the secondary level for which I am arguing as the primary one. If Virgil is on one level referring to Republican regnicupiditas(and Cicero has it in a letter to Brutus with reference to the motives ofOctavian's adoptive father)38, then I would suggest he is not far from the ambiguity and 'persuasive lying' that Callimachus claims for himself at the parallel moment in Hymn 1. There are other instances of this sort of ambiguity towards Octavian in the Georgics, and possibly even in the Aeneid, but I would like to look to a larger Virgilian application of the Hesiodic-Callimachean principle that poets may lie and function ambiguously. Both have to do with a focalizing character voice, that of Aeneas himself. D.C. Feeney has claimcd 39 that the hero "docs not lie when he speaks". While this may be generally true, the two examples I will give suggest that he comes fairly close, certainly in one case and possibly in both. Again a reminder of Virgil's own potential for ambiguity and credible fiction, the lines from Georgics 2: non hie te carmineficto I atque per ambages et longa exorsatenebo-that is, at times he may choose to do so. Fccney's study focusses on the response of Aeneas to Dido at 4.333-61, he shows its debt to oratorical usage, its public nature, and so on. This part of the paper is a valuable one, but here I want to look at only one of the details he brings up, Aeneas' use of the wordsnefinge at 338: neque ego bane abscondere furto spcraui (ne finge) fugam.

(A. 4.337-8)

Feeney applies the words to Dido's claim that a marriage existed between the two; for Aeneas immediately continues: nee coniugis umquam practendi taedas aut haec in focdera ueni.

37

38 39

(A. 4.338-9)

1bc useof nee, whereneu might be expected, seems to be a mannerism of Virgil's first two wms; cf. Eel. 8.88-9 nee serae rneminitdecederenocti,/ ta/is ar,wrteneat, nee sit_mihicura rnederi;10.l~ 17 nostri nee paenitet ii/as,/ nee te paeniteat, diuine poeta; G. 2.253 a, nimium ne sit mihifertilis ilia, / nee se praeualidamprimis ostendataristis! The closest parallel I can find in the Aeneid comes from a spee.chof Dido, which would suppon the thesis that the practice belongs to Virgil when he was 'audax iuuenta': 4.618-20 nee, cum se sub leges pacis iniquae/ tradiderit,regno aut optata luce fruatur. Cf. K.-S. II, 1, 194,5; 193,4 Anm. 2-though the treatment there is not entirely satisfactory. Cic. Ad Brut. 24.3 ista uero imbecillitaset desperatio... Caesaremin cupiditatemregni impulil. D.C. Feeney, "The Taciturnity of Aeneas", CQ 33, 1983, 204-19; cf. 217.

CAI.LIMACHUS IN ROME

213

The admonition ne jinge may be a legitimate rebuke in the case of the marriage, on which Virgil is at best ambiguous, but what about it as a response to Dido's charge of initial complaint against him: concealment of the dc~her dissimulare ctiam sperasti, perfide, tantum posse nefastacitusque mea decedere terra?

(A. 4.305-6)

Are the wordsnejinge a legitimate response to her charge that he planned to conceal his escapes,for after all the parenthesis is embedded in Aeneas' response to that very charge, not to his claim that the marriage ceremony was not officially effected? In short, I would suggest that Aeneas' ne jinge is in fact a screen, for as regards the issue of a secretive departure thejicta belong not to Dido but to Aeneas. Austin claims "we must remember that [Aeneas] had hoped to find mollissima fandi ternpora; he never meant to leave her, as she thinks he did, as some sneaking thief might go" (ad 337f.). This sort of spin control is fairly typical of the Augustan reading of the Aeneid, but it needs a little testing. We need to look at the twelve lines in which Aeneas, having been visited by Mercury ponders how to carry out the divine commands. Go he must, that is not at issue; what now matters is the manner of his going, over which he does have control, and his subsequent representation of that manner to Dido. Here are the lines, presented in the style of free indirect discourse40:

hcu quid agat? quo nunc reginam ambire furentem audeat adfatu? quae prima exordia sumat? atque animum nunc hue celerem nunc diuidit illuc in partisquc rapit uarias perque omnia uersat. hacc altemanti potior sententia uisa est: Mnesthea Sergestumque uocat fortemque Serestum, classem aptent taciti sociosque ad litora cogant, arma parent et quae rebus sit causa nouandis dissimulent; sese interea, quando optima Dido nesciat et tantos rumpi non speret amores, temptaturum aditus et quae mollissima fandi tempora. quis rebus dexter modus.

285

290

(A. 4.283-94) Three words immediately impress themselves: ambire, exordia, dissimulent, cognates in fonn or meaning of the members of the tricolon of Georgics 2:jicta, ambages, exorsa.

40

On lhis phenomenon, see A. Perutelli, "Registri narrativi e stile indiretto in Virgilio (a proposito di

Aen. 4.279 sgg.)", MD 3, 1979, 69-82; also D. Fowler, "Deviant Focalization in Virgil's Aeneid", PCPhS n.s. 36, 1990, 42-63; cf. 59, n. 14.

214

11-IOMAS

What is happening here is a putting into action by a character, at the level of secondary focalization, of the Hesicxlic-Callimachean-Virgilian potential for fiction on the part of the poet. I will not go into the critical struggles to remove deceptive force from the words ambire and uordia; they are just part of a larger pattern, to which I have already alluded. What, however, of Austin's claim that "we must remember that [Aeneas] had hoped to find mollissima fandi tempora; he never meant to leave her, as she thinks he did, as some sneaking thief might go". Aeneas first tells his lieutenants to dissimulare their preparations (the precise word Dido will use in her charge-ne finge forsooth!), then says that 'he himself in the meantime, since the good Dido is unaware and is not expecting that such a great love-affair will be broken off, will explore the right approach, and the moment for the smoothest speech, and the manner which will favor their interests'. The details of the causal quando clauses show that deceit and pretence are precisely what Aeneas intends. A second instance comes in Aeneid 8, where Aeneas persuades Euander to join him in the struggle against Mezentius and the Latins (8.127-51). The argument is simple: Aeneas'Trojans and Euander's Arcadians are related through a common bond to Atlas, the former because Euander comes from Mercury, son of Maia, one of the Atlantides, the latter because Dardanus was born to Electra, likewise a daughter of Atlas. Having given this genealogy, Aeneas rests his case: his fretus non legatos neque prima per anem temptamenta tui pepigi; me, me ipse meumque obicci caput et supplex ad limina ueni. gens eadcm, quae te, crudeli Daunia bello insequitur; nos si pellant nihil afore crcdunt quin omnem Hesperiam penitus sua sub iuga mittant, et mare quod supra teneant quodque adluit infra.

145

(A. 8.143-9)

In these lines he claims not to be making 'crafty approaches' (non ... per artem / temptamenta) on Euander, but in the same breath presents himself virtually as a native of Italy in danger of suffering exile at the hands of the Latin aggressors. He had already used this tactic on Pallas at 8.117-8: "Troiugenas ac te/a uides inimica Latinis, / quos illi profugos egere superbo". Any objective judgement of the reality of the situation, which sees the matter in these terms, must surely find that the reverse obtains: it is the Trojans who appear to be usurpers of Latin territory. These realities belie the claim of Aeneas that he is not acting with craft (per artem); that is precisely what he does here. Along with this distonion there is an even more anful suppression of fact in the genealogy of itself. Someone is missing from it, a fairly imponant ancestor. Electra and Maia have more in common than their father; each conceived the son in question to Jupiter. Why does Aeneas suppress so famous an ancestor? The omission is particularly notable (and noticeable) in that the first line of the genealogy (8.134) refers to //. 20.215 ~ap6avov at> 1tpro't0v tEKE'to vEv, ZTIVOOO'fOl) CICUAalCEC, I KaAA\J.laxooCtpaniatm, OV0>eOKAOV I ooo' autou icEivooyMi'x:cavcinoctptcpEtE,I cuv6icµcov AlJ'Ypii>v ~plltOpEC, otc inavucavuc, ElxE KuicAmljf,1 tpipo\C8' Eic aiii>va icatato "µiv" 'i\"ccp{v" I EUOOEical C'lltElVEi IC'UVac tpuCovtEC CXA\tpolI ci.U.mv,ic 6' fiµac iovcinocPicau. G.O. Huichinson, Hellenistic Poetry, Oxford 1988, 84: cf. my review in Hermathena 148, 1990, 98100. G. Zanker, Realism in Alexandrian Poetry: a Literature and its Audience, London 1987. I hope that the frequency with which I express disagreement with this book will not obscure the debt I owe its author for raising a number of important questions in so stimulating a form. See M.W. Haslam (this volume), 11l. Cf. K.J. McKay, Erysichllwn, a Callimachean Comedy, Leiden 1962, 143. As Zanker (n. 3), 3ff. is aware; cf. the entry "Realism" in H. Osborne (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Art, Oxford 1970, 954-5, where numerous usages of the term 'realistic' are distinguished, including (1) showing an interest in low life, (2) as the opposite of 'abs1n1et',(3) as the opposite of 'distorted', (4) as the opposite of 'stylized', (5) as the opposite of 'idealized', (6) as a virtual equivalentof 'individualized'.

218

WilLIAMS

apparently naturalistic detail can sometimes score over the dictionary-bound approach; for example, in the famous scene Professor Haslam mentioned, the appeal of little Artemis to her daddy Zeus, we should bear in mind that the goddess is diminutive (at least by Olympian standards) and unable even to reach her father's chin (lines 26-7), so that I would interpret lines 8-10 6oc 6' i.oucical -c6;a-fu 7t0:'t£p,OUC£ cpapt'CPTIV 0U:'tO'UC ou6' ai.'tw µiya -c6;ov· iµoi. Ku1CAC01t£C ., , ,,, ,., aunica 't£XV11C0vtat,eµo1 £U1eaµ1eecaeµµa as 'and give me bows and arrows-it's all right, father, I'm not asking you 6 for a quiver, nor even a big bow: the Cyclopes will make me arrows straight away, and a bow that's easy to bend'. In other words, µiya is the opposite of euicaµxic, and that contrast is set -c6;ov: within another between Zeus and the Cyclopes. Here Bornmann comments: "µeya ~ un epithetonornans omerico ... non ~ un esempio della banalizzazionc di µqacin C .... perch~ vuole mettere in rilievo la sproporzione tra l'et! della fanciulla e ii suo desidcrio di possedere un'arma degna di una grande cacciatrice. E ogni lettore avr! pensato al grande arco di Ulisse''7. I find this unhelpful: the concept of the epithetonornans should always be used with extreme reluctance. Nor do I believe that every reader would have thought of Odysseus' bow any more than of Philoctetes'. But this kind of pictorialism is only one aspect of this, and other such passages: Artemis is to be a formidable power as well as a demanding child, and the repeated use of 66c belongs to the language of prayer as well as Santa Claus's grotto; besides dangerous toys and the right to wear her skirts short Artemis has on her list items ordinary little girls do not ask for--etemal virginity and 1toA.urovuµ£rifor instance 8• Similarly, the Cyclopes she goes on to visit next are both avuncular figures (on an earlier occasion Brontes had taken the toddler Artemis on his lap and let her tear the hair off his chest, lines 72-9) and huge monsters, terrifying even when impersonated by Hermes (64-71). But they arc more than uncles or ogres: in an ingenious article A.H. Griffiths showed that the Cyclopes arc here presented as actual mountains, and suggested that Brontes' bald patch corresponds to the treeless upper slopes of Etna 9 • I think we should push this idea a little further: Callimachus at lines 50-1 a\ VUµa: 31 1Cci>µoc: 88 AEKtoc:156 AOutpa: 124 f1£taAaµl3avCll:178 0. 4 µiy6a: 29 VCllVUf1Vi: 31 ~uvi\i: 30 ol1yoc1:1xia:114 oliycoc: 25 ovoµacti: 29 ooAa: 121 n. 20 naliµKttic: 31 nap9tvoc ci61111c: 74 naccu6i111:20, 31 nax{x:: 156-8 Ktp\Ctaoov: 27 noluti6ia: 150, 195 nolumvuµia: 128 j,~:27 C\lVtOVOC aypunvi11:24 n. 29 cxt&'>v:27 tnpa1tala1: 31 topoc: 158 imo6pa~: 33 n. 75 unoqnitopec:104n. 24 Ulj/OC: 205

q>\/\.OMYOC: 204 xa'ip£: 114, 116, 125 xav66v:27 xu61Jv:29 xii>pi:31

230

INDEXES 3. lndu of Names and Subjects

AbbrKchsfomwl: 83, 85 + n. 44, 86 n. 51 Actacon: 122,123,136 Admetus: 74, 129 Adresteia:121 adverbs abstractness or-: 18 definition or-: 18 - in Apollonius: 26 - in Herodotus: 33 - in Lycophron: 26 - in Nonnus: 24 n. 27 - in lhc corpKSHippocralicwn: 33 - in lbeocritus: 26

Aetia editions or the-: 110 prologue or the -: 86, 110 n. 8, 117, 174 structure or the-: 99, 205r. aetiology: 41, 46, 47, 51, 130, 133, 207 agonistic epigram:90 n. 68, 95, 96 n. 97 aition:45, 46, 58, 62, 73, 80 allusion: 208 ambiguity: 209-12 Anaphe: 107 Antimachus: 178, 198 Apollo: 105, 132, 133-4, 140-3, 145-6, 177-8, 223 - Aeglet.es:102 - Cameius: 39 -Noµwc: 74, 129 - no>..\E'UC: 129 - 8tµU..\O\JlOC:129 Apollonius Rhodius: 5, 103, 109, 111, 149, 192-3, 194 + n. 39 Arcadia:75r. Arcs: 184, 188 aretalogy:146 Aristarchus:89 Artemis: 132, 134-41, 143 + n. 37, 146 Asteria: 118, 177 + n. 2 Athena:66, 134, 143-5 audience: 85 + n. 41, 96 n. 97 Azilis: 39 Battus:38-9, 44 bee: 52 (seealso Melissa) Berenice II: 80 book poetry:90 n. 69, 96 + n. 97 Cameia: 40, 46 catalogue:207

Chariclo: 122 Charit.es:101, 105 chiasmus:206-7 chorus:46-8, 50 perlmnance or the-: 146 chronology or mythological events: 220 civili7.ation:40-2, 51, 53 consolatio: 122 contrast large/small: 219f. crossing or genres: 89 + n. 66, 96 cult: 129f., 142, 145 cultic frame: 130, 144 Cyrene: 38-9, 41, 43-5, 50, 108 Delos: 41, 48, 132f., 221 Delphi: 38 Demeter: 52, 131, 139-40, 143-4 Dichlerweihe:11 divine child: 128, 133-6, 140-2 divine retus: 141 divine footwork: 128 divine justice: 138 dogs: 134-7 DK-Stil: 112 n. 3, 116, 125 dynastic cult: 84, 87 n. 56 Eileithyia: 118, 133 learning: 207 Ennius: 204 enunciation: 43-4, 46-7, 49 Envy: 51,53 epinician: 90 epiphany: 128, 132, 140, 142-5 epithet: 127-33 Eratosthenes:89 Erysichthon: 70 Euander:214-5 fiction see truth and fiction first person: 60, 131, 138 + n. 25 foot: 137, 142-5 foundation myth: 130, 207-8 Gaia: 120 genealogy: 207, 214 gifts: 133-6, 139, 146 gold: 132 healing power: 141 Helicon: 122 n. 22 Hera: 137, 139, 177 n. 2 Heracles: 80, 86, 102-3, 107, 137 Hermes: 140

231

INDEXES hind, Cerynean: 137 hind: 132, 134, 137, 139 Hippocrene: 122 n. 22 hybridization:58,208

ideology:200 improbablespeakers:220 intertextuality: 111, 123, 208 isotopy:40,42,46-7,49,51 Jupiaa see Zeus king: 141, 145-7 Koios: 120 bisis see foundationmyth Leto: 133, 143, 177 marriage:42 Meliai: 121 Melissa: 121 metapoetics: 204,208 Mimnennus: 151-2, 155-6 Muses: 10, 101, 104, 122 n. 22 numbers: 133-9 Octavian: 211-2 Ortygia: 117 Ovid: 201 Pan: 134-8 panacea-.141 paraprosdoldan: 113, 118-9 Peneios: 118 performance:37-8, 79 + n. 5, 90 n. 66 Persephone: 139 Persius: 202 Pherecydes: 122,124 Philetas: 155-6 Phlhonos: 116, 117 n. 10, 145 play offonns: 89, 96 poetic performance:127, 130, 132, 138, 146 poetic programme: 50-5, 101, 199 Poseidon: 129 Propenius: 203 n. 15 prophecy: 141,223 Plolemy I Soter. 146, 211 Plolemy II Philadelphus: 28, 141, 193, 211, 224 45 Plolemy III EUC2"getes: realism: 11lf., 135, 217f., 221, 224 recusatio: 199,201,204,208 religion: 127 + n. 1, 145 Rezipientenerwart1,111g: 86 n. 51 Rhea: 76, 120, 132, 143 ring-composition: 99, 109, 186 ritual:44-6,49,50, 127,129, 130-1 ritual frame: 144 n. 42

- imperatives: 143 - performance: 127. 130-1 -poetry: 60

- refrain: 131 rivergods: 189 + n. 26 selfconscious voice: 204 Siegerlob:83-4, 93, 95 Sosibius: 80 + n. 11 style: 152-3, 205-9 epic-: 184, 194-5 hymnic-: 128 narrative-: 85 + n. 45, 183 severe-: 158-9 irony: 194 sublime: 205, 215 surrealism: 118 n. 12, 224 Teiresias: 122-3, 144

tense: 112 n. 2 tropes and figures: 205,207 truth: 61,211 - and fiction: 209, 210, 215 typical scenes: 186 victory epigrams: 80, 90, 96 Virgil: l11, 206, 211, 215 - Georgics:205 Xenophanes: 151 n. 9 Zeus:129,132, 134-6, 140-3, 146-7, 209,211 - ~umiioc: 132 -Auicatoc: 132