Genre in Hellenistic Poetry 9789069801186, 9069801183

Citation preview

HELLENISTICA

GRONINGANA

PROCEEDINGS THE GRONINGEN

OF

WORKSHOPS

ON HELLENISTIC

POETRY

GENREIN HELLENISTIC POETRY

GENRE IN HELLENISTIC POETRY

EDITORS

EDITED BY

M.A. HARDER

M.A. HARDER

R. F. REGTUIT

R. F. REGTUIT

G. C. WAKKER

G. C. WAKKER

EGBERT FORSTEN GRONINGEN

1998

CONTENTS

© 1998 Copyright Egbert Forsten Groningen

All rights reserved. No part of this book my be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the holder of the copyright. ISBN 9069801183

PHILOSOPHICAL SATIRE IN THE AETIA PROLOGUE N.E. Andrews

1-19

BETWEEN LITERATURE AND THE MONUMENTS

P. Bing

21--43

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SATIRICAL EPIGRAM IN THE HELLENlSTIC PERlOD J. Blomqvist

45-60

TEXTUAL MlSADVENTURES OF DAPHNIS: THE PSEUDO-THEOCRlTEAN THE ORlGINS OF THE BUCOLIC 'MANNER' M. Fantuzzi

61-79

JD.8 AND

MELEAGER: FROM MENlPPEAN TO EPIGRAMMATIST K. Gutzwiller 'GENERlC GAMES' IN CALLIMACHUS' AETIA M.A. Harder

81-93

95-113

BEFORE AND AFTER EPIC: THEOCRlTUS (?), IDYLL 25 R. Hunter

115-132

THE DYNAMlCS OF IMlTATION: CALLIMACHUS' FIRST LAMBIC D. Konstan

133-142

MlMEN, MEMEPEN UND MlMlAMBEN - THEOKRIT, HERODAS UND DIE KREUZUNG DER GATTUNGEN K.-H. Stanzel

143-165

CALLIMACHUS AT COURT S.A. Stephens

167-185

EPIC CLOSURE AND ITS DISCONTENTS IN APOLLONIUS' ARGONAUT/CA E.M. Theodorakopoulos

187-204

'MELODIOUS TEARS:' SEPULCHRAL EPIGRAM AND GENERlC MOBILITY

R.F. Thomas

205-223

THE CONCEPT AND THE USE OF GENRE-MARKING IN HELLENlSTIC EPIC AND FINE ART G. Zanker

225-238

INDEXES l. Index of the Passages discussed 2. Index of Greek Words 3. Index of Names and Subjects

239-241 241 241-242

Preface In 1992 the Department of Classics at the University of Groningen (The Netherlands) began a series of 'Workshops on Hellenistic Poetry' to be held every two years. The format of these workshops is that the papers offered by the speakers are sent to the participants of the workshops in advance of the actual meeting, so that during the workshops there is ample opportunity for detailed discussion. The workshops focus on individual authors as well as on more general aspects of Hellenistic poetry, such as the implications of developments in modem literary criticism for research on, for example, genre or narrative technique and the implications of linguistic studies for the interpretation of texts. Attention is also given to the social and cultural background of Hellenistic poetry and the ways in which this can be related to form and content. The workshops also intend to offer room for :he presentation of research by young scholars and graduate students. The proceedings of :he workshops are published in the series He/lenistica Groningana. Following this format the first of the 'Groningen Workshops on Hellenistic Poetry', )n Callimachus, was held in 1992, the second, on Theocritus,_took place in 1994, and the hird, on genre in Hellenistic poetry, in 1996. The papers presented were discussed and :ommented on by an international group of specialists in the field of Hellenistic poetry and hen revised for publication in the proceedings of the workshop. Over all, the workshops 1avebecome a forum for the development of ideas and the establishment of many fruitful :ontacts between scholars working on the Hellenistic period. The workshop on genre in 1996 addressed a prominent feature of Hellenistic poetry. 11 the past the Hellenistic treatment of genre was often described as 'Kreuzung der }attungen', but during the last decades the development of modem literary criticism and its nfluence on research in Hellenistic poetry has led scholars to more refined views and mggested new questions. The aim of this workshop was to summarize and reconsider the -esults of earlier scholarship and to embark on new or until now neglected aspects of genre n Hellenistic poetry. Apart from Zanker's paper, which deals with the concept of genre-marking in Hellenstic poetry and sculpture, the papers are mostly case-studies of certain aspects of specific ~enres.There is a number of papers which address the genre of the Greek epigram. Thus 3ing, starting from Posidippus' epigram on the Pharos at Alexandria, explores the question if epigrams both as inscribed poems with a function in contemporal reality and as fictional JOetry.Blomqvist discusses the satyrical epigram from a diachronic perspective, describing levelopments within this genre, and Thomas applies a similar approach to the sepulchral :pigrams. Gutzwiller focuses on the programmatic statements in Meleager' s self-epitaphs, a iood example of the fictionalization which goes with the acquisition of a new function of he genre. Other papers deal with bucolic poetry, particularly in the ·pseudo-Theocritean ,oems. In Fantuzzi's paper Idyll 8 and the development of bucolic mannerisms are xplored. Hunter discusses the position of Idyll 25 in the epic tradition and shows how its oet experiments with the possibilities inherent in the epic tradition from a strongly istorical generic consciousness. Stanzel focuses on the mimetic poems of Theocritus and [erodas and shows that both these 'quasi-dramatic' genres are highly artificial, as they

follow dramatic and narrative conventions at the same time. Various works of Callimachus are the centre of attention in four other papers. Andrewes discusses the subject of philosophical satire in the prologue of the Aetia. Konstan explores aspects of literary imitation in the / ambs. Stephens shows how in the Hymn to Zeus Callimachus carefully combined elements of Greek and Egyptian praise into a unity that would fit into the mixed cultural environment of Greeks and Hellenized Egyptians. I myself discuss the way in which Callimachus incorporated tlle conventions of a variety of literary genres into his Aetia. Finally, Apollonius Rhodius' Argonautica is the subject of the paper of Theodorakopoulos, who discusses the problem of the work as an epic with no telos and the resulting problems of closure. As with the other workshops there was at the end a sense of achievement. This achievement, however, was of a complex nature. On the one hand there was a strong feeling that one had gained certain insights into the treatment of genre in Hellenistic poetry and had become more and more aware that it was not just a matter of 'Kreuzung der Gattungen', but something far more subtle and sophisticated. On the other hand, this increased 'knowledge' seemed to open up many more questions, which were at present hard to answer, or even to formulate, as was underlined by a discussion in which several general questions were addressed, like: "What is genre?", "What kind of view of genre are we - consciously or unconsciously - applying to our texts: ancient, modem, or a mixture of both?", "How are form, contents, style, function and context interrelated?" In the end it was impossible to give definitive answers to the above questions, but the fact tllat they were posed and discussed at all proved to be an important stimulus to go on thinking about what, to all concerned, seemed to be a very crucial aspect of Hellenistic poetry. On behalf of my co-editors, Remco Regtuit and Gerry Wakker, I wish to thank our student Hans Laagland, who in many hours of careful and painstaking labour helped us to make these proceedings camera-ready for the publisher. Annette Harder

Groningen, May 1998

PHILOSOPHICAL SATIRE IN TIIE AEl'IA PROLOGUE N .E. Andrews

1

Intrcxluction

In his recent book, Callimachus and His Critics, A. Cameron (1995: 230) describes the prologue to the Aetia as "one of the most entertaining of all ancient invectives" and says that "while we need not doubt the basic seriousness of the sentiments expressed is (sic) the Aetia prologue, it is essential not to overlook the humour that is never far from the surface in Callimachus. Unfortunately this splendid piece of fantasy has been treated with almost unrelieved seriousness by modem Telchines more interested in poetics than poetry" (Cameron 1995: 118).1 He also states that "the prologue is neither a self-contained poem nor a new preface, still less a preface to Callimachus' collected works. It is simply the introduction to the Aetia" (Cameron 1996: 129). Finally, Cameron defines the genre of the Aetia as follows: "It is an elegiac catalogue poem in several books, differing only (my italics) in theme (aetiological stories), arrangement and treatment ... It was certainly not intended to indicate that Callimachus was proposing to write in a genre or manner that was new. Both would have been obvious enough to any contemporary from the metre and title alone" (Cameron 1996: 382). While the limited scope of this paper prevents me from exploring at greater length the generic nature of the Aetia, I should point out that work by other scholars identifying a wide range of generic allusion and narrative tecliniques at play within the elegiac framework suggests that the overall generic identity of the Aetia is rather more difficult to pin down than Cameron has suggested.2 In particular, M.A. Harder, in a paper treating epic techniques in the Aetia, has recently pointed to the importance of talk and the symposium in the Aetia, and has suggested Odysseus' story-telling at the banquet with the Phaeacians, the Socratic dialogues, the Symposium of Plato and Xenophon, and the Silloi of Timon of Phlius, as parallels, if not models, for the emphasis on talk and the symposium fragments in the Aetia;3 Cameron (1995: 103) himself has suggested in

2

3

Cameron is surely correct in his criticismof the overly serious assessment of the Aetia prologue by modem critics. See, for example, the observationsof Bramble (1974:26-8; 170; 185) on material in the Aetia prologue that appears in later Latin satire. This surely suggests something at least about how·the Romans perceivedits satiricalpotential. See e.g. Fiihrer (1993);Harder (1988); Krevans (1993) on various forms of generic referencewithin theAetia. Harder (1988: 1-12) is cautious about the precise relationshipof the symposiumin frg. 43.12-17 am fr. 178 to the Aetia. Her commentson epic techniquesin the Aetia fit within the frameworlcof my

2

ANDREWS

PHILOSOPHICAL SATIRE

addition that the questions in the Aetia are 'syrnpotic' questions.4 What is the generic nature of a prologue intrcxlucing material drawing on and including such an enormous range of material? In this paper, I explore how the Aetia prologue employs techniques evident in the philosophical parcxly or satire5 employed in the Silloi of Timon of Phlius to establish what A.A. Long has tenned "the p;;;-eminent sophia of Pyrrho", 6 and even of Xenophanes, Timon' s philosophical mentor, who played a prominent role in the Silloi and who himself composed satirical poems perhaps labelled Silloi or Parodies. 1 Timon's techniques, as Long notes, include ''.detailed knowledge of most leading philosophers, past and present"; but "the pretentiousness of philosophers in general was emphasized ... " 8 To convey his wide-ranging philosophical knowledge and to lampoon it, Timon employed Homeric parody, particularly of battles in the early books of the fliad (for describing philosophical disputes) and the Nekuia in Odyssey 11 (for describing the·philosophers from the past);9 he also employed comic allusions. In short, according to Long, "the whole philosophical and epic tradition was drawn upon by Timon in order to place his hero in the proper sceptical perspective, with Homeric parody providing a mock heroic setting of the grandiose pretensions of his opponents". 10 Timon thus essentially canonizes Pyrrho by highlighting his tranquillity (equipoise) which allows him to remain apart from the philosophical fray.

Callimachus, 11 I shall suggest, also creates a satirical philosophical pastiche in the prologue, using, among other techniques, Homeric allusion 12 in order to construct what appears to be a self-canonizing, pretentiously-philosophical poetic defense to counter the even more pretentious attacks of his opponents, the Telchines. Long and Sedley (1987: 24) have described how Timon "provided Pyrrho with a philosophical pedigree which would illuminate his position within the mainly doctrinaire tradition". I suggest that Callimachus, in a parallel manner, constructs a philosophical pedigree for himself, and in the process, trumps Timon. He adopts Timon's parodic techniques to parody Timon's (and probably related philosophers') philosophical parodies and so makes subtle and allusive swipes at the scepticism of the early Pyrrhonists such as Timon. Callimachus brilliantly captures the paradox of Timon's portrayal of the removed calm of Pyrrho which he (Timon) achieves by engaging in polemics! 13 Callimachus depicts himself as superior to the petty quarrels of the Telchines; yet like Timon himself, Callimachus engages simultaneously in invective against his opponents in order to do so. In this way the prologue paves the way for the Callimachean narrator's dialogue with the Muses in the Aetia I-II, which perhaps paralleled, yet departed from Xenophanes' questioning of the philosophers in Timon's satirical Silloi. 14 Rather than imagining a visit to the dead, as Timon did in the Silloi, Callimachus imagines something better: his own philosophical rejuvenation and a complete avoidance of Hades; rather than questioning mere philosophers, he goes straight to the source of all knowledge, the Muses themselves, to engage in dialectic.

4

5 6

7

8 9

10

argument about Callimachus' similarities to Timon. He has also suggested that the Silloi of Timon of Phlius would have been good material for presentation at a sympotic setting, although he does not connect these two observations. While I cb not intend to speculate on the occasion of the Aetia in this paper, I do think that the prologue's invective suits some of the observations that have been made by scholars about the material presented in a symposium. See for example, Stehle (1996: 213-61) for a discussion of aspects of the symposium. See also Cameron (1995: 71-103) for a very stimulating discussion of the symposium. Although we do not know whether the entire context for Callimachus' questioning of the Muses was a symposium, the symposium would provide an amusing and livelier permutation of Timon' s use of theNekuia as a literary device for raising questions, and the Muses would be a divine improvement on the dead philosophers. Both the term 'parody' and the term 'satire'~ applied to Timon's work. See Long and Sedley (1) (1987: 24) for the term 'parody'; See Long (1978: 68-91) for tlie term 'satire'. Harder (1988: 2-3) in her discussion of Callimachus' dialogue with the Muses, notes that "the only indication of dialogue-poetry which might be older than the Aetia is the Silloi of Timon of Phlius . . . ", but indicates that since Timon was Callimachus' contemporary we cannot be certain about questions of influence. Lang's dating of Timon, however, suggests that Timon is slightly senior to Callimachus and Long also points out that Timon's work had "a more immediate model" in his slightly older contemporary, Crates of Thebes, who seems to have used precisely the same type of Homeric adaptation that Timon used, perhaps even employing the same motif of the Nekuia, even if we do not now if he used the dialogue form per se. In addition, Xenophanes, a main character in Timon' s Silloi, certainly employed parodic techniques much earlier. Guthrie (1962: 365-66) deals with the problem of the lateness of this term. Long and Sedley (1) (1987: 23) Long (1978: 75-6); Long and Sedley (1) (1987: 24) Just how eclectic Timon's references are is indicated by the extensive list of passages quoted by Timon in Long (1978: 79). Long also notes that Socrates, Plato and the Academy (including

I! 12

13 14

3

Arcesilaus) on one hand; and Zeno of Cilium and Stoics on the other take up the greatest space after Pyrrho because Timon wants to depict the greatest philosophical _controversy of the third century, that between Stoics and Academic Sceptics. I do not think that Callimachus is interested in advocating one school of thought; rather he is concerned with alluding to philosophical issues that help him in vying with Timon in literary practices. In this paper I often use 'Callimachus' as shorthand for 'the Callimachean narrator'. I do not read this prologue as a biographical statement but as a poetic construct of a narrative self . The Homeric allusion is more abbreviated and subtle than the allusion used by Timon, but is typical of Hellenistic poets. See Giangrande (1970: 46-7) for a thorough discussion of Homeric allusion in Hellenistic poetry, including allusion to iiita.~ 1..ey6µEva..These are the philosophers on whom I focus in this paper, although I do not discount other possible influences. Also, I am not suggesting that Callimachus creates a coherent and philosophy. Long (1978: 70) comments on the differences between Timon and Pyrrho Diogenes Laertius, 9 .111, says that the Silloi were comprised of three books; in the first, Timon as narrator parodied and insulted philosophers; in the second and third, he questioned Xenophanes of Colophon about individual philosophers. This tri-partite organization might be paralleled in the tripartite organization of the Aetia prologue in which Callimachus narrates, and Aet. I-II in which he has the dialogue with the Muses. See Bing (1988: 72), who points out the "suggestive similarity between the (last two books of) Timon 's Silloi and the frrst two books of the Aetia ... "

4

2

Callimachean 'Equipoise' versus the Telchinean Quarrelsome Bombast

In the prologue, Callimachus establishes many oppositions that have been frequently discussed: of large/small; long/short; fat/thin. In this section, I focus on the additional dichotomies between inarticulate, irrational speech and articulate, rational speech; and between bombastic, discordant noise and clear, meaningful, harmonious song. I believe that these dichotomies can best be understood by considering the subject matter in some of the satirical portraits of philosophers in the fragments of Timon. Timon canonizes Pyrrho by caricaturing doctrinaire philosophers; by representing him as superior to the empty theorizing of the sophists (fimon, fr. 822 = Diogenes Laertius 9 .64); or by decrying, for example, the babble of Socratics (Tllnon fr. 802 = Diogenes Laertius 2.107). Timon also repeatedly lampoons their 'tU(jlO