The Well-read Muse: Present and Past in Callimachus and the Hellenistic Poets 3525251890, 9783525251898

Citation preview

HYPOMNEMATA U N T E R S U C H U N G E N Z U R A N T IK E U N D Z U IH R E M N A C H L E B E N

H erau sg eg eb en von A lbrecht D ih le /H a rtm u t E rb se /C h ristia n H a b ic h t H u g h L lo y d -Jo n e s/G ü n th er P a tz ig /B ru n o Snell (f)

H E F T 90

V A N D E N H O E C K & R U P R E C H T IN G Ö T T IN G E N

PETER BING

The Well-Read Muse Present and Past in Callimachus and the Hellenistic Poets

V A N D E N H O E C K & R U P R E C H T IN G Ö T T IN G E N

CIP-Titelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek Bing, Peter: The well-read muse : present and past in Callimachus and the Hellenist, poets / Peter Bing. Göttingen : Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1988 (Hypomnemata ; H. 90) ISBN 3-525-25189-0 NE: GT

© 1988 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen Printed in Germany. - Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmung und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Herstellung: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

Acknowledgments A g re a t m any friends and colleagues have helped me w ith this m o n o ­ graph, and it is a pleasure to acknow ledge them by n a m e - th o u g h m ere en u m eratio n c an n o t possibly convey the ex ten t o f m y debt. As a J u n io r Fellow at th e C en ter fo r H e llen ic Studies, in W ash in g to n D .C ., I enjoyed the frien d ly criticism o f P ro fesso rs Sheila M u rn a g h an , Kevin H .L e e , Sim on R. Slings, and F ran k R öm er. T h e A lex an d er von H u m ­ b o ld t F o u n d a tio n allow ed me to spend eight p ro d u ctiv e m onths at the U n iv ersity o f T ü b in g en , w here I discussed several d rafts w ith V o lk er U h rm eister, L u tz K appel, H e lm u t K r a s s e r - always w ith p ro fit. Likewise in T ü b in g en , P ro f. E. A. S chm idt and D r. G rah am Z ä n k e r read sections o f th e w o rk , and p rovided me w ith m any valuable suggestions. It was at this stage, to o , th a t P ro f. H . L loyd-Jones read th e m an u scrip t and gave me his advice on m any points. I sh ould add th a t the H u m b o ld t F o u n d a ­ tion has m ade a generous c o n trib u tio n tow ard s p rin tin g costs. I owe a d eb t o f th a n k s to the U niversity o f Pennsylvania fo r allow ing me this leave o f absence, and to its R esearch F o u n d a tio n fo r an ad d itio n al g ra n t tow ard s p rin tin g costs. A nd I m ust th a n k C ase W estern Reserve U n iv ersity fo r a last m inute subvention. W hile do in g revisions back in P h ilad elp h ia, I o ften p estered my colleagues, P ro fesso rs R alph R osen an d Jo sep h A. F arrell Jr., w ith y et a n o th e r version o f a p a rticu lar p as­ sage, and th ey resp o n d ed w ith ch aracteristic kindness and acuity. F u r­ th er, m y conversations w ith P ro fe sso r R ip C o h en w ere crucial in h elp ­ ing me fo rm u late certain sections in ch ap te r tw o. B ut th ro u g h o u t my w o rk on this b o o k , from its inception rig h t th ro u g h to publication, my g re a test d e b t has been to tw o men, P ro f. L udw ig K oenen o f the U n iv er­ sity o f M ichigan and P ro f. R ichard K an n ich t o f the U niversity o f T ü b in g en . E ach o f them has, th ro u g h his scholarly g enerosity and u n ­ stin tin g en co u rag em en t, been o f decisive influence b o th on this w o rk and on m y scholarly developm ent. T h e y have my g ratitu d e and affec­ tio n . A nd it is to them th a t I dedicate The Well-Read Muse.

Contents A ck n ow ledgm ents

.......................................................................................

5

A b b r e v ia tio n s ..................................................................................................

8

P o e tic In sp ira tio n and the P o e t’sSelf Im age in H ellen istic G reece R u p tu re an d Revival. T h e P o e t’sL ink to the L iterary P ast C allim ach u s’//y m n to Delos

. . . .

10 50

......................................................................

91

C o n c l u s i o n .....................................................................................................

144

S tru ctu ral D ia g ra m o f the Hymn toD elo s .............................................

146

B ibliography

..................................................................................................

147

In d ex L o c o r u m ..............................................................................................

155

S ubject I n d e x ..................................................................................................

162

Abbreviations Bornmann DK FGE FGrHist. Dicht, u. Phil. Dover Fraser, Ptol. Alex. GLP Gow G-P HD Hopkinson Lichtheim AEL McLennan Mineur Pfeiffer Pfeiffer, Hist. PCG Powell Reinsch-Werner SH Urk. Williams

F. Bornmann, Callimachi Hymnus in Dianam (Florence 1968) H. Diels, W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols. (Ber­ lin6 1951) D.L. Page, Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge 1981) F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin 1923-1930, Leiden 1940-1958) H. Frankel, Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums (Munich 1976) K.J. Dover, Theocritus Select Poems (London 1971) P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols. (Oxford 1972) D .L .Page, Select Papyri III. Literary Papyri (Poetry) (Cambr. Mass. 1942) A. S. F.Gow, Theocritus, 2 vols. (Cambridge2 1952) A .S.F.Gow, D .L .Page, The Greek Anthology, Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1965) U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos, 2 vols. (Berlin 1924) N.FFopkinson, Callimachus. Hymn to Demeter (Cambridge 1984) M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3 vols. (Berkeley 1973-198Q) G. R. McLennan, Callimachus. Hymn to Zeus. Introduction and Commentary (Rome 1977) W. FF. Mineur, Callimachus. Hymn to Delos. Introduction and Com­ mentary (Leiden 1984) R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus, 2 vols. (Oxford 1941, 1953) R. Pfeiffer, History o f Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968) R. Kassel, C. Austin, Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Berlin 198-...) J. U. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford 1925) H. Reinsch-Werner, Callimachus Hesiodicus: die Rezeption der hesiodischen Dichtung durch Kallimachos von Kyrene (Berlin 1976) H. Lloyd-Jones, P. Parsons, Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin 1983) K. Sethe, W. Helck, Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums IV, Fase. 1-22 (Leipzig, Berlin 1906-1958) F. Williams, Callimachus. Hymn to Apollo. A Commentary (Oxford 1978)

„sed quasi poeta, tabulas quom cepit sibi, q u a e rit q u o d n usquam gentium st, rep erit tam en, facit illud veri simile q u o d m endacium est, n u n c ego p o eta fiam .“ P lautus, Pseudolus 401-404

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet's Self Image in Hellenistic Greece In his 1950 film, O rphée, Jean C o cteau d re a m t up a ra th e r startlin g source o f in spiration fo r his p o e t-h e ro O rp h eu s. As w ith m any p o ets o f the past, C o cteau ’s hearkens to a voice fro m the b ey o n d . In this case, how ever, th a t voice is n o t o f the tra d itio n a l kind. F o r it com es to him in his Rolls R o y c e - o v e r the car rad io . W h a t is m ore, its u tteran ces, inspired by B .B .C . broadcasts to F rance d u rin g th e G erm an o c cu p a ­ tion, are suitably avant garde. A n exam ple: “T h e b ird sings w ith its fin ­ gers. Tw ice. I repeat. T h e bird sings w ith its fin g ers.” A vidly jo ttin g dow n the w ords on a pad, O rp h e u s spends his every free m o m en t w ith the Rolls. “T h is car is the only th in g th a t m atters to y o u ,” com plains Eurydice, his wife. “I could die and you w o u ld n ’t even n o tice.” W h a t am uses us in this scene is th e in tru sio n o f m o d e rn tech n o lo g y o n to tim e -h o n o red notions o f p o etic in sp iratio n and th e creative p ro c ­ ess. F o r C octeau, such n o tio n s no lo n g er ad eq u ately reflect c o n tem p o ­ ra ry experience. T h e y m ust be revised. N o t, to be sure, so radically as to b reak w ith tra d itio n entirely (C o cteau ’s obvious affectio n fo r his classi­ cal m odel precludes such a course), b u t ju st en o u g h to ja r th e view er, provoking in him a smile o f reco g n itio n at a w o rld tra n sfo rm e d by the advent o f the electronic age. Such revisions, o f course, are n o th in g new. B ut th ey are o f p a rtic u la r interest w hen coinciding w ith and reflecting a p e rio d o f intense societal change. Film, radio, video, television and telep h o n es have p ro p elled us into ju st such a tim e and, u n d e r th e ir influence, w e have en tered a phase o f w h a t literacy experts call “seco n d ary o rality ,” a sh ift o f em phasis from the w ritten to the spoken w o rd . A p o et inspired by th e r a d io - th is is one ra th e r radical m an ifestatio n o f th a t shift. In the follow ing pages I w ish to exam ine th e view o f p oetic in sp ira ­ tio n and the M uses am ong the an cien t G reeks, likew ise at a cu ltu ral tu rn in g p o int, nam ely th a t betw een the C lassical and H ellen istic Ages. H ere, in the first gen eratio n o f poets after th e d e ath o f A lex an d er the G re at in 323 B .C . we shall find a crucial role played by the b o o k . A lthough in G reece the “prim ary o ral c u ltu re ” (“a cu ltu re to tally u n to u c h ed by any know ledge o f w ritin g o r p rin t”) 1 h ad long since

1 W.J.Ong’s definition, Literacy and Orality (New York 1982) 11.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

11

ch an g ed in to a literate one, w ith w riting fully in te rio rize d by ab o u t the early 4th cent. B .C ., this inw ard change fo u n d o u tw a rd expression in the p o e t’s self-im age only in th e new Age. W ritin g n o w cam e to d o m i­ nate intellectual activity, scholarly and poetic. W hile oral culture declined, th e b o o k rose to a p o sition o f unexam pled prom inence, becom ing, as R u d o lp h P fe iffe r has said {Hist. p. 102) “a characteristic sign” o f th e H ellen istic A ge.la T h e new pro m in en ce o f the “w ritte n ” w o rd had m any consequences. It led, fo r one, to am using clashes betw een m o d ern , self-consciously lit­ erate p o etic conventions, and th o se o f the old oral culture - clashes n o t un lik e th o se used by C octeau. B ut fu rth er, it sub stan tially altered the tra d itio n a l view o f poetic activity. P oets re th o u g h t th e ir m ethods, m o d ­ ified th e ir goals and, in so doing, created a new aesth etic w hich affected n o t only su b seq u en t G reek au th o rs, b u t the L atin poets o f th e A ugustan A ge as well. T h e se are som e o f th e consequences we shall trace. B ut b e fo re tu rn in g to the H ellenistic Age, we m ust briefly discuss the w ay earlier poets described inspiration, th e ro le o f th e M use and the creative process. H e re it is o f u tm o st im po rtan ce to reco g n ize th a t the view w hich proved decisive in shaping the su b seq u en t tra d itio n was th a t o f a “p rim ary o ral c u ltu re.” T o be sure, the G reeks a d o p ted the P h o e n i­ cian alp h ab e t already in the 8th c en tu ry B. C .*2 and w idespread literacy fo llo w ed soon after. T h e ir po etry , how ever, in h erited th e conventions o f H o m e r. A nd a lth o u g h the Iliad and Odyssey, as we k n o w them , p ro ­ bably also d ate from the 8th century, th e ir origins go back m any g en ­ eratio n s to a p re -lite ra te age: fo r they are b o th d em o n strab ly p ro d u cts o f a long o ra l tra d itio n ;3 th e ir p o e t m ay him self have been illiterate as w as the w o rld he p o rtray e d . T h e re is only one instance o f w riting in H o m e r (//. 6.168-9). T h e m a n n er in w hich the o ral p o et described inspiration and fo r w h a t it was used m ay best be seen in the m o st elab o rate invocation o f th e M uses in H o m e r, nam ely th a t befo re the catalo g u e o f ships {II. 2 .4 8 4 -9 2 ):

la Cf. now also G. Zänker, “The Nature and Origin o f Realism in Alexandrian Poetry”, A &A29 (1983) 125 f. who says “It has become a cliché of modern criticism to call the Alexandrian age ‘bookish’” p. 129. 2 And far earlier perhaps, cf. the studies of J. Naveh, Early History o f the Alphabet. An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography. (Leiden 1982) 175-186, who argues for a date ca. 1100 B.C. But cf. W. Burkert, SB Heidelberg. I (1984) 30 ff. 3 Concerning the Oral Poetry debate, it will suffice here to refer the reader to J. Latacz’ survey of its history, “Tradition und Neuerung in der Homerforschung” in Homer, Wege der Forschung CDLXII (Darmstadt 1979).

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

Tell me now, Muses, who have your homes on Olympos For you are goddesses, and are there, and you see all things and we have heard only the rumor of it and know nothing. Who then were the leaders of the Danaans and their lords? As M aeh ler and o th ers have observed, th e p o e t appeals to the M uses n o t fo r help in achieving a p articu larly lovely affect, i.e. n o t fo r his form, b u t fo r a precise accounting o f th e facts, fo r his c o n te n t.4 T h e M uses, in tu rn , can oblige because th ey are eyew itnesses to everything beyond the p o e t’s p ersonal experience (ύμεΐς γά ρ θεαί έστε, π ά ρ εσ τέ τε, ισ τέ τε πάντα, / ήμεΐς δε κλέος ο ιο ν άκούομ εν ούδέ τι ϊδ μ εν ν. 4 8 5 -6 ). P u t som ew hat differently, they are “d au g h ters o f M em o ry ” (so first in H es. Th. 54, cf. W est ad loc.) and, w ith th e ir assistance, the p o e t enjoys to ta l recall. O n e easily sees how this was th e fu n c tio n o f a cu ltu re w ith no w ritten records. T h o u g h m odified in som e details, this o rally d eterm in ed view o f poetic in spiration w ent virtually un challenged by the poets them selves rig h t th ro u g h the Classical Age. In sp iratio n did n o t com e to them as it did already in the early 6th cen tu ry B .C . to E zechial, w h o ate the scroll and thus received G o d ’s m essage (2.8-3.3; cf. also Jerem iah 15.16). T h e Jews w ere people o f the b ook. N o t so the early G reeks. Even w hen w riting came to be used by the poets, it was never, o r at m o st indirectly, acknow ledged.5 T h e poets persisted in calling them selves “singers” (άοιδοί, the old epic designation) o r “m ak ers” (ποιη ταί, a 5th cen tu ry innovation), b u t never “w rite rs” . In the m eantim e, literacy was changing the w o rld . T h is process has been d ealt w ith at length by J. G o o d y and I. W a tt.6 T h e ir findings show

4 H. Maehler, Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum (Göttingen 1963) 18 f., cf. P. Murray, “Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece”, JHS 101 (1981) 87f., esp. 90-94, who admirably surveys much of the previous literature on the subject. 5 By the 2nd quarter of the 5th century, writing becomes a common metaphor for recollection in lyric and tragedy with the image of the tablets of memory, cf. Pind. Ol. 10.1 f.; Aesch. Choe. 450, Eum. 273-5; Soph. Triptolemus fr. 597 (Radt); etc. For further examples cf. Groeneboom ad Aesch. P V 789. On this development generally cf. R. Pfeif­ fer, History o f Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968) 25-6, Ph. E. Legrand, Etude sur Theo­ crite, Bibliothèque des Ecoles Francaises d’Athènes et de Rome 79 (Paris 1898, repr. 1968) 429-436, D. Sansone, Aeschylean Metaphors for Intellectual Activity, Hermes Einzelschr. 35 (1975) 59-63, and C. Segal, “Greek Tragedy: Writing, Truth, and the Representation of the Self” in Mnemai. Classical Studies in Memory o f Karl K.Hulley, ed. H .D.Evjen (Chico 1984) 46. 6 Cf. “The Consequences of Literacy” in Literacy in Traditional Societies, ed. J. Goody (Cambridge 1968) 27-68. On the question of literacy/orality generally, cf. E.A. Have­ lock’s Preface to Plato (Cambr. Mass. 1963), The Literate Revolution in Greece and Its Cul­ tural Consequences (Princeton 1982), and The Muse Learns to Write (New Haven 1986). Important contributions have also been made in three articles by W. Rosier: “Die

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

13

th a t “literacy fixed p e rm a n en tly and m ade available to a w id er audience prev io u sly fluid descriptions: th e evasions and re in te rp re ta tio n s o f the o ra l tra d itio n ceased, and th e resulting gap betw een w ritten statem en t and actual experience led to the fo rm atio n o f a critical ap p ro ach to life based on a n o tio n o f the essential ra tio n a lity o f all aspects o f reality, p ublic and p riv a te ” [O .M u rra y , Early Greece, (Sussex 1980) 97], T h u s, by th e end o f th e 5th century, the ratio n al investigations o f p h ilo so p h y w ere enjoying e n o rm o u s grow th. P o etry , on the o th e r hand, was in a crisis o f confidence. “Blessed is h e ”, lam ents C hoirilos o f Sam os, “w ho w as skilful in song at th a t tim e, a servant o f th e M uses, w h en the m ead o w was still uncut. B ut now , w h en all has been a p p o r­ tio n e d and skills have th e ir limits, we are left b eh in d like th e last in a race. N o r is th e re anyw here, even w hen one searches all a ro u n d , to drive a n ew -y o k ed c h a rio t” (SH 317). So to o A ristophanes, in his co m ­ edy “T h e F ro g s”, was well aw are th a t a d o o r h ad been closed on an era: w ith th e d eath s o f E uripides and Sophocles, tra g e d y to o had died. B ut he also saw w hy: the best y o u n g m inds w ere flocking to Socrates. P lato is said to have b u rn e d his verse because o f Socrates (D iog. Laert. I l l 5). T h e crisis o f p o e try and th e rise o f philo so p h y w ere indispensible fo r p o e try ’s re b irth in the H ellen istic Age, fo r w hile p o e try was in decline, p h ilo so p h y a p p ro p ria te d th e M uses. P la to ’s A cadem y and A risto tle’s Lyceum co n tain ed p ro m in en t shrines o f th e M uses, “m ouseia”, and p h ilo so phical discourse th e re was p ro b ab ly considered to be u n d e r the aegis o f these g oddesses.7 B ut m usic itself acquired a new m eaning. “P h ilo so p h y ”, says S ocrates in the Phaedo (61a), “is the best m usic.” N o t o n ly w ere th e poets b anished from P la to ’s R epublic, th ey had little place in th e p h ilosophical schools. Instead , th e M uses’ dom ain now in clu d ed sch o larly debate, scientific research and th e g ath erin g o f b o o k s into libraries. W a lte r J. O n g is certain ly n o t fa r from the m ark w hen he calls this “the p o in t w hen alphabetic literacy first clashed head on w ith o ra lity ” (op. cit. n. 1 above, p.2 4 ) and, follow ing E. A. H avelock, describes P la to ’s aversion to poets as a “rejection o f th e ... oral-style

Entdeckung der Fikdonalität in der Antike”, Poetica 12 (1980) 283-319, “Schriftkultur und Fiktionalität. Zum Funktionswandel der griechischen Fiteratur von Homer bis Ari­ stoteles,” in Schrift und Gedächtnis. Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunika­ tion eds. A. and J. Assmann, and Chr. Hardmeier (Munich 1983) 109-122 and “Alte und neue Mündlichkeit. Über kulturellen Wandel im antiken Griechenland und heute”, Der altsprachliche Unterricht 28 (1985) 4-26. Cf. also W.Schadewaldt, “Der Umfang des Begriffs der Fiteratur in der Antike”, Literatur und Dichtung (ed. H. Rüdiger, Stuttgart, etc. 1973) 12-25 and R. Harder, “Bemerkungen zur griechischen Schriftlichkeit”, Die Antike 19 (1943) 86-108 = Kleine Schriften (Munich 1960) 57-80. 7 Cf. P. Boyancé, Le Culte des Muses chez les Philosophes Grecs (Paris 1937) 262 et pas­ sim, as well as J.Fynch, Aristotle’s School (Berkeley 1972) 108-116.

14

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

th in k in g p e rp e tu ate d in H o m e r in fav o r o f th e keen analysis o f d issec­ tio n o f the w o rld and of th o u g h t itself m ade possible by th e in te rio riz a tio n o f the alphabet in the G reek p syche” (op. cit. η. 1 above, p .2 8 ). T his sets the stage at last fo r th e H ellen istic Age, and we h erew ith tu rn o u r atte n tio n to the literary developm ents th a t o ccu rred in th e city o f A lexandria in Egypt. P reviously the site o f an in sig n ifican t village, this city had been fo u n d ed by A lex an d er th e G re at as an adm inistrative center fo r the G reeks a fte r his co n q u est o f E gypt. H e was d raw n here perhaps because it was the scene o f a fam ous episode in H o m e r w h ere M enelaus w restled the sea-god P ro teu s into subm ission - P ro teu s, w ho soon cam e to be identified as an E gyptian p h a ra o h (at least since H e r ­ o dotus II 112f.). T h e scene’s sym bolic value w o u ld certainly n o t have been lost on A lexander, w ho had him self fo rced E g y p t to its knees. A lexander h o ped th a t this city w o u ld becom e the gatew ay to E gypt fo r the G reeks. B ut a fte r his d eath in 323, his successor, P to lem y the 1st Soter, soon realized th a t it w ould tak e m ore to a ttra c t and keep a G reek p o p u latio n - the basis o f his p o w e r- in such u n fa m ilia r s u rro u n d ­ ings w here they w ould never be m ore th an a small m inority. T h e hero, M enelaus, had after all con tin u ed on to Sparta. H o w could one bind these G reeks, w ho w ere draw n fro m th e fu rth e st co rn ers o f th e G reek w orld, each w ith its ow n tra d itio n , to a city essentially trad itio n less? P tolem y’s answ er was grandiose. H e resolved to b rin g th a t vast tra d i­ tio n to Egypt. W ith a reverent eye tow ards A lexander and his tu to r, A ristotle, he established a M useum - literally a shrine o f the M uses - elab o ratin g on, and institutionalizing, the im p o rtan t status o f the M uses in th e p h ilo ­ sophical scho o ls;73 and fo r this M useum he lured som e o f th e m ost gifted m inds aw ay from G reece. T h e co rn e rsto n e o f th e p ro ject was the great library, built th ro u g h an aggressive policy o f buying w hich d elib ­ erately so u g h t o u t the obscure and the rem ote, and th u s created a kind o f m icrocosm o f G reece on E gyptian soil. T h e M u seu m was a beehive o f intellectual activity, w here scholarly disputes and rivalries flo u rish ed . T h e p oet C allim achus likened the co n ten tio u s scholars to a sw arm o f

73 Lynch, op. cit. (n.7 above) 122, explains the official, organizational role of the Muses at the Alexandrian Museum vis-à-vis their earlier function in Aristotle’s school as follows: “It is clear...that the Museum was not simply an Alexandrian Peripatos. For in Egypt, long before the Alexandrian Museum was founded, learning was associated with the priestly class (cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics II, p .981 b 24; Isocrates, Busiris 21-23); in Egyptian society, priests traditionally were the teachers and they kept books in temples. It is only to be expected, therefore, that an institution of higher learning founded in this tra­ dition would be presided over by a priest and have a marked religious dimension.” Egyp­ tian influence was not restricted to the Museum, moreover. In chapter 3 (p. 128 ff.) I shall argue that it is central to the view of kingship put forth in Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

15

an g ry w asps, o r flies a b o u t a g o a th erd , o r D elphians greedily grasping fo r a p o rtio n o f m eat at the sacrifice (Iambos 1.26f.). In one im p o rta n t respect, the M useum d iffered fro m its p h ilo so p h i­ cal m odel: am ong its m ost p ro m in e n t m em bers w ere poets. W h at is m ore, it seem s th a t these poets w ere req u ired to engage in som e form o f sch o larship, fo r it is d ifficult to explain th e ir nearly to tal p articip a­ tion in this activity if n o t as the resu lt o f policy. P o etry , then, fo r the first tim e becam e g ro u n d e d - in s titu tio n a lly -in the w ritten w ord. H o w did this affect the view o f the creative process and the M uses? W h a t becam e o f th o se venerable tra d itio n s and conventions th a t reach ed back to the era o f o ral song? Som e exam ples m ay help to shed lig h t on th e problem . P o seidippus, a p o e t active in E gypt in the 280’s and ’70’s B .C ., w ro te a p ro g ram m a tic elegy to open a collection o f his epigram s ( SH 705). T h e b eginning w ill raise no eyebrow s: “N o w (M uses), sing along w ith P o seid ippus a song o f h atefu l age” (νυν δε Π οσε[ι]δίππω σ τυγερόν σ υ να είσ α τε γ ή ρ α ς ν. 5). A perfectly o rth o d o x in v o catio n by a p o e t w ho refers to him self and his M uses as “singing” . B ut in th e next line the M uses are to sing w ith the poet, “having inscribed (the song) in the g olden colum ns o f w ritin g -ta b lets” (γρ α ψ ά μ ενα ι δελτώ ν εν χρυ σ έα ις σ ελ ίσ ιν ν. 5 -6 ). It seem s th a t the M uses have learn ed to w rite!8 H aving a ro u sed th e m ost conventional expectations, then, the p o et follow s up w ith an innovative tw ist, achieving an affect at once am using and d isq u ietin g fo r the read er. A nd I use the w o rd “re a d e r” deliberately since p o e try was now largely experienced th ro u g h bo o k s. O u r evidence is the su d d en efflorescence o f p urely visual p h en o m en a: p attern poem s (sh o rt w orks w ritten in the shape o f w h a t they describe) and acrostics c o n tain in g th e p o e t’s nam e o r a key w o rd (o u r earliest acro sd ch is th a t o f the tra g e d ian C hairem on, F 14b Snell, in the second h alf o f 4th cent., on w hich cf. B. Snell, Szenen aus griechischen Dramen, Berlin 1971, p. 159-160, 166-168. O n the H ellenistic vogue, see E .V o g t, A & A 13, 1967, p .8 0 -9 5 ). B ut th e p o e t’s self im age is n o w also geared to the re a d er. Ju st a few lines on, P oseidippus hopes th a t a statue o f him self w ill be set up in the m a rk e t place o f his hom e tow n, depicting him “u n w in d in g a b o o k -ro ll w ith b o th h a n d s” (εομι δε βίβλον έλίσσω ν / ήάμφω ή λ α ο φ ό ρ ω ι κ είμενος είν ά γο ρ ή ι ν. 16-17). T h e distinctive em blem by w hich the p o e t w ishes to be rem em b ered is now his b o o k .9

8 Inspiration was connected with writing much earlier, but by those who were not poets. Thus, Democritus states ποιητής δε ασσα μέν αν γράφηι μετ’ ένθουσιασμοϋ καί ίεροϋ πνεύματος, καλά κάρτα (D K 68 Β 18). Cf. Segal, op. cit. (n.5 above) p.53. 9 Cf. Segal, op. cit. (n.5 above) p.45 n.16.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

W e can gauge the significance o f this in n o v atio n by recalling the w eight o f tra d itio n th a t sto o d against it. P o ets h ad been c o n te n t to p ic­ tu re them selves in the received m an n er th ro u g h o u t th e C lassical E ra, y e t b o o k -ro lls appear as attrib u tes o f th e M uses in v ase-p ain tin g as early as ca. 459 B. C , i.e. 130 years b efo re th e H ellen istic A ge.101A nd in sculpture, they are first fo u n d in th e M an tin ea reliefs o f th e m id fo u rth cen tu ry .11 T h ese artisans w ere ap p aren tly able to reflect the h isto rical reality o f the roll because th ey w ere less b u rd e n e d by literary p re c ed e n t th an w ere the p o e ts.12 T h is rift, it appears, em erged even w ith in p o e try itself. Solon, fo r instance, in his capacity as law giver refers to him self as “w ritin g ” (θεσμούς δ’ ομ οίω ς τω ι κακώ ι τε κ ά γα θώ ι / ευ θ εία ν εις έκ α σ το ν άρμόσ α ς δίκην / έγρ α ψ α , fr. 36.18-20 W ), fo r this te ch n o lo g y w as evidently an acknow ledged p a rt o f legislation by th e early 6th cen tu ry B .C . As poet, how ever, Solon speaks only o f song (cf. fr. 20.3 W ). T h e sam e is still tru e nearly tw o centuries later w hen C ritias says o f his m o tio n fo r A lcibiades’ retu rn : γνώ μη δ’ ή σε κ α τή γ α γ ’, εγώ τα ύ τη ν εν α π α σ ιν / είπ ο ν καί γ ρ ά ψ α ς το ύ ρ γ ο ν έδ ρ α σ α τόδε (D K 88 Β 5). C onversely, w hen speaking o f song he uses tra d itio n a l term s: κ αί νΰ ν Κ λεινίου υιόν ’Α θηναΐον σ τεφ α νώ σ ω / Ά λ κ ιβ ιά δ η ν νέο ισ ιν ύμ νή σ ας τρ ό π ο ις (D K 88

Β4).13 B ut literary p reced en t alo n e c an n o t acco u n t fo r this stran g e d ic h o t­ om y. T o P in d a r it is ap p aren tly o f no in h e re n t in te re st th a t a w o rk w as w ritten, b u t fo r the H ellenistic poets it is crucial. W h y sh o u ld this be so? It w o uld seem th a t the relative im p o rtan ce o f p erfo rm an ce is a key. P ublic perfo rm an ce persisted as th e p rim ary reality in creatin g and experiencing verse at least th ro u g h th e late 5th cent.; w riting, th o u g h

10 Cf. H. R. Immerwahr, “Book Rolls on Attic Vases”, Classical, Mediaeval and Renais­ sance Studies in Honor o f Berthold Louis Ullman, ed. Ch. Henderson (Rome 1964) and idem, “More Book Rolls on Attic Vases”, Ant. K. 16 (1973) 143-7; cf. also O. Bie, Die Musen in der antiken Kunst, (Berlin 1887); Th.Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst, (Leipzig 1907); W. Schubart, Das Buch bei den Griechen und Römern1’ (Heidelberg 1962); and, for a summary of the history of books in Greece, J.Platthy, Sources on the Earliest Greek Libra­ ries, (Amsterdam 1968). 11 Cf. Roscher, s.v. Musen, p.3250-4. 12 We might, o f course, have a different picture if we possessed the lost plays on the Muses by Phrynichus (31-5 Meineke = 31-5 Kock), Polyzelus (7-10 Meineke = 7-10 Kock), Euphron (8 Meineke = 8 Kock), Ophelion (I 415 Meineke = II p.294 Kock). 13 Critias’ iconoclasm took another form, of course, namely the insertion of an iambic line in an otherwise elegiac poem in order to accommodate Alcibiades’ name. This and other innovations justify Pfeiffer’s assessment: “Critias... holds an important position in the middle between the poetae philosophi of the past and the poetae docti of the future.” {Hist. p. 55).

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

17

p ro b ab ly u tilized, was in cid en tal.14 T h e audience, its expectations a ttu n e d to spectacle, w o u ld be largely oblivious, and th e re fo re in d iffer­ ent, to th e tex tu al dim ension in the w ork. T h u s, P in d a r freq u en tly refers to th e circum stances o f p e rfo rm a n c e ;15 this was the them e th a t m attered . By H ellen istic tim es, how ever, it m attered very m uch less. T h e c o h e r­ e n t fabric o f the p o lis-co m m u n ity had disin teg rated , supplanted by the rem o te, dislo cated m ass o f the O ik o u m en e. P o etry , in co n cert w ith this change, becam e a private act o f com m unication, n o lo n g er a public one. T h ro u g h reading, the literary com m unity to o w as b ro k en do w n into in dividual read ers re sp o n d in g to a given te x t in iso latio n (o r at best in circum scribed groups). P e rfo rm a n ce m ig h t now ap p ear as a self-co n ­ scious fiction, as in the so-called “m im etic” hym ns o f C allim achus (2, 5 an d 6), w here the n a rra to r, in d eterm in ately n o w m aster/m istress o f cer­ em onies, n ow celebrant, n ow poet, vividly describes a ritu al th a t is clearly a lite ra ry e v o catio n .16 By th e ir very artificiality, these poem s u n d erlin e a decisive shift. A t th a t p o in t w hen p erfo rm an ce can be an illusion, no lo n g e r a d atu m , it becom es inevitable th a t th e illusion will be b ro k e n -a n tiq u a ria n in te re st alone c an n o t sustain it in th e absence o f a living p e rfo rm ativ e tra d itio n . T h e d o m in a n t m edium o f co m m u n i­ catio n will assert itself. C lear evidence o f such assertion m ay be seen in the efflorescence o f epigram . E p ig ram is a genre inextricably tied to its inscribed quality. Yet, like C allim achus’ “m im etic” hym ns, it now , characteristically, appears at one rem ove fro m its original chiseled settin g .17 It no lo n g er has to be inscribed since all p o e try has m oved in the d irectio n o f epigram : a poem is always n ow an inscription. T h is is obvious in verses

14 Cf. J. Herington’s analysis of the “song culture” of early Greece in Poetry into Drama. Early Tragedy and the Greek Poetic Tradition (Berkeley 1985) 3-40 et passim. Cf. also R. Merkelbach, “Sappho und ihr Kreis”, Philologus 101 (1957) 5-6 and B. Gentili, “Oralità e scrittura in Grecia”, in Oralità Scrittura Spettacolo, ed. M.Vegetti (Torino 1983) 37-43. It should be recalled that even in the 5th cent., texts were not as common as one might think. Socrates, for instance, finds it worthy of note that Euthydemus owns a complete Homer (Xenophon, Mem. IV 2.10), and see also Polybius III 32.1; but cf. Gen­ tili, op. cit., “Poeta e musico in Grecia” (quoted in n.59 below), who properly stresses that performative poetry did indeed continue to exist throughout this period, but that it did so in an entirely separate sphere. 15 Cf. H .Frankel, Dicht, u. Phil. (Munich 1962) 488 and n.7. 16 Cf. Ph. E. Legrand, “Problèmes alexandrins 1: Pourquoi furent composes les hymnes de Callimaque?”, REA 3 (1901) 293; H.Herter, RE Suppi. V434; H. Erbse, “Zum Apollonhymnus des Kallimachos”, Hermes 83 (1955) 411-28; N. Hopkinson, Callimachus, Hymn to Demeter (Cambridge 1984) 3-4, 35-37. 17 Uninscribed epigrams appear occasionally as early as the 5th century B.C. (cf. Wilamowitz, H D I 129-32), but with the Hellenistic period they become typical.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

th a t m ust be read to be u n d e rsto o d , such as the p a tte rn -p o e m s and acrostics m en tio n ed above, b u t is in som e w ay tru e fo r p o e try as a w hole in this age. P erhaps the m ost telling co n firm atio n o f this tru th m ay be fo u n d in those instances in w hich a w ritten tex t is sim ply assum ed. In frag m e n t 7 o f his Aetia, fo r instance, C allim achus em ploys th e tra d itio n a l n o tio n th a t a poem com posed w ith the fa v o r o f the G races will en d u re o v er a long p erio d o f time. T h u s, previously, P in d a r (N. 4 .6 -8 ) h ad said th a t “the w o rd lives lo n g er than the deed, w h enever th e voice brings it fo rth from depths o f the m ind w ith the G races’ fa v o r” (ρήμα δ ’ έρ γμ ά τω ν χρ ο ν ιώ τερ ο ν βιοτεύει, / δ τι κε συν Χ α ρ ίτω ν τύχςι / γλ ώ σ σ α φ ρ ενό ς έξέλοι βαθείας). N ow , how ever, th e p o e t im plores th e G races to “w ipe y o u r an n o in ted hands on my elegies” (έλεγρισι δ ’ενιψ ή σ α σ θε λ ιπ ώ σ α ς / χεΐρ α ς έμοίς fr. 7.13-14) so th a t they m ay survive fo r m any a year. H ow , we m ay ask, can one w ipe o n e ’s han d s o n an orally c o m m u n i­ cated w ork? T h is is an o d d - in d e e d a b iz a r re -re q u e s t, unless we c o n ­ ceive o f the elegies as being on tablets o r scrolls. A less obvious case in w hich a w ritten tex t is assum ed occurs in C alli­ m achus’ Hymn to Artemis, w here th e p o e t addresses th e follow ing p ray er to the goddess: “O queen, m ay my care fo rev er be song / and therein (i.e. in th a t song) shall be L eto ’s m arriage, th e re in shall be y o u r nam e o ften, / th erein shall be A pollo, and th erein all y o u r labors, / and therein y o u r h o u n d s and y o u r bow and y o u r c h a rio ts” (ά νασ σ α , μέλοι δε μοι αίέν ά ο ιδ ή - / τή ενι μεν Λ ητούς γά μ ο ς εσσεται, έν δε σύ πολλή, / έν δε κα ί ’Α πόλλω ν, έν δ’ ο ϊ σεο π ά ντες άεθλοι, / έν δέ κύνες κ αί τόξα κα ί άντυγες ν. 137-140). T h e conspicuous rep etitio n o f “th e re in ” (έν in the G reek) is a trad itio n al featu re o f G reek p o etry . B ut all exam ples outside C allim achus refer to a concrete o b ject (a shield o r a cloak) o r place (cf. Sappho 2.5 and 9 L -P ) and never to so m eth in g so in co rp o real as song.18 O r is it incorporeal? A n o th e r passage in C allim achus gives us a clue. In the tale o f A contius and C ydippe in Bk. 3 o f the Aetia, the p o et discusses the w o rk o f the 5th cent. C ean ch ro n icler, X en o m ed es, using the sam e rep etitio n to set o u t the content: “In it th e insolence an d the lightning death, and in it the w izard s T elchines; and D em o n ax w ho foolishly paid no heed to the ... gods he p u t m - t o his ta b lets” (έν δ ’ υβριν θά να τό ν τε κεραύνιον, έν δέ γό η τα ς / Τ ελ χ ΐν α ς μακάρω ν τ’ ούκ ά λ έγο ντα θεών / ήλεά Δ η μώ νακτα γέρω ν ένεθήκατο δέλτ[οις fr. 75.64-66). W h a t was left u n sp o k en in the Hymn to Artemis, is here

18 Cf. D. Fehling, Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gor­ gias (Berlin 1969) 194-197, esp. 196.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

19

m ade explicit. Song is indeed now a concrete o b ject in the fo rm o f p a p ­ y ru s o r ta b le ts.183 T h is c o n c re tiz a tio n is p a rtic u la rly stark in a n o th e r H ellenistic tex t,1920 nam ely th e p ro o em to the B atrachom yom achia: ά ρ χό μ ενο ς πρώ της σ ελίδο ς χ ο ρ ό ν εξ Έ λικώ νος / έλθεϊν εις έμόν ή το ρ έπ εύ χο μ α ι εϊνεκ ’ ά ο ιδή ς / ή ν νέο ν εν δ έλ τοισ ιν έμ οΐς επί γο ύ ν α σ ι θήκα, “startin g w ith the first colum n o f w riting, I p ray th a t the chorus com e dow n from H e li­ k o n in to m y h e a rt on acco u n t o f the song w hich I have recently w ritten in the tablets u p o n my k n ees” (v.1 -3 ).20 M uses w ere trad itio n ally in v o k ed at the s ta rt o f epic recitatio n . H e re th e co n v en tio n has been vi­ sualized. T h e ir p ro p e r place is n o t the tem p o ral beginning o f a song, b u t its co n crete m a n ifestatio n in space, the πρώ τη σελίς on th e page.203 Even the A llises’ foes (such as T h am y ris was at Iliad 2.594-600) no lo n g e r a tta c k the goddesses’ singing : by th e tim e o f E uenus (1st cent. B .C .?) th a t c reatu re m ost h atefu l to th e m - is th e b o o k w o rm ! έχθίστη Μ ούσ αις σ ελ ιδη φ ά γε (AP IX 251.1 = 1.1 Garl. Phil.).

183 Cf. also the pseud-Epicharmean fragment (by Axiopistus? ca. 300 B.C.) in Powell p. 219 v. 1-6: τεΐδ’ ένεστι πολλά καί παντοία.../ ν. 4 ... αϊτέ τις / άλλ’ έχει κακόν τι, καί τούτοισι κέντρα τειδ’ ένο. / έν δέ καί γνώμαι σοφαί τεΐδ’, . . . ” 19 On the dating of the Batrachomyomachia cf. H. Wölke, Untersuchungen zur Batrachomyomachie (Meisenheim 1978) 46-70 and R.Pfeiffer, Hermes 63 (1928) 319 = Aus­ gewählte Schriften (Munich 1960) 113. 20 Note that while Poseidippus (in the programmatic elegy mentioned above) invoked the Muses to sing with him (συναείσατε) after they have penned his song (γραψάμεναι), the poet of the animal epic has written his work alone; he calls the goddesses into his heart perhaps just to inspire his performance. Such devaluation of the Muses is taken to its limit by Varro, De Re Rustica I, 1.4-7, who explicitly rejects an invocation in the style of Homer and Ennius, calling rather on the twelve “Dei Consentes” (advocabo eos, nec, ut Homerus et Ennius, Musas, sed duodecim deos Consentis, 1.4), the patrons of rural life, whom he presents in a catalogue clearly modelled on that of the Hesiodic Muses. A sec­ ond, parallel catalogue lays bare the source of his inspiration: i.e. those “qui Graece scrip­ serunt... Hi sunt, quos tu habere in consilio poteris, cum quid consulere voles” (1.7 f.). On the text πρώτης σελίδος (found only in 02) rather than πρώτον (or -ως, -ος) Μουσών, cf. Wölke, op. cit. (n. 19 above) p .257-8. 203 There is evidence that the concretization of song may also have altered the sense of a traditional form of poetic closure, namely the conventional announcement of a new theme at the end of many Homeric Hymns. It has been pointed out that the final verse of the ‘Epilogue’ of the Aetia (fr. 112.9 αύτάρ έγώ Μουσέων πεζόν [έ]πειμι νομόν) recalls and varies such hymnic endings as αύτάρ έγώ...άλλης μνησομ’ άοιδής or μεταβήσομαι άλλον ές ύμνον (thus Pfeiffer ad loc.). Whereas these formulae indicate the transition from the hymn (as prooimion) to epic recitation in the context of performance, Callimachus’ w o r d s-if we believe, as I think we must, Rudolf Pfeiffer’s interpretation (cf. Philol. 87 [1932] 226 = WdF p. 150-151) - appear to mark the transition between the Aetia and the Iambi in the final published edition of these works, i.e. the transition on the scroll of pap­ yrus. As Pfeiffer himself points out, however {op. cit. ad n.121), this interpretation has not gained universal acceptance.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

It is no coincidence, then, th a t read in g and w ritin g su d d en ly em erge as conspicuous parts o f the p o e t’s self-im age; ra th e r th e ir p ro m in en ce reflects a fu n d am en tal change in ap p ro ach : p o e tiy is n o w chiefly co m ­ posed and experienced in w riting. A ccordingly, in an epigram o f A sclepiades, w ho flo u rish ed a b o u t 275 B .C ., we h e a r th a t the poem “L yde” was “c o -w ritte n ” by the M uses and A ntim achus: τό ξυνόν Μ ουσώ ν γρ ά μ μ α καί ’Α ντιμ ά χο υ (32 G-P). In th e 1st cent. B .C ., C rin a goras im agined a sim ilar c o lla b o ratio n in w ritin g betw een poet, M uses o r G races (εγρ α ψ εν ή Μ ουσέω ν συν μιήι ή Χ αρίτω ν, A P IX 513.2 = 49 Garl. Phil.) and betw een p o e t and Passions (εγρ α ψ εν ή π α ρ ’ ο ίν ο ν ή συν 'Ιμέροις, A P IX 239.4 = 7 Garl. Phil.). As o ften , these passages rely fo r th e ir effect on the pleasan t jo lt caused by d e p a rtu re fro m a tra d i­ tional literary com m onplace. E ach draw s on th e old them e o f the p o e t’s co o p eratio n w ith the goddesses o f song (w hich we find, fo r instance, in Bacch. 5.9: ή συν Χ α ρ ίτεσ σ ι βαθυζώ νοις ύφ ά να ς / ύμ νον o r P in d . Ν. 9.53 f.: Ζεϋ πά τερ / εύχο μ α ι τα ύ τα ν ά ρ ετά ν κ ελ α δή σ α ι / συν Χ αρίτεσ σιν),21 b u t each sim ultaneously tran sfo rm s it by p o rtray in g the sin g er as w riter, his goddesses as fellow scribes. A startling m u tatio n on the them e o f “p o e t and G races” m ay be fo u n d in T h e o c ritu s’ 16th Idyll, the “C h arite s” . H e re, in a vivid m ime, we m eet the G races as perso n ified scrolls, and th e p o e t quasi as th e ir dealer: sto rin g the poem s in a coffer, sending them o ff to prospective clients fo r p e r u s a l- a fran k p o rtray a l o f the H ellen istic p o e t’s life (v. 5-12). Τις γάρ των όπόσοι γλαύκαν ναίουσιν ύπ’ άώ ήμετέρας Χάριτας πετάσας ύποδέξεται οϊκω άσπασίως, ούδ’αύθις άδωρήτους άποπέμψει; αϊ δε σκυζόμεναι γυμνοΐς ποσίν οϊκαδ’ ϊασι, πολλά με τωθάζοισαι δτ’ άλιθίην οδόν ήλθον, όκνηραί δε πάλιν κενεάς εν πυθμένι χηλοϋ ψυχροίς εν γονάτεσσι κάρη μίμνοντι βαλοΐσαι, ενθ’ αίεί σφισιν εδρη έπήν άπρακτοι ϊκωνται. Now, who of all who dwell beneath the blue dawn will gladly open up and receive our Graces in his house, nor send them back again without gifts? -when they come bare-foot home complaining, jeering at me that their journey was in vain; and cowering again in the bottom of the empty chest, they wait, head bent over cold knees, their usual abode when they return unused. 21 Cf. D.E. Keefe, CQ 32 (1982) 237-8.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

21

T h is b old scene is all the m ore strik in g fo r th e m a n n er in w hich it devi­ ates fro m and develops a C lassical m odel: fo r in depicting his Χ άριτες, i.e. his poem s, as sto re d in a chest, T h e o c ritu s is plainly alluding to a p u n re lated to us in an an ecd o te (Stob. I ll 10.38, etc. Cf. G ow ad v. 10 ff.) a b o u t Sim onides. A ccording to the story, the p o et had been asked to com pose an encom ium fo r pay (χάρις). O n subsequently being to ld th a t he w o uld get th a n k s (χάρις) b u t no m oney fo r his labor, he said th a t he h ad one chest fo r th an k s (χα ρ ίτω ν), a n o th e r fo r m oney, and th a t w h en he opened the fo rm e r he fo u n d in it n o th in g useful. By m ak in g S im onides’ chest a scroll-box, his χ ά ρ ιτε ς its w ritten co n ­ tents, T h e o c ritu s plunges his readers in to th e c o n tem p o rary w o rld o f b o o k s; o r differently, by reference to the past, he underlines the in te r­ vening change: a h eig h ten ed aw areness o f th e m edium o f w riting. “T h e o c ritu s ’ papyrus calls itself a p ap y ru s”, as F .T . G riffith s has said ( Theocritus at Court p .2 4 ). T h e S im onidean p u n is th ereb y given an ad d ed d im ension. All the “th a n k s ” (χάριτες) or “p ay ” (χάρις) th a t T h e ­ o critu s receives is sim ply the re tu rn o f his Χ άριτες, his papyrus rolls, w hich lie in his chest u nused, u n realized in th e ir fu n c tio n as dispensers o f glory, a c o n sta n t rebuke to the p o e t (cf. N . A ustin, TAPhA 98, 1967, 5 and 11 n. 19). Like changes o ccurred in o th e r spheres o f poetic activity. C rin ag o ras m e n tio n e d th e topos o f w ine and song. As early as A rchilochus, we find th a t these tw o go h an d in hand: “I know how to lead th e dithyram b, the lovely song o f lo rd D ionysus, w hen my brain is th u n d e rstru c k w ith w in e” (ώς Δ ιω νύσου ά ν α κ το ς κ αλόν έξά ρξαι μέλος / ο ίδ α διθύραμβον οι'νωι σ υγκ ερ α υνω θείς φ ρένας, fr. 120 W = 117 T a rd iti). T h e ir usual settin g w as the sym posium w here one m ig h t h e a r e x h o rtatio n s such as Io n ’s (“let us d rink, let us play, let song go th ro u g h the n ig h t”, πίνω μεν, π α ίζ ω μ ε ν ΐτω δ ιά νυκτός άοιδή, fr. 27.7 W ) o r th a t in P h e re k ra te s’ Persai (“fill up the cup and raise the cry o f th e triple paian, as o u r custom is”, έγ χ ε ι κ ά π ιβ ό α τρ ίτο ν Π α ιώ ν’ ώς νόμ ος έστίν, fr. 131.5 K o ck ).22 By th e 3rd cent. B. C., how ever, we find an e x h o rta tio n o f a n o th e r kind. In stead o f u rg in g his frien d to d rin k and sing, H ed y lu s (6 G-P ) urges him to d rin k and write : κα ί γρ ά φ ε κ αί μέθυε (v. 6). C o m in g as it does in th e very last w ord s o f a poem w hich is tra d itio n ally sym potic in every o th e r w ay,23 this e x h o rta tio n acts as a punchline, aim ed to u n s e ttle -a s it did G ow and Page, w ho com m ent (on v. 4) “γρ ά φ ε ... does n o t sug­ gest a sym posium ” .24 22 We find further instances of singing and drinking in Alcaeus fr. 58.12 L-P, Ana­ creon PMG 356b, Theognis 533 W, etc. 23 Cf. Giangrande, Entretiens Hardt 14 (1968) 158-63. 24 For writing while drinking cf. Catullus 50.1-6: Hesterno, Licini, die otiosi / multum lusimus in meis tabellis, / ut convenerat esse delicatos. / scribens versiculos uterque nostrum /

22

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

W ritin g b ro u g h t in n o vation even to the them e o f novelty. T o create som ething n e w - th a t is w h a t poets h ad d esired fo r centuries. A nd it was a com m onplace to claim to have achieved it. T h u s alread y H e sio d to ld o f how he and H o m e r sang at D elos, έν ν εα ρ ο ΐς υμ νοις ρ ά ψ α ν τες άοιδή ν (“stitching song in new h y m n s” fr. 357.2 M -W ) and P in d ar, re ­ ferring to his ow n poem , could w rite th a t “th ere are songs in every style, b u t to p u t a new one to th e to u c h sto n e fo r testin g is all d a n g e r” (πολλά γ ά ρ πολλφ λέλεκται, νεα ρ ά δ’ έξευρόντα δόμ εν βασάνω / ές έλεγχον, ά π α ς κ ίνδυνος- Ν. 8.20-1). P erh ap s T im o th e o s asserted his claim w ith the m ost aggressive self-confidence: “I sing no an cien t s to ­ ries, fo r new them es are b etter; new is th e king w h o is reigning, Zeus, b u t C ro n o s ruled in olden tim es; aw ay w ith the o u td a te d M u se ” (ούκ άείδω τα π α λ α ιά , / κ α ινά γ ά ρ ά μ α κ ρ είσ σ ω - / νέος ό Ζεύς βασιλεύει, / το π ά λ α ι δ’ ήν Κ ρόνος α ρ χ ώ ν - / ά π ίτω Μ οΰσα π α λ α ιά , PM G 796, cf. also T im o th eo s PMG 791.202 f. and A non. PMG 851b). T h e H ellenistic poets likew ise p u rsu ed the new , b u t in k eeping w ith th eir altered circum stances th ey perceived novelty in b o o k ish term s. T hus, in the opening elegy o f M eleag er’s Garland {AP IV 1.55 = 1.55 G-P) recent poem s are έρνεα πολλά νεό γρ α φ α (“a rich harvest, new ly w ritten ”), and later, in the c o rre sp o n d in g poem o f th e Garland o f Philip, the p o e t is described as “reaping a sh eaf o f recen t co lu m n s” (καί σελίδος νεαρής θερίσας σ τάχυν, A P IV 2.3 = Garl. Phil. 1.3, cf. H e sio d ’s νεα ρ ο ΐς υμνοις m entioned above), a lovely play on the equivalence o f p o e try and papyrus plant. Likewise w ith m etrical innovatio n , Boiskos o f K yzikos identifies him self as a “w rite r” in in tro d u cin g the iam bic te tra m e te r distich w ith second verse catalectic: Βοίσκος ά π ό Κ υζικοΰ, κ α ινο ύ γρ α φ εύ ς π ο ιή μ α ­ τος, / το ν όκτά πουν εύρώ ν σ τίχο ν, Φ οίβω τίθη σ ι δώ ρ ο ν (“B oiskos o f K yzikos, w rite r o f this new poem , in v en to r o f th e e ig h t-fo o te d line, gives it as a gift to P h o e b u s”, SH 233). A nd in the p ro o im io n to his Hymn to Demeter, P hilikos o f C o rcy ra o ffers his novel stichic ch o riam bic hexam eters as “w ritte n ” (κ α ινο γρ ά φ ο υ συνθέσεω ς) specifically fo r “re a d ers”, “m en o f letters”, γρ α μ μ α τικ ο ί (κ α ινο γρ ά φ ο υ σ υνθέσεω ς τής Φ ιλικού, γρ α μ μ α τικ οί, δώ ρα φέρω πρ ο ς ύμάς, SH 677). W ilam ow itz disparaged these novelties as “n ich tig ”, seeing in them m erely “die Sucht, seinen N am en d u rch die E rfin d u n g eines angeblich neuen V erses zu verew igen ... ; oh es schon so h o h e Sum m en von C h o riam b en o d e r Iam ben gegeben h atte, wie sie zu einem V erse verei-

ludebat numero modo hoc modo illoc, / reddens mutua per iocum atque vinum. But although these verses portray two poets having a drink while writing, this can hardly be called a symposium where one is urged to get drunk, μεθύειν, and write.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

23

nigten, w a r w irklich einerlei” .25 T h o u g h W ilam o w itz accurately describes h ow this m etrical in n o v atio n consists sim ply o f ad ding feet to existing m eters, his c o n d em n a tio n obscures w h a t m ig h t be o f som e interest, nam ely the cause: fo r such verses ch aracterize an Age w hen, to an ever g re a te r extent, the prim ary experience o f lite ra tu re was th ro u g h books, and poets, because they h ad few er and few er o p p o rtu n ities to h e a r lyric m eter, w ere no lo n g er p erfectly at ease w ith its com plexities. T h e y th e re fo re e ith e r avoided such form s e n tire ly -w itn e s s the strange elegiac epinicians o f C allim achus (5 7 / 2 54-269 and fr. 384 P f .) - , o r sim plified them , as in T h e o c ritu s ’ n o n -sta n za ic im itatio n o f Sapphic and A lcaic G re a te r A sclepiadian.26 T h e appeal o f the ad d ed feet was clearly less to the ear th a n to the eye. A nd th a t is n o t cause to d isp a­ rage. F o r tak en on its ow n term s, th a t is w ithin th e confines o f the page (the new lo cation of p o etic discourse), the obvious prid e o f Philikos an d B oiskos in th e ir inventions is n e ith e r cynical n o r petty. Indeed, the p h e n o m e n o n itself is o f considerable cultu ral significance. T h e exam ples o f P hilikos and B oiskos sh o u ld m ake it very clear th a t even in th a t m ost tra d itio n a l form , the hym n, the w ritten w o rd brings change. T h is is n ow here m ore evident th an in the rem ark ab le Hymn to Pan by K a sto rio n o f Soloi (5 /7 310):27

σε τον βολαΐς νιφοκτύποις δυσχείμερον ναίονθ’ έδραν, θηρονόμε Πάν, χθόν’ Αρκάδων κλήσω γραφή τήδ’ εν σοφμ πάγκλειτ’ επη συνθείς, άναξ, δύσγνωστα μή σοφω κλύειν, μωσοπόλε θήρ, κηρόχυτον ος μείλιγμ’ ίεΐς. You who inhabit a wintry, snow gust-beaten place, herdsman Pan, the Arcadians’ land, I will celebrate in this learned text, having composed a poem of all-renown, lord, hard for one not learned to understand, O serving-beast of the Muses, who utters a melody moulded of wax. “D a ß au ch schon leere Spielereien vo rk am en ,” said W ilam ow itz in w ritin g o f H ellen istic m eter, “d a fü r sind Iam ben eines K asto rio n ein u n e rfre u lic h e r B eleg”28 and his verdict set the to n e fo r th e u n d e rstan d 25 Griechische Verskunst (Berlin 1921) 127. Cf. also Ph.E.Legrand (op. cit. n.5 above) 434-435. 26 Cf. Gow’s preface to Theocr.28: “In lyrics intended to be sung to a tune which repeats itself stanza-form is necessary, but if, as seems likely, T. meant his lyrics... not for singing but for reading, it is conceivable that he should have deliberately discarded stanza-form as no longer relevant or necessary.” 27 The following reproduces, in a substantially abbreviated form, my analysis of this hymn in AJPh 106.4 (1985) 502-509. 28 Griechische Verskunst (Berlin 1921) 126.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

ably few critics th a t have m en tio n ed K a sto rio n since.29 M erely a fra g ­ m ent, the beginning o f his Hymn to Pan is k n o w n to us th ro u g h A th e ­ naeus (X 4 5 4 f.) citing K learchos Π ερί Γ ρίφ ω ν (fr. 88 W eh rli). B ut th o u g h γρ ιφ ο ειδή ς indeed, a closer lo o k at the hym n reveals th a t it is anything b u t “leer”. Self-avow edly “literate” - a γρ α φ ή σοφή (v. 3) in te n d e d fo r σ ο φ ο ί (v. 4 ) - t h e poem challenges the re a d e r to u n d e rsta n d its a rt fully: δύσ γνω σ τα μή σοφω κλύειν. Y et u n d e rsta n d in g seem s easy. T h e la n ­ guage o f the hym n, w hile consisten tly elevated,30 and having tw o h ap ax legom ena in five lines (νιφ οκ τύποις and π ά γ κ λ ειτ’), is never an im p ed i­ m ent to com prehension. T h e m eter is iam bic trim ete r in th e severe style o f L ycophron and H ellenistic trag ed y :31 R eso lu tio n occurs o n ly in p o ly ­ syllabic w ords w ith several shorts, on any longum except in th e last m etron. P o rso n ’s bridge is u n ifo rm ly observed. C aesu ra falls o n th e penthem im eres o r hepthem im eres th ro u g h o u t-e x c e p t in the first line, w hich, because νιφ οκτύποις and δ υ σ χείμ ερ ο ν coincide w ith th e ir respective m etra, has no reg u lar caesu ra.32 T h is verse, in eleg an tly chopped into th ree equal parts, is the clue to th a t p a rt o f th e p u zzle w hich was solved already in an tiq u ity (cf. A th en aeu s X 4 5 4 f.): nam ely th a t each m etro n is m etrically equivalent and in terch an g eab le w ith any o ther, fo r each begins w ith a c o n so n a n t and ends w ith a c o n so n a n t o r long vowel. T h u s verse one, accord in g to A thenaeus, could ju st as well be read: νιφ ο κ τύπ ο ις σε το ν βολαΐς δυ σ χείμ ερον. It w as fu rth e r re c o g ­ nized th a t each m etro n has exactly eleven letters, a fe a tu re th a t co u ld only be experienced visually th ro u g h re a d in g .33 29 See Wilamowitz again in H D II (Berlin 1924) 149 n.2 (cited in n.34 below), W. Kroll, “Kastorion” RE Suppi. IV 1880: “Das Fragment ist eine törichte Spielerei”; O.Kern, Die Religion der Griechen III (Berlin 1963) 131 n.2; L.Lehnus, L ’Inno a Pan di Pindaro (Milano 1979) 99-100. 30 δυσχείμερον already in Homer (//.2.750 of Dodona); έδραν cf. Pind. P. 11.63 etc.; for the poetic periphrasis χθόν’Άρκάδων cf. LS] s.v. χθων II; κλήσω cf. Hes. WD 1 άοιδ•ήσιν κλείουσαι as opposed to κλήσω γραφή here; μωσοπόλε cf. Sappho 150.1 L-P; μείλιγμΝεε Theocr. 22.221. 31 Cf. P. Maas, Greek Metre (Oxford 1962) # 1 0 2 and M .L.W est Greek Metre, (Oxford 1982) 159-160. 32 Recognized already by Porson in his preface to the Hecuba (Leipzig 1824) p.X X IX when he compared Kastorion’s observance of penthemimeral and hepthemimeral caesura to that in Tragedy: “Verum, si versus istos recte metieris, Tragicorum regulae unum modo adversantem reperies. Secundus enim, quartus et quintus pertinent ad caesuram Ba, tertius ad Ad, Sed primi similem Tragico scribere nunquam, ut opinor, permissum erat." 33 This led Wilamowitz, Kleine Schriften VI (Berlin 1971) 504 n.3, to suggest that the poem was written in monometers, στοιχηδόν, i.e.: ΣΕΤΟΝ ΒΟΛΑΙΣ ΝΙΦΟΚΤΥΠΟΙΣ ΔΥΣΧΕΙΜ ΕΡΟΝ

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

25

W e are dealing, then, w ith a hym n w hose m etra can be freely re sh u f­ fled. A nd I sh o u ld stress th a t this process is conceivable only in w riting inasm uch as th e audience, in o rd e r to w o rk o u t all the possibilities, m u st keep tra c k n o t only o f the six possible co m b in atio n s in each line, b u t o f h o w each o f these in tu rn w o uld fit w ith th e six possible co m b i­ n atio n s o f each line th a t precedes and follow s it. Such a w o rk w ould seem to a tta c k th e very fo u n d a tio n s o f th e g e n r e - a n d this, perhaps, explains w hy critics have generally d o u b te d th a t th e poem is in fact a h y m n .34 F o r hym nic convention dictated th a t th e god be invoked eith er w ith th e first w o r d - s o in th e m ajo rity o f c a s e s -o r , less com m only, elsew here in th e first line; th e invocation was usually linked to a verb o f singing; th e divinity was then g lorified w ith a recitatio n o f its attrib u tes o r in a relative clause w hich attem p ted to grasp the essence o f its b ein g .35 T h e in terch an g eab ility o f the m etra is indeed th e key to K a sto rio n ’s poem , b u t n o t in the sense th a t we initially assum e, th a t is n o t as the “tö ric h te S pielerei” (as K roll called it, R E S u p p l.IV 880) th a t substiΝ Α ΙΟ Ν Θ Ε ΔΡΑ Ν Θ Η ΡΟ ΝΟ Μ ΕΠ ΑΝ ΧΘ Ο Ν Α ΡΚ Α ΔΩ Ν ΚΛΗΣΩΓΡΑΦ ΗI ΤΗ ΙΔΕΝΣΟ Φ Η I ΠΑΓΚΛΕΙΤΕΠΗ ΣΥΝΘΕΙΣΑΝΑΞ ΔΥΣΓΝΩΣΤΑΜ Η ΣΟΦΩΙΚΛΥΕ1Ν ΜΩΣΟΠΟΛΕΘΗΡ Κ ΗΡΟΧΥΤΌΝΟΣ ΜΕΙΛΙΓΜΙΕΙΣ but if this were so, neither the eleven letters nor the interchangeability of the metra would be very puzzling as they would be visually obvious. Such a reading is antithetical to the challenge of v. 4. An earlier example of interchangeable verses is the epitaph of Midas (AP VII 153, cf. Plato Phaedr. 264 d) which, however, functions on an exclusively aural level. Imperial times brought a refinement on Kastorion’s eleven letter metra, the ίσόψηφος poem in which the numerical value of all the letters in a verse are equal, cf. D.Page, Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge 1981) 504-6, 508-10. 34 Cf. Wilamowitz, H D II 149 n.2: “Ein Hymnus auf Pan, wenn man so sagen darf” and O.Kern, op. cit. (n.25 above) p. 131 n.2: “die Iamben des Kastorion von Soloi, die man nicht als Hymnos, sondern nur als metrische Spielerei bezeichnen darf”. A similar attitude may be found in a more recent work, L.Lehnus, op. cit. (n.25 above) p. 100, where we read that Kastorion’s poem is “in realità un grip h os...cui l’assetto esterior­ mente innico dell’ esordio non toglie carattere e finalità da virtuosismo metrico.” 35 On hymnic features cf. E .Norden, Agnostos Theos (Leipzig 1913) 143-76; H. Meyer, Hymnische Stilelemente in der frühgriechischen Dichtung (Würzburg 1933) 19 et pas­ sim-, R.Janko, “The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre”, Hermes 109 (1981) 9-24; W. H.Race, “Aspects of Rhetoric and Form in Greek Hymns”, GRBS 23 (1982) 5-8.

26

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

tutes clever chaos fo r tra d itio n a l o rd er; ra th e r by m ak in g us com pose th e hym n a n e w - a n d I re fe r the re a d e r to my analysis in AJPh. 106.4 (1985) 502-509, w here every possible co m b in atio n o f m etra w ith in each verse is p u t to the te s t- K a s to r io n leads us to a re a ffirm a tio n o f hym nic convention and o f his p a rtic u la r co m p o sitio n w hich, as it tu rn s o u t, can be changed very little w ith o u t being dim inished. T h a t w hich is δύσ γνω σ τα μή σ οφ φ κλύειν is, in o th e r w ords, the o rd e r in w hich th e m etra are to be p u t to g e th e r.36 T h e poem thus takes us th ro u g h a tw o -fo ld process, th e first p a rt o f w hich is to discover th a t the hym n consists o f m etrically eq u iv alen t and interchangeable m etra o f eleven letters each. C o n se q u e n tly we a p p ea r to enjoy free rein in reshaping the hym n as w e p le a s e -s u c h was A th e ­ naeus’ in s tin c t-c a s tin g P an an d hym nic co n v en tio n fo r th e m o st p a rt aside, and rejoicing in yet a n o th e r exam ple o f H ellen istic in g e n u i­ t y - a n d o f o u r ow n! B ut the second p a rt o f o u r read in g reveals a deeply conservative, tra d itio n a l-th o u g h n o less in g e n io u s -p e rsp e c tiv e .37 F o r the ostensible embarras de choix tu rn s o u t to be illusory, and we arrive finally at th e inescapable conclusion th a t th e re are o n ly so m any v a ri­ ables in addressing a god, and th a t K a sto rio n ’s achievem ent in this reg ard is consum m ate and w o u ld be th e less so fo r any change. T h e frag m e n t thus em bodies the old ten sio n betw een o rig in ality and tra d itio n in a peculiarly H ellenistic w ay. For, o n th e one h an d , th e w rit­ ten w o rd creates the possibility o f tra n sfo rm in g th e tra d itio n s o f th e lit­ erary past, in this instance by visual m an ip u latio n o f th e w o rd s on the page (the poem is thus a flam boyant, virtually em blem atic exam ple o f the m eth o d w hich m ost H ellenistic poets w ere using to com pose th e ir verse). Yet, the very freed o m th a t w ritin g provides h a s .h e re a n o th e r function, nam ely to affirm th e co n tin u ed validity o f th e tra d itio n .38 A

36 This gives special point to the choice of the word συνθείς (v. 4) since it thus refers to the task of both poet and reader which consists precisely of “putting together” the dis­ crete metra. 37 Certain, of course, only for the five verses that survive-though I doubt that the hymn was very long: riddling poems such as the epitaph of Midas, the ίσόψηφος poems (cf. n. 33 above) or technopaignia are invariably short. It would be surprising to find a device such as interchangeable metra of eleven letters spread over a poem of great length. 38 Our conclusion bears on another aspect in the problem of innovation and tradition. We have been dealing here only with Kastorion’s Hymn to Pan, yet the critics’ scepticism vis-à-vis this hymn typifies the modern stance generally towards the Hellenistic hymn qua hymn: Literary virtuosity is thought to be incompatible with religious intent. Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo is thus “concerned primarily not with politics or religion, but with litera­ ture” (F. Williams, Callimachus, Hymn to Apollo, Oxford 1978, p.3); we are warned that that same poet’s “Götterhymnen sämtlich einem Geiste entspringen, der an die persön­ lichen Götter als Lenker irdischer Geschicke nicht mehr glaubt” (A. Körte and P. Händel, Die Hellenistische Dichtung, Stuttgart 1960, p.21). Philikos’ Hymn to Demeter, mentioned

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

27

n a tu ra lly conservative m edium , w ritin g advanced an artistic renew al th a t, in its in n o v a tio n s -th e ch aracteristic use o f learn ed allusion, a taste fo r th e o bscure and the rem ote, e t c .- , defin ed itself as never b efo re by reference to the re c o rd ed past. W e have alread y seen th a t th e M uses h ad learned to w rite. B ut th a t is n o t all. F o r C allim achus, they are no lo n g er the old epic goddesses w ho knew each th in g because they w ere th ere; rath er, his is a w ell-read M use. T h e sto ry o f A contius and C ydippe m en tio n ed above is said to have com e to his M use th ro u g h the w ritings o f X en o m ed es (ενθ εν-s c il. above, exhibits “an obvious lack of genuine religious feeling, but since the piece is a con­ fessed literary exercise, this is hardly surprising, even if it accords ill with Philicus’ posi­ tion as a priest of Dionysus at the time of the great procession of the reign of Philadel­ phus” (P.M . Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford 1972, p. 651-2, cf. Callixenus in Athe­ naeus 198 b. For Philikos’ role in the procession, cf. E.E.Rice, The Grand Procession o f Ptolemy Philadelphus, Oxford 1983, p.52-58). More recently, Anthony W. Bulloch has examined Callimachus’ religious attitude in the Hymns (“The Future of a Hellenistic Illusion. Some observations on Callimachus and religion”, M H 41, 1984, p.209-230), finding that the poet, while not “rejecting religion out of hand” (p. 229), nonetheless presents a “distrustful view” {ibid.) in which “the orderliness assumed by traditional religion is illusory...the religious illusion has broken and does not seem to have much of a future” {ibid.). Living in “confusing” times (p.214), Callimachus, according to Bulloch, was a “realist” (p.229) whose “‘education to reality’ involves facing the contradictions which orthodox religion often tries to ignore” (p.230). Religion, for him, “is found not to connect with the adult world in which we, his audience, try to live our lives” (p.229). Indeed, the ancient poet may be “in the process of forming his own ‘personal neurosis’” (p.230 n.32). It seems as if Bulloch has projected, in undisguisedly modern psycho-analytic terms, a problem typical of the twentieth century onto a poet of the third century B.C. (cf. p.215 n. 13). There is little room, on this view, for levity either in Callimachus or in Greek reli­ gion more generally. Thus humorous, fanciful moments, such as when baby Zeus’ umbili­ cal cord falls off and becomes the aition for the name of the Omphalian plain, or when an entire landscape takes to its heels before Leto as she tries to find a birthplace for Apollo, appear as products of a “very disturbed, even fractured... state of mind”, a “febrile wit”, “a very bizarre, and one might say frenzied, imagination” (p.219). But are these images of the divine significantly more irreverent or burlesque than those that we can find in the Iliad, the Odyssey or the Homeric Hymn to Hermes (cf. N. Hopkinson’s sensible remarks concerning this problem in “Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus”, CQ 34, 1984, p.147-148)? Further, without wishing to seem reactionary and assert that the hymns were composed for performance at specific religious festivals-this has been the tendency of French scholarship on Callimachus’ Hymns, e.g. Cahen, Callimaque et son CEuvre Poétique, Paris 1929, p.281: “C’est aux lieux mèmes ou la féte est célebrée qu’aurait été déclamé chacun des hymnes” before “un public de dévots”; see also P. Bruneau, Recherches sur Les Cultes de Délos à L ’Époque Hellénistique, Paris 1970, p. 16 with regard to the Hymn to Delos: II a surement été écrit pour une cérémonie délienne”; or C.Meillier, Callimaque et son Temps, Lille 1979, p.94 on the Hymn to Apollo: “l’oeuvre litteraire intégrée dans le culte” - , one might ask of what a sophisticated scholar-poet’s “religion” might consist. Was continued use of traditional genres merely cynical? Could there be for the poet a more personal sign of devotion than the product of his involvement in the intense literary experiments and innovations of the age?

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

from X e n o m ed e s’ tablets - ό πα[ι]δός / μύθος ές ή μ ετέρ η ν εδρ α μ ε Κ αλλιόπην fr. 7 5.76-7). Sim ilarly, in the th ird m im e o f H e ro d a s, w ho flo u r­ ished a b o u t the sam e time, we h e ar th a t a stu d en t, if p ro p e rly flogged, m ay read b e tte r th an Klio, th e M use, h erself (3.92). If such statem en ts are m etaphorical, th e re is nevertheless a fresh co n cep tio n b eh in d th e m - a conception dictated by th e new prim acy o f th e b o o k . T h e “re a d in g ” M use apparently becam e so com m on th a t it caused an cien t scholars to m isin terp ret earlier literatu re. F o r exam ple, P in d a r’s 10th O lym pian O d e was com posed ca. 474 B .C ., th a t is nearly a cen tu ry and a h alf b efo re the developm ents o f w hich w e are speaking. It begins w ith a com m and to read o u t th e v icto r’s nam e (τον Ό λ υ μ π ιο ν ίκ α ν ά ν ά γν ω τε μοι / Ά ρ χ ε σ τ ρ ά το υ π α ιδα , πόθι φ ρενός / εμάς γ έ γ ρ α π τα ι ν. 1-3). T h e re a fte r, P in d a r turns to th e M use, w ho is clearly a new ad d ressee (ώ Μ οϊσ ’, άλλα σύ ... ν. 3). T h e scholia (1 a), how ever, w hich are largely H ellenistic, d ebate w h e th er th e co m m and th a t th e nam e be read is addressed to the M use. T h u s, a lth o u g h th e syntax precludes th e p o ssi­ bility, th e convention is now so stro n g th a t H ellen istic scholars p ro je c t it o n to th e previous age.39

39 In this context it is important to mention Pindar O/. 6.154, which seems to contain an image that would associate the Muses with writing. The poet addresses the chorodidaskalos, Aineas, as άγγελος ορθός ήυκόμων σκυτάλα Μοισάν. Ancient commentators on the passage largely took σκυτάλη to be the Spartan message stick (Schol. Pind. O/. 6.154 b, d, e, f, h) which was used for secret dispatches: the sender and recipient each had a staff of equal diameter and length, along which the former would wind a strip of leather. He would then write his message on the strip while it was on the staff. When the leather was subsequently unwound, the order of the letters would no longer be apparent, so that a messenger could bring the strip without fear that the message would be deci­ phered. Once the strip was delivered, its recipient would in turn wind it around his stick, thus bringing the letters back into order (cf. J. Oehler, “Skytale,” RE III A 691-2 and Ch. Daremberg, Edm. Saglio, Dictionaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romanies IV 2 [Paris 1911] s.v. Scytale). Such an interpretation of Pindar’s σκυτάλα Μοισάν (as is to be found in virtually all modern scholars, e.g. Slater s.v., or Farnell ad loc.) implies a conception of message-writing Muses. But is it really necessary to interpret the phrase in this way? The only earlier known instance of σκυτάλη occurs in a famous fragment of Archilochus (fr. 185W = 188 Tar­ diti): έρέω τιν’ υμιν αίνον, ώ Κ,ηρυκίδη, / άχνυμένη σκυτάλη,...This άχνυμένη σκυτάλη was a source of debate already in antiquity. Apollonius of Rhodes discussed the tradition of the message stick in a book on Archilochus (Athen. X 45Id) and Aristophanes of Byzantium devoted a whole work to the fragment entitled Περί τής άχνυμένης σκυτάλης (Athen. Ill 85 e). But Denys Page is surely correct in finding that “we have no idea what is meant by άχνυμένη σκυτάλη, and no reason to suppose that it has any connection with the practice of wrapping an inscribed role of leather round a staff” (“Archilochus and the Oral Tradition” in Archiloque, Entretiens Hardt X, Geneva 1964, p. 163). In fact, the ear­ liest instance in which σκυτάλη means message stick is Thuc. 1.131 (cf. thereafter Xen. Hell. Ill 3.8-9, V 2.34). It seems to me more likely, therefore, that in both Archilochus and Pindar the word appears in its basic sense, “staff” or “stick” (cf. Chantraine s.v.),

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

29

T h e o th e r side o f the “re a d in g ” and “w ritin g ” M use, i. e. the “sing­ in g ” o r ta lk in g ” b ook, had alread y m ade its appearance early on. In E u rip id e s’ Erechtheus, fo r exam ple, the chorus, longing fo r peace and song, expressed the w ish: δελτώ ν τ’ ά ν α π τύ σ σ ο ιμ ι γά ρ υ ν / α ι σ ο φ ο ί κλέο ν τα ι (fr. 6 0 .6 -7 in C. A ustin, Nova Fragmenta Euripidea in Papyris Reperta (B erlin 1968) 32, cf. also the co m p lem en tary n o tio n o f the “w ritin g ” voice at E ur. Ale. 966 f.: ούδέ τι φ ά ρ μ α κ ο ν / Θ ρή σ σ αις έν σ α νίσ ιν, τά ς / Ό ρ φ ε ία κ α τέγρ α ψ εν / γηρυς.). A nd T h eseu s, u p o n re a d ­ ing the tablets left by P h a e d ra in the Hippolytus, exclaim ed: ß o äi ß o äi δέλτος ά λ α σ τ α - ... ο ίο ν ο ίο ν ειδον* γ ρ α φ α ΐς μέλος / φ θεγγό μ ενο ν τλ ά μ ω ν (ν. 877-881, cf. also ν. 864-865: φ έρ’ έξελίξας περιβολάς σ φ ρ α ­ γισ μ ά τω ν / ϊδ ω τί λέξαι δέλτος ηδε μοι θέλει.). T o this largely u n d ev el­ oped idea the H ellenistic poets, tru e to th e ir b o o k ish bent, b ro u g h t a ch eerfu l w illingness to experim ent and elab o rate. O n e resu lt is an en tirely new kind o f poem : th e (presum ably) fictitious b o o k inscrip­ tio n .40 C h aracteristically, these inscriptions are n o t w ritten by the au th o rs o f the w o rk s w hich they p u rp o rt to represen t. All the same, th ey u n d e r­ tak e to provide th o se w orks w ith a seal (σ φ ραγίς), identifying its a u th o r, giving som e sm all indicatio n o f its co n ten t and com m enting on its q u ality .41 T h e b o o k th a t speaks in A sclepiades’ epigram (32 G-P = here as the attribute of the herald (cf. Hermes’ ράβδος in Od. 5.47 and Η. H. Hermes 529 f. In the 5th cent, we also find the word κηρύκειον). In both poets it is used meta­ phorically for herald, appositively playing upon or elaborating the previous words: in Archilochus, the speaking name Κηρυκίδης; in Pindar, the άγγελος ορθός. It would appear then that, as in the case of O/. 10.1 f., the idea of the writing Muse is anachronistic. And as one might expect, Hellenistic poets and scholars frequently mistook their literary past in this way. Thus, in an epigram celebrating Ptolemy IV Philopator’s establishment of a temple for Homer (probably between 217-205 B.C.), the poet is described as τώι πριν ’Οδύσσειας τε κ[αί Ίλι]άδος τον άγήρω / ύμνον άπ’ αθανάτων γραψ[α]μένωι πραπίδων (SH 979.4-5). An accidental acrostic, ΛΕΥΚΗ, in the initial let­ ters of Iliad 24.1-5 was taken as deliberate by the grammarians and, as J. M. Jacques con­ vincingly argues {Rev. d. Ét. Anc., 62, 1960, 48-61, cf. esp. 49-51), was echoed by Aratus in the acrostic ΛΕΠΤΗ in the Phaenomena (v.783-7, for a similar acrostic from roughly the same time cf. Philostephanus of Cyrene in Page, FGE p.21). Such misunderstandings come from the same mentality that produced “die kindische Einteilung” of Homer into the 24 letters of the alphabet (thus K. Lachmann, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1846, p. 30 = Betrachtungen über Homer’s Ilias, 31874, p.93). 40 See, for example, Asclepiades 28 G-P on Erinna’s Distaff·, Leonidas of Tarentum 101 G-P on Aratus’ Phaenomena·, Anon. A P 9.190 = Page FGE p.345 on Erinna’s D i­ staff the epigram of Crinagoras (AP 9.545 = Garl. Phil. 11) may actually have been writ­ ten in a copy of Callimachus’ Hecale as it is addressed to a specific reader. On these poems generally cf. M. Gabathuler, Hellenistische Epigramme auf Dichter (St. Gallen 1937) 50 . 41 It is interesting to note that, as far as we can see, none of these works had a σφραγίς internal to itself.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

Λ P 9.63) is A ntim achus’ Lyde : “I am Lyde by race and by nam e, m o re revered th a n any o f K o d ro s’ line because o f A ntim achus. F o r w h o has n o t sung me, w ho is there w ho has n o t read Lyde, th e jo in t w ritin g o f th e M uses and A ntim achus?” (Λυδή κα ι γένο ς είμ ι κα ι οϋνομα, τώ ν δ ’ ά πό Κ άδρου / σεμνότερη πα σ ώ ν είμ ι δ ι’ Α ν τ ίμ α χ ο ν / τις γά ρ έμ ’ ούκ ήεισε; τις ούκ άνελέξα το Λυδήν, / τό ξυνάν Μ ουσώ ν γρ ά μ μ α κα ι ’Α ντι­ μάχου;). C leverly exploiting the h o m o n y m y o f title and h ero in e, th e epigram first poses as Lyde herself. By th e th ird line, how ever, Lyde has m erged w ith h er eponym ous b ook. A m ore stra ig h tfo rw a rd , th o u g h no less clever, exam ple o f a b o o k tak in g voice is C allim ach u s’ epigram V I Pf. = 55 G-P in w hich th e poem poses as th e Oichalias Halosis and, ironically, com m ents on its ow n d isp u ted a u th o rsh ip (v. 3 -4 ... Ό μ ή ρειον δε καλεϋμ αι / γρ ά μ μ α . Κ ρεω φύλω , Ζεϋ φίλε, το ϋ το μ έγα .).42 Such epigram s rep resen t an in terestin g d e p a rtu re fro m an old tra d i­ tion. G reeks had long w ritten poem s fo r w hich th ey claim ed th e a u th o rsh ip o f o thers (e. g. H o m e r, T h eo g n is, etc.), b u t u nlike these, th e b o o k inscriptions, w hile in them selves n o t p ro claim in g th e id e n tity o f th e ir ow n au th o rs, m ust nevertheless have circulated freely w ith little d o u b t as to th e ir auth o rsh ip . F o r alth o u g h , on one level, th ey p ro v id e th eir books w ith a useful σ φ ρα γίς, th ey also re p re se n t a seal o f approval (o r disapproval) from th e ir creato rs w hich m ig h t a m o u n t to a p ro g ra m ­ m atic stance. An identifiable p o in t o f view was th u s essential. W e appreciate the full force o f C allim ach u s’ atta ck o n A ntim achus in fr. 398 (Λυδή κα ί πα χύ γρ ά μ μ α κα ί ού τορόν) only by reco g n izin g th a t it sim ultaneously attacks A sclepiades’ a ttitu d e in Λυδή κ α ί γένο ς είμι καί οΰνομ α .43 T h e fact that, startin g in th e 3rd cent., a discussion like this (o r th a t a b o u t th e Oichalias Halosis) could tran sp ire w ith in th e m edium o f b o o k inscriptions is a m easure o f h o w closely a w o rk was now id e n ­ tified w ith its w ritten form . E pigram s o n a p o e t m ig h t o ccu r fro m P la to onw ards, b u t epigram s concerning, and - a lle g e d ly -in sc rib e d w ithin, a b o o k w ere new. A fu rth er, th o u g h m uch later, exam ple o f a talk in g b o o k is in S trato n A P X II 208 (ca. 150 A .D .): Εύτυχές, ού φθονέω, βιβλίδιον ή ρά σ’ άναγνούς παϊς τις άναθλίβει προς τα γένεια τιθείς ή τρυφεροΐς σφίγξει περί χείλεσιν ή κατά μηρών είλήσει δροσερών, ώ μακαριστότατον πολλάκι φοιτήσεις ύποκόλπιον ή παρά δίφρους βληθέν τολμήσεις κείνα θιγείν άφόβως. 42 Cf. W. Burkert’s persuasive and balanced judgement on this poem, “Die Leistung eines Kreophylos”, Μ Η 29 (1972) 76f. 43 Cf. Pfeiffer ad fr.398: Asclepiadis ipsa verba ad ridiculum convertit.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

31

πολλά δ’ έν ήρεμίτι προλαλήσεις· άλλ’ υπέρ ήμών, χαρτάριον, δέομαι, πυκνότερου τι λάλει. Happy little book, I don’t begrudge you; some boy reading you will rub you, holding you under his chin, or press you against his delicate lips, or wind you down over his dewy thighs, O most blessed of books! Often you will wander into his lap or, tossed down on the chair, you will dare to touch those things without fear. And all alone you will chat of many things to him. But little book, I beg, say something now and then on my behalf. T his epigram , w hich adds startlin g em o tio n al reso n an ce to the w o rd “b ib lio p h ile”, is a b o o k ish v a ria tio n on the old them e o f the lover w ho im agines w h a t it w o uld be like to be som eth in g w ith w hich the object(s) o f his desire com es in to close physical contact. T h is is m ost o ften expressed in the fo rm o f a w ish (as, fo r exam ple in th e skolion PMG 900: είθε λύρα καλή γενο ίμ η ν έλεφ α ντίνη / κα ί με κ α λ ο ί π α ΐδες φ έροιεν Δ ιο νύ σ ιο ν ές χ ο ρ ό ν , “w ou ld th a t I w ere a b eau tifu l ivory lyre and the b eau tifu l boys m ight carry me in to the chorus o f D io n y su s”), o r a m ak arism os (as in o u r poem , cf. M eleag er A P X II 52.3-4 = 81 G-P, w h ere the beloved is at sea: τρ ις μάκαρες νάες, τρ ις δ ’ όλβια κύματα πόντου, / τετρ ά κ ι δ’ εύδαίμ ω ν π α ιδο φ ο ρ ώ ν άνεμος, “thrice blessed ships, th rice h appy waves o f th e sea, fo u r tim es lucky w ind th a t carries m y b o y ”). T h e p o e t’s art, in such poem s, consists o f varying the object im ag in ed 44 - and the details o f the physical c o n tact.45 S trato n can to p past p ractitio n ers in this to p o s sim ply by using an o b je c t- th e te x t-w h ic h , unlike th o se used before, could com m unicate and, because it was now so u tte rly fam iliar (note th e to n e in the d im in u ­ tives βιβλίδιον V. 1 and χ α ρ τ ά ρ ιο ν v. 8), could be readily personified. T h e b o o k as “frie n d ” - n o o th e r object could com pete w ith th a t!46 T h o u g h sh ro u d e d in controversy, an in trig u in g “p a ig n io n ” by P h ile­ tas o f C os (10, p .9 2 Pow ell) m ay be an instance o f a talk in g b o o k :47

44 For example, PMG 901 (a gold ornament); AP V 83 (the wind); AP V 84 (a rose); Theocr. 3.12-14 (a bee); Rhianos 10 G -P = AP XII 142 (a bird); Longus 1.14 (syrinx and goat); Meleager 36 G -P = AP V 174 (sleep), 35 G -P = AP V 171 (a cup), 81 G -P = AP XII 52 (a dolphin); and finally the extreme case of Anacreontea 22 West (a mirror, a gown, water, myrrh, a fillet, a pearl, a sandal). Cf. O. Hiltbrunner, Gymn. 77 (1970) 286-287. 45 For this topos and examples in Latin cf. F. Boemer ad Ovid Met. 8.36-7. 46 It is surprising only that this particular variation on the old theme does not appear earlier. Did Straton find it in a source now lost to us? 47 Cf. also my expanded discussion in Rh.M. 129 (1986) 222-226.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

Ου μέ τις έξ όρέων άποφώλιος άγροιώτης αίρήσει κλήθρην, αιρόμενος μακέλην άλλ’ έπέων εΐδώς κόσμον καί πολλά μογήσας μύθων παντοίων οιμον έπιστάμενος. T h e speaker identifies herself as a κλήθρη, an ald er tree, asserting th a t no ben ig h ted (ά ποφ ώ λιος),48 m a tto c k -to tin g 49 m o u n ta in ru stic will take her, b u t ra th e r the typical H ellen istic p o e t w h o , th ro u g h his ow n h a rd w o rk (πολλά μ ογήσ ας v. 3), is skilled in song. A ld e r-w o o d is fit fo r a variety o f fu rn itu re o r w o o d w o rk . B ut w h a t does a p o e t w a n t w ith the tree; o r the tree w ith a poet? As S tobaeus (II 4,5) locates the poem am ong the π α ίγνια , we can expect som e s o rt o f “p lay ” to be involved. T h e m ost appealing solution, to my m ind, is th a t th e sp eak er is no tree at all, b u t a w riting ta b le t m ade o f a ld e r-w o o d .50 α ίρ ή σ ει κλήθρην, then, is deliberately vague. F o r in read in g th e first tw o lines, κλήθρη is unproblem atic: there is no need to take it as a n y th in g b u t a tree, and th e fact th a t έξ όρέω ν can go w ith α ίρ ή σ ει ra th e r th a n ά γρ ο ιώ τη ς re in ­ forces th a t view. B ut the second co u p let is tr o u b lin g - a s W ilam o w itz saw in a literal-m inded way: “W er d a gem eint hat, es red e ein Baum , ... d er h a t ... d a ra n ... n ich t (gedacht), d aß P h ilitas k einen Baum fällte, 48 άποφώλιος (and by extension the entire paignion) may recall Od. 8.167-177. There, the word appears without a negative for the only time in early epic and, as in Philetas, a contrast is drawn between physical ability and skill with words: ούτως ού πάντεσσι θεοί χαρίεντα διδοϋσιν άνδράσιν, ούτε φυήν ουτ’ άρ φρένας ούτ’ άγορητύν. άλλος μεν γάρ είδος άκιδνότερος πέλει άνήρ, άλλα θεός μορφήν έπεσι στέφει, οί δε τ’ ές αύτόν τερπόμενοι λεύσσουσιν ό δ’ άσφαλεως αγορεύει αίδοι μειλιχίη, μετά δε πρέπει άγρομένοισιν, ερχόμενον δ’ άνά άστυ θεόν ως είσορόωσιν. άλλος δ’ αύ είδος μεν άλίγκιος άθανάτοισιν, άλλ’ ου οΐ χάρις άμφιπεριστέφεται έπέεσσινώς καί σοί είδος μεν άριπρεπές, ουδέ κεν άλλως ούδέ θεός τεύξειε, νόον δ’ άποφώλιος έσσι.

170

175

cf. also LfgrE s.v. άποφώλιος. 49 αιρόμενος μακέλην must be taken as a generalizing epithet (parallel to and contra­ sting with πολλά μογήσας for the poet), as was seen by G. Kuchenmüller, Philetae Coi Reliquiae (Berlin 1928) p .61 and 63. Because he tried to imagine the rustic chopping down the tree with a mattock, Wilamowitz thought that the text needed emendation (cf. H D I p. 116). 50 Thus first F.Jacobs, Animadversiones in epigrammata Anthologiae Graecae I, 1 (Leip­ zig 1798) 388, followed by Wachsmuth in his apparatus criticus to the passage in Stobae­ us and by Kuchenmüller, op.cit. p.61. An alternative solution is that the speaker is a poet’s staff made from alder-wood. This was the suggestion of E.Maass, De tribus Phile­ tae carminibus, Ind. Lect. Marp., 1895, p.96. Cf., however, Bing Rh. Μ. (op.cit. n.47 above) 224-5. For the scholarly literature on this poem cf. I.Cazzaniga, Riv. di Fil. 90 (1962) 238-9.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

33

w enn er n eu e codicilli b ra u c h te ” (H D I p. 116 η. 1). T h e answ er (as K u ­ c h en m ü ller saw, op. cit. p.6 1 ) is to take κλήθρη as m etonym y. E uripides h a d u sed πεύκη m etonym ously fo r w ritin g tablets at I. A. 39 and Hipp, 1253 f., an d P hiletas does so here w ith th e alder. W ilam o w itz objected on a n o th e r g ro u n d as well, how ever. H e flatly d en ied (op. cit. p. 116 n. 1) th a t tablets could be m ade o f alder. W hile K u ch en m ü ller could p o in t to th e variety o f objects fo r w hich th e ald er w as used, an d could ask “w hy n o t fo r tablets?” (op. cit. p.6 2 ), he could n o t p ro d u c e an exam ple. W e, how ever, are n o w in a p o sitio n to do so. F o r a ld er-w o o d tablets (early 2nd cent. A. D .) w ere fo u n d in great q u a n tity d u rin g th e m id 1970s at V in d o la n d a in E n g lan d .51 W ith these o b jections set aside, then, w e can in te rp re t this poem as a special case o f th e “talk in g b o o k ”, th a t is to say th e “talkin g ta b le t”;52 b u t m ore, to th e ex ten t th a t it is a riddle th e poem m arks th e ties th a t now exist betw een w ritin g an d song in a p articu larly d ram atic and involving way. It does n o t m erely state th e fact o f th o se ties; ra th e r it relies fo r its affect on th e ir active reco g n itio n an d acceptance by th e re a d e r w h o w ishes to solve th e pu zzle. T h e p e rso n ifa ca tio n w as n o t lim ited to th e b o o k as a w hole, b u t co u ld ex ten d to its p arts. T h u s, w e fin d th e “singing” papyrus colum ns o f S ap p h o (φ θ εγγό μ ενα ι σελίδες) in o n e o f P o seid ip p u s’ epigram s (17.6 G -P ).52a T h e com plem entary “silenced” papyrus colum n appears so m e­ w h a t la te r in A ceratus (AP V II 138.3-4 = FGE p .3 ): σου δε θανόντος, / Έ κ τ ο ρ , έσιγήθη κα ί σελίς Ίλ ιά δ ο ς.53 P e rh a p s th e m ost e x tra o rd in a ry developm ent occurs at th e end o f th e Garland o f Meleager (ca. 100 B .C .) w h e n - f o r the first tim e ever, so far

51 Cf. A. K. Bowman and J. D.Thomas, Historia 24 (1975) 471-2; A. K. Bowman, 2.PE 18 (1975) 244-8, and R.Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford 1982) 296. 52 A late instance of a talking tablet, likewise riddling, is in AP XIV 60 (cited by Kuchenmüller, op. cit. p.62): 'Ύλη μέν με τέκεν, καινούργησεν δε σίδηρος· είμί δε Μουσάων μυστικόν έκδόχιον κλειόμενη σιγώ· λα λέω δ’, όταν έκπετάσης με, κοινωνόν τον ’Άρη μοϋνον εχουσα λόγων. And even the wax on the tablet takes voice, though again at a late date, in AP XIV 45: Είμί μελας, λευκός, ξανθός ξηρός τε καί ύγρός· ευτε δε δουρατέων πεδίων υπέρ έντανύσης με, ’Ά ρει καί παλάμη φθέγγομαι ού λαλεων. 52a Cf. Callimachus Aetia fr. 92: Λε]ανδρίδες εϊ τι παλαιαί / φθ[έγγ]ονται[ ]υφαν ίστορίαι. 53 Further examples of σελίς are listed by Page in FGE p.342 ad v. 1198.

34

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

as I can s e e - a diacritical sign, th e co ro n is,54 assum es a p e rso n a and speaks fo r itself {AP X II 257 = 129 G-P): 'A πύματον καμπτήρα καταγγέλλουσα κορωνίς,

έρκοϋρος γραπταϊς πιστότατα σελίσιν, φαμί τον έκ πάντων ήθροισμένον εις ένα μόχθον ύμνοθετάν βύβλω τςίδ’ ένελιξάμενον έκτελεσαι Μελεαγρον, άείμνηστον δε Διοκλεϊ άνθεσι συμπλέξαι μουσοπόλον στέφανον, ούλα δ’ εγώ καμφθεΐσα δρακοντείοις ϊσα νώτοις σύνθρονος ιδρυμαι τέρμασιν εύμαθίας. I, who announce the final lap’s finish, the coronis, trustiest keeper of the bounds of written columns, I declare that Meleager has finished, he who enrolled in this book the labor of all poets gathered into one, and that it was for Diodes he wove with flowers a wreath, whose memory is evergreen. But I, curled in coils like the back of a snake, am fixed here enthroned beside the limits of this learned work. M eleager has here devised an extrem ely a rtfu l p o em in w h ich he has suited style to the peculiarity o f the speaker, stru c tu re to them e, an d th e them e its e lf - b y m eans o f w o r d - p la y - to his b o o k as a w hole. In th e first place, the “ingeniously com p licated ” p h rasin g o f v. 3 f. (thus G ow Page ad loc.) in w hich M ele a g er’s w o rk is described, is n o t an “ineptus tu m o r” as G raefe p u t it.55 O n the co n trary ; it co u ld h a rd ly be m o re apt: fo r it reflects the self-avow edly co n v o lu ted n a tu re o f the coronis: ού λα δ’ έγώ κα μ φ θεΐσ α δ ρ α κ ο ντείο ις ισ α νώ το ις ν. 7. As to structure, there is in this epigram a sim ple sym m etry. T h e c o ro ­ nis presents itself in the first and last d is tic h s - th e tw o ends o f the poem m ade vivid by the agonistic im age o f tu rn in g p o st (καμ πτήρ v. 1) and finish line (τέρμα v. 8 ) -w h ile the central verses (3 -6 ) ch aracterize M eleager’s Σ τέφανος. B ut the w o rd κο ρ ω νίς itself gives ad d ed p o in t to the form . F o r a frag m en t o f S tesich o ru s’ Helen teaches us th a t this w o rd can m ean “w re a th ” : PMG 187.3 καί ρ ο δίνο υ ς σ τεφ ά νο υ ς ϊω ν τε κ ορ ω νίδα ς οΰλας. Indeed, M eleag er m ay be allu d in g to this verse w ith κορω νίς v. 1 and ούλα v. 7. In this light, the first an d last distichs d o n o t ju st fram e, they set a w reath a ro u n d M eleag er’s w o rk . A nd, by a playful tw ist w hich ro u n d s o u t the agonistic im age, th e w re ath crow ns th e w reath (σ τέφ α νος v. 6) w hich M eleag er has ju st com pleted. T h a t it actually becam e com m o n to place c o ro n is-p o em s at th e end o f a scroll is suggested by the u n d istin g u ish ed exam ple at th e end o f an 54 On the coronis generally cf. G.M . Stephen, Scriptorium 13 (1959) 3f. 55 Cf. Gow-Page’s introduction to the poem.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

35

Iliad papyrus, P. Lit. L ond. 11, o f th e 1st cent. A. D . T h e text is th a t o f A . W ifstra n d , Hermes 68 (1933) 468: εγώ κορωνίς είμι γραμμάτων φύλαξ. καλαμός μ’ εγραψε, δεξιά χειρ καί γόνυ, αν τινί με χρήστις, ετερον άντιλάμβανεέάν δε μ’ άλείφης, διαβαλω σ’ Εύριπίδη. άπεχε. I am coronis, guardian of letters. The reed wrote me down, the right hand and the knee. If you lend me to anyone, put another in may place; but if you soil me, I will slander you to Euripides. Keep away! F o r o u r p art, we m ay m ark the end o f this sectioin w ith a 1st cent. B . C. epigram by P hilodem us (AP X I 41 = Garl. Phil. 17) w hich, it has been argued, was itself in te n d e d to crow n a collection (cf. A. H . G rif­ fiths, BIGS 17 [1970] 37-38). T h e poem brings us back to the lettered M uses, w h o m the p o et here beseeches to w rite a coronis (i. e. p u t an end) to his a m ato ry sufferings: α ύτήν άλλα τά χ ισ τ α κ ο ρω νίδα γρ ά ψ α τε, Μ οϋσαι, / τα ύ τη ν ήμετέρης, δεσ πότιδες, μανίης. Such m etap h o rical use o f the “w ritin g ” M use bespeaks ju st h ow fam iliar she was to the literary scene (cf. also M a rtial X 1.1). B ut h e r fam iliarity surpassed even th at. As early as th e 2nd cent. B. C., she h ad filtered dow n to inscriptions fo r th e com m on m an. A n ep itap h o f an ephebe fro m C hios says th a t he died w hile b lo s s o m in g -n o t w ith th e M uses’ song, b u t w ith th e colum ns o f th e ir writing (ά ρ τι δ’ έφηβείας θάλλω ν Δ ιο νύ σ ιο ς άκ μ α ϊς / καί σ ελίσ ιν Μ ουσώ ν ήλυθον εις Ά ίδ α ν G V 945 P e e k ).56 H av in g tra c ed the new im portance o f the b o o k , its im pact on the p o e t’s self-im age, the c o n seq u en t em ergence o f th e w ritin g and read in g M use, w e n ow tu rn to som e o f the im plications. H ere, the read in g M u se is o f special im portance. F o r the ability to read will m ean th a t the M u se m ay provide a p o et w ith th a t w hich he m ay readily acquire w ith his ow n tw o e y e s - b y read in g h im s e lf-a n d it is only a sh o rt step b efo re th e M u ses’ in sp iratio n an d th e w ritten reco rd becom e one and the sam e. Is this in fact w h a t h appened? H a d the M uses becom e no m ore th an an em blem fo r the w ritten trad itio n ? O n a pu rely concrete le v e l-le a v in g the M uses aside fo r a m o m e n tw e k n o w th a t p o ets could in d eed n ow find th e ir in sp iratio n in books. A ratus o f Soloi w ro te a did actic poem on a stro n o m y (the Phaenomena) 56 See also now the epitaph of a doctor from Arcadia, 2nd cent. B.C., who says ξυνόν εγώ δόξας έλόμαν εν παισί άεθλον, / Πιερίδων ΐεραΐς τερπόμενος σελίσιν ν. 1-2, cf. G.J. M.J. Te Riele, Chiron 14 (1984) 238-243.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

based on a prose treatise by E u do x u s o f C nidus. T h is is o u r first ex am ­ ple o f a poem based on a b o o k . A ratu s him self, acco rd in g to C icero (De Orat. I 69), had no practical experience o f a stro n o m y w h atso ev er. C a l­ lim achus w ro te an epigram on the Phaenomena in w hich he praises the delicate verses, calling the w o rk “a to k en o f sleeplessness” (σύμβολον ά γρ υπνίη ς Ep. 2 7 .4 Pf. = 56 G-P). T h e referen ce, o f course, is to th e long nights spent by A ratus w atch in g th e stars. T h e atten tiv e read er, how ever, will catch the iro n ic point: the stars th a t A ratu s w atch ed d u rin g his long sleepless nights w ere m ainly th o se in the b o o k o f E udoxus. O ne is tem pted to see a fam ous frag m en t o f C allim achus in this light as well. H e re he states: “I sing n o th in g th a t is u n a tte ste d ” (ά μ ά ρ τυ ρ ο ν ούδέν άείδω fr. 612). T o a H o m e ric singer, this w o u ld certain ly m ean th a t the M uses w ere there, th a t they w itnessed th e event described. B ut w h a t w ou ld it m ean to the H ellen istic p o et? N o th in g u n a tte ste d by w hom ? By the M use? By the w ritten reco rd ? B oth, p erh ap s? W e c a n n o t know since the co n tex t o f the frag m e n t is lost. W e are beset by sim ilar q uestion s in an in v o catio n fro m the Hymn to Artemis (v. 183-186). τίς δε νύ τοι νήσων, ποιον δ’ ορος εΰαδε πλεΐστον, τίς δε λιμήν, ποίη δε πόλις; τίνα δ’ εξοχα νυμφέων φίλαο καί ποιας ήρώίδας εσχες εταίρας; είπε, θεή, σύ μεν αμμιν, εγώ δ’ έτέροισιν άείσω. Which then of islands, what mountain gives most delight, which harbor, what city? Which of the nymphs do you especially love and what heroines did you take as companions? Speak, goddess, you to me, and I will sing it to others. C allim achus’ m odel is evidently P in d a r’s in v o catio n o f th e M use in fr. 150 (S nell-M aehler): μαντεύεο, Μ οΐσα, π ρ ο φ α τεύ σ ω δ ’ εγώ (“S peak the oracle, M use, and I will act as in te rp re te r”). Y et by a b o ld stro k e th e H ellenistic a u th o r drops the M use and tu rn s w ith his q u estio n s to the very topic o f his w ork, the goddess A rtem is. In cro ss-ex am in in g his them e, how ever, is he still ad d ressin g a goddess? Is this A rtem is? o r h er em b o d im en t in the w ritten trad itio n ? C an one still distin g u ish betw een them ? A single passage in earlier epic is com parable, Iliad 16 .6 9 2 f. w here the singer, here the H o m e ric b ard, likew ise invokes his them e: ένθα τίνα πρώτον, τίνα δ’ ύστατον έξενάριξας, Πατρόκλεις, δτε δή σε θεοί θάνατόνδε κάλεσσαν; ’Άδρηστον μεν πρώτα καί Αύτόνοον καί ’Έχεκλον... τούς ελεν οί δ’ άλλοι φύγαδε μνώοντο έκαστος.

692

697

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

37

Which then did you slay first, which last, Patroklos, when the gods summoned you deathwards? Adrastos first, then Autonoos and Echeklos... These he killed, but the others’ thoughts turned to flight. T h e startlin g sim ilarity betw een these passages p ro v o k es us to p o n d e r all the m ore th e gu lf in tim e an d tech n o lo g y th a t lies betw een them . F o r it is im p ro b ab le th a t the m en tality o f tw o poets sep arated by over 400 years sh o u ld have rem ained the sam e. M ay we see, th en , in the question p u t to P a tro k lo s an invocation o f the oral-, in th a t to A rtem is an invo­ cation o f the w ritten trad itio n ? P e rh a p s a closer lo o k at the life o f a p o e t in this “b o o k ish ” Age, as P fe iffe r calls it (Hist., 102f.), will help us to w ard s an answ er. T h e artist m o st clearly epitom izing his tim e is one we have often m en tio n ed already: nam ely C allim achus. Like m ost o f his contem poraries, C alli­ m achus w as n o t raised in A lexandria. It was th e p ro sp ect o f royal p a t­ ro n ag e in a stim ulating cu ltu ral m ilieu th a t drew him aw ay fro m his native C yrene in Libya. N o r was he d isap p o in ted . H av in g w on the fa v o r o f th e king, he soon h a d access first to a circle o f scholars and po ets w h o w ere p articip atin g in an exciting co n tro v ersy on p oetic th e ­ ory; an d th en to th e P tolem aic c o u rt itself w ith its political intrigues, its religious an d g o vernm ental statecraft. H is p o sitio n was th a t o f “cata lo ­ g u e r” in th e library o f A lexandria; his g reatest scholarly achievem ent w as th e system o f lists, o r “P in a k e s”, w hich arra n g ed the books n o t sim ply by a u th o r, b u t generically. C allim achus th u s fits perfectly the d escription in an epigram by P oseid ip p u s (AP X II 98 = 6 G-P ), w here th e p o e t is seen as the tra d itio n a l Μ ουσώ ν τέττιξ (v. 1) b u t his ψ υχή is έν βύβλοις πεπονημένη (v. 3). O n e m ig h t go so far as to say, then, th a t the real w o rld fo r such a sch o la r o r p o e t was largely the w o rld o f bo o k s. A nd we sense this because distin ctio n s th a t h a d previously held tru e w hen the outside w o rld w as p rim ary are here no lo n g er valid. R egional bo u n d aries, fo r instance, can n o w be stressed, n ow ignored . A p erson o r place can exist w h erev er one finds it in a b ook. T h u s, in th e p ro lo g u e to P o seid ip p u s’ epigram s (m en tio n ed above), th e p o e t bids the M uses com e to P ipleian T hebes: εις δε τα Θήβης / τείχ εα Πιπ[λ]είης βαίνετε |·· ·α λ α δ ε ς | (ν .7 -8 ).57 W h e th e r this T h eb es was

57 This is the text of Lloyd-Jones, JHS 83 (1963) 75 f., constituted from new photo­ graphs of the wax tablets in Berlin and with the palaeographical assistance of J.W. B. Barns (cf. his notes on the reading of v. 8, p. 79). It accords basically with that of W. Schubart, Symbolae Philologicae O.A. Danielsson octogenario dicatae (1932) 290 f., D.L. Page, GLP I # 1 1 4 p. 470 f., and E. Heitsch, Abh. d. Ak. d. Wiss. in Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl., dritte Folge 49 (1961, 1) 21, all three of whom thought, as do I, that Πιπ[λ]είης is attrib-

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

in E gypt o r B oeotia,58 Pipleia, th e M uses’ b irth p lace, w as fa r aw ay in T h race. P oseidippus invokes th e goddesses, how ever, as “fello w -citizen M uses”, Μ οΰσ α ι π ολ ιή τιδες (v. 1), because to his m ind T h e b e s is a sec­ o n d Pipleia. T h e system atic g a th erin g o f iso lated local tra d itio n s u n d e r one ro o f, th a t is in a library, effectively free d th o se tra d itio n s fro m th e ir purely regional significance and m ean t th a t Pipleia, fo r instance, existed w h erever it was experienced in the w ritten w o rd .59 It now also becom es clear how C allim achus, in his 13th Iambos, can refu te his c rit­ ics w hen they com plain th a t he w rites iam bic p o e try in th e style o f H ip ­ ponax w ith o u t having gone to E phesus (hom e o f H ip p o n a x ) o r m ingled w ith Io n ian s.60 H ip p o n a x is in A lexandria, fo r C allim achus co n ju res him up as a g h o st fo r his poem (fr. 191). utive with Θήβης. In v. 8, Lloyd-Jones and Parsons (SH 705) are more circumspect, printing only τείχεα Πιπ[ ]...ς βαίνετε... αλαδες. This reading appears to reflect Lloyd-Jones’ con­ viction that Πιπ[λ]είης was more probably “followed by either a noun meaning something like ‘daughters of’, ‘dwellers in’, or (likelier) ‘ones born in’ (sc. Pipleia), or else perhaps an adverb or a group of words containing an adjective or adverb on which Πιπ[λ]εί·ης depen­ ded” (JHS op. cit. p. 86), fo r-a s noted in the app. crit. of the SH ad v. 8 - h e considers Pipleian Thebes, “id est ‘Pipleis Musis acceptae”’, a “mira locutio”. Yet in the twenty years between the article in JHS and the SH, he was unable to find a satisfactory supplement for -αλαδες to support his interpretation. His assessment, moreover, will appear to be based on too narrow an understanding of Pipleian Thebes. 58 For this discussion cf. Lloyd-Jones, JHS 83 (1963) 86. 59 This is not to say that regional distinctions died out. On the contrary, the great majority of Hellenistic poets continued to write works of mainly local interest, often for popular consumption, that celebrated the history and achievements of particular commu­ nities and of their rulers; such was the thesis of K. Ziegler’s book, Das hellenistische Epos: ein vergessenes Kapitel der griechischen Dichtung (Leipzig 1934, rev. 1966), now clearly confirmed through the multitude of regional poems collected in the SH, cf. Lloyd-Tones, SIFC 77 (1984) 58. This popular, local poetry had a separate existence from that produced in the Alexan­ drian Museum or other places in which libraries became the focal point of literary pro­ duction. B. Gentili, “Poeta e musico in Grecia” in Oralità Scrittura Spettaculo, op. cit. (n. 14 above) p.73, has eloquently described the dichotomy: “Accanto a questa cultura più propriamente letteraria ed erudita, che fiori nell’ambito ristretto delle corti e dei cenacoli, patrimonio esclusivo di un’élite di intellettuali, ebbe vita autonoma un’altra forma di cul­ tura, che con termine moderno potremmo definire ‘popolare’ o ‘di massa’, nel senso che era destinata a larghe fasce di fruitori e trasmessa oralmente in pubbliche audizioni, da parte di recitatori, cantori e attori itineranti ( rhapsoidoi, kitharoidoi, auloidoi, tragoidoi, komoidoi etc.), che esercitavano la loro professione ottenendo compensi e onori negli agoni e nelle feste istituite dalle diverse città del mondo ellenizzato. Dunque, una cultura itinerante, che aveva la funzione d’intrattenere larghi uditorii, diffondendo il sapere rela­ tivo ai miti panellenici o ai miti locali, da cui prendeva le mosse la storia delle singole città.” 60 The primary meaning of this complaint is that Callimachus does not follow his model, Hipponax, closely enough (cf. D .L .d aym an , Callimachus’ Iambi, Leiden 1980, p.45). But the notion that poets made “pilgrimages” to places especially connected with those they wished to emulate, is not just a metaphor. Aspiring tragedians visited the tomb

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

39

A radical m an ifestatio n o f this tre n d to liberate p oetic them es from th e ir native soil is the H ellen istic vogue fo r fictitious epitaphs and votive in scriptions to co m m em o rate every kind o f p erso n and object fro m all co rn ers o f the G reek w orld. A d ram atic instance appears in a p a ir o f “sep u lch ral” epigram s by D ioscorid es (active in Egypt, late 3rd cent. B .C .). In the first, a statue o f a saty r stan d in g ato p the tom b o f S ophocles an d h o ld in g a trag ic m ask relates to a passerby the evolution o f T ra g e d y o u t o f Satyr Play, and S ophocles’ role th erein (AP V II 37 = 22 G-P): Τύμβος δδ’ έσή ώνθρωπε, Σοφοκλεος, δν παρά Μουσών ίρήν παρθεσίην ιερός ών έλαχον, δς με τον έκ Φλιοΰντος έτι τρίβολον πατέοντα πρίνινον ές χρύσεον σχήμα μεθηρμόσατο καί λεπτήν ένέδυσεν άλουργίδα. του δε θανόντος εύθετον ορχηστήν τήδ’ άνέπαυσα πόδα... This is the tomb of Sophocles, friend, whom the Muses entrusted, a sacred pledge, to my consecrated hands. It was he who, when I was still treading the rude threshing sledge in Phlius, adapted me to the golden show and dressed me in delicate purple. But now that he’s dead I have stayed here the foot that danced so w ell... In th e second (AP V II 707 = 23 G-P), th e speaker is likewise a satyrstatue, this tim e astride the tom b o f the H ellen istic d ram atist Sositheos: Κήγώ Σωσιθέου κομέω νέκυν, δσσον έν αστει άλλος άπ’ αύθαίμων ήμετέρων Σοφοκλήν, Σκιρτάς ό πυρρογένειος- έκισσοφόρησε γάρ ώνήρ αξία Φλιασίων, ναί μα χορούς, Σατύρων κήμε τον έν καινοΐς τεθραμμένον ήθεσιν ήδη ήγαγεν εις μνήμην πατρίδ’ άναρχαίσας... I too, Frisky the red-beard, stand guard at a tomb, the tomb of Sositheos, Just as one of my brothers in town stands guard over Sophocles. For Sositheos carried the ivy crown, a man worthy-yes, by the chorus-of satyrs from Phlius. And me, who had already been nurtured in modern ways, he made me recall my homeland by reverting to archaic practice... W ith th e w o rd s κήγώ, “I to o ” (v. 1), the saty r explicitly refers to his kin on the tom b fro m the previous poem . As he goes on to praise of Aeschylus ( Vita A 11), and the poetess Nossis {AP VII 718 = 11 G-P) assumes that people journey to Mitylene to be “inspired” by Sappho’s graces (cf. Gow-Page’s n. ad άναυσόμενος v. 2, and generally M.Treu, „Selbstzeugnisse alexandrinischer Dichter”, Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di A. Rostagni (Torino 1963) 277-281.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

Sositheos fo r having re sto re d Satyr Play (o r D ra m a in general) to its original form , i. e. fo r having accom plished precisely th e o p p o site o f his Classical co u n terp art, it becom es clear th a t th e po em o ffsets and c o m ­ plem ents the one a b o u t Sophocles. In sh o rt, th ey are m e an t to be read as a pair, and m oreover in sequence. N o w if these are g en u in e sep u l­ chral inscriptions, we m ust assum e th a t th ey sto o d su fficien tly close to perm it such concrete and sequential cro ss-referen ce. Y et close physical proxim ity is challenged fro m w ithin: έν ασ τει, “in to w n ” (v. 1, second poem ), im plies th a t w hile S ophocles was b u ried in the city (i. e. in A th ­ ens), S ositheos was not. A nd fu rth e r d o u b t is cast w h en we recall th a t, in the Vita, Sophocles was n o t in te rre d “in to w n ” at all, b u t at D ecelea w ith his ancestors, and on his to m b w as n o saty r b u t e ith e r a Siren (cf. Paus. I 21.1) o r a sw allow m ade o f b ro n z e (cf. G o w -P ag e, in tro , to Λ Ρ V II 37 = 22 G-P). T h e inscriptions, then, are a fictio n . T h e ir se q u e n ­ tial c o n n e c tio n -κ ή γ ώ , “I to o ” (v. l ) - i s th a t betw een n e ig h b o rin g texts on the page. N o real tom b, statue o r in scrip tio n need com e in to play any m ore: im plicit in the u nassum ing κα ί o f κήγώ is n o th in g less th a n th e entire tra n sfo rm a tio n o f th e w o rld in to an in terio r, literary landscape. T h u s, n o t ju st the p o e t’s life, w hich we lo o k e d at b efo re, b u t also th e ir w orks o ffe r a clear sign th a t these poets existed in a w o rld o f books. Is it n o t significant, then, th a t th a t w o rld itself w as situ ated , as it seems, in the M uses’ dom ain, th a t is in th e ir shrine, th e M u seu m o f A lexandria?61 T h e im plications o f the “re a d in g ” M use, nam ely th a t the god d ess’ in spiration and the w ritten re c o rd co u ld becom e very nearly the same, are m ade the m ore su b stan tial th ro u g h th e coincidence o f the M uses’ d o m ain and the b o o k -w o rld o f th e p o et. T o g e th e r, th ey strongly suggest th a t b o oks have becom e the vehicle, at least, o f p o etic inspiration, if n o t its equivalent. B ut p erh ap s th ey are n o w even th at: In his Hymn to Delos (v .5 5 ff.), C allim achus tells o f L eto ’s search fo r a place to give b irth to A pollo, h e r son by Z eus. B ut H e ra , Z eu s’ w ife, does h er u tm o st to prevent this, and, to th a t end, in tim id ates th e lo cali­ ties in to refusing asylum fo r Leto. W h erev er L eto appears, th e localities flee. C allim achus here plays w ith th e tra d itio n th a t all places have th e ir eponym ous gods, from w hich th ey are virtually in d istin g u ish ab le. By pressing this to its h u m o ro u s extrem e, he show s th a t it is p ro b lem atical: w hat, asks the poet, if an entire landscape su d d en ly to o k to its heels and no place w as left fo r A p o llo ’s b irth? T his am using, yet u n settlin g ex p erim en t is b ro u g h t to a clim ax w h en the nym ph M elie is sent reeling fro m th e dance u p o n seeing h e r tree en d an g ered by the flig h t o f M t. H e lik o n . H e re, as th o u g h n o lo n g e r 61 For the strong probability that the library was located in the Museum cf. P.M . Fra­ ser, op. cit. (n. 38 above) p.324-5 with n. 145, and p.335.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

41

able to b e a r th e u n certain ty , the p o e t breaks into th e narrative in m idverse (v. 82) and dem ands th a t his M uses set him straig h t:62 “did trees really com e in to being at the sam e tim e as nym phs?” (ή ρ ’ έτεόν έγέν ο ν το τότε δρύες ή νίκα Ν ύμφ αι; ν. 83, a play o n the nam e “h a m ad ry ­ ad s”), i.e. is th e life o f a place and its god really one? T h e in te rp re ta tio n o f the next tw o lines (v. 84-85) w hich, as we shall see, has d ire c t bearin g on the distinctions we have been try in g to draw betw een the M u ses’ in sp iratio n and the w ritten reco rd , is problem atical. Y et th e d ifficulty is belied by the o u tw a rd fo rm o f th e couplet, w hich is lucid and sym m etrical: Νύμφαι μεν Νύμφαι δ’αύ

χαίρουσιν, κλαίουσιν,

δτε δρύας δτε δρυσίν

όμβρος άέξει, ούκετι φύλλα.63

The Nymphs rejoice when rain makes the oaks grow tall The Nymphs lament when there are no longer leaves on the oaks W ith th e sym m etry o f these verses, C allim achus stresses the special sy m pathy betw een nym phs and trees. T h e b eh av io r o f the nym phs in th e first h a lf o f each line is linked causally to th e c o n d itio n o f the trees in th e second, an d the co rresp o n d in g phrases in the tw o lines reflect a relatio n sh ip th a t is c o n sta n t even u n d e r changing circum stances. Each verse begins w ith the sam e w o rd (Ν ύμφ αι); μεν co rresp o n d s to δ’ αύ. T h e re is delib erate assonance betw een χ α ίρ ο υ σ ιν and κλαίουσ ιν. A fter a p en th em im eral caesura, b o th lines begin w ith th e sam e w o rd s (δτε

62 This unusual and strongly adversative mid-verse switch from third person narrative to direct address is all the more startling as it deliberately breaks with old epic convention in which the Muses were invoked only at the start of a poem or section. In the words of E. Howald and E. Staiger, Die Dichtungen des Kallimachos (Zürich 1955) 101, “das ist wohl der Gipfel des unverfrorenen Spieles mit der Tradition, der gewagteste Mißbrauch der epischen Muse.”Cf. H.Reinsch-Werner, Callimachus Hesiodicus (Berlin 1976) 191. For Callimachus’ uses of direct speech generally in the hymns, cf. G. R. McLennan, Calli­ machus, Hymn to Zeus (Rome 1977) Appendix II p. 144-149. 63 The reading of P.Alex. 547 by A. C. Mancini, Ann. d. Sc. Norm. Sup. di Pisa, Cl. di lett. e filos., s e n ili 2 (1972) 502-5, pi.XXXV, and Pap. Lett. Greci, ed. A.Carlini etc. (Pisa 1978) 12, pl.V, assures the final v in δρυσίν and hence confirms ούκετι of the MSS. Pfeiffer’s μηκέτι is based on the appearance, in one papyrus, of δρυσιμ[ (P. Oxy. 2225), which might easily be an error. Perhaps Pfeiffer was thinking of the Hellenistic tendency to substitute μή for ού (Schwyzer II 594, cf. e. g. Call., Hymn III 64-5: κείνους [scil. the Cyclopes] γε καί αί μάλα μηκέτι τυτθαί / ούδέποτ’ άφρικτί μακάριον όρόωσι θύγατρες. and Bornmann’s n. ad lor. “in età ellenistica si preferisce decisamente μή a ού”), a free­ dom that extended to causal and temporal clauses (cf. Schwyzer II 595, bottom of page, and K G II 188c). We cannot, however, argue that μηκέτι is lectio difficilior, as does Mineur ad loc., because for the scribe writing P. Oxy. 2225 in the 2nd cent. A. D .-b y which time the preference for μή would have been well established - the reverse might very well have been the case. Thus, though we cannot rule μηκέτι out, the weight of the evidence, that is the occurence of ούκέτι in a papyrus and the undeviating testimony of

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

δρύα ς / δτε δρυσί), ending at the bucolic diaeresis.64 All w o rd ends com e at the sam e p o sition except όμβρος and ουκετι (th o u g h p erh ap s “W o rtb ild ”). B oth lines consist o f 15 syllables each.65 Y et th e sym pathy, w hich is m anifest even in the o u tw a rd fo rm o f the lines, does n o t m ean th a t nym phs and trees are identical o r live co term in o u s lives. O n the contrary, it m akes all the m ore critical th e u n c e rta in ty w hich C allim a­ chus has caused (and w hich it is in his in te re st to m aintain) w ith the flig h t o f the localities. T h a t u n certain ty is exacerbated by th e fu rth e r difficulty o f k n o w in g to w hom to attrib u te these lines. W ilam ow itz and P feiffe r set th e verses in q u o ta tio n m arks, taking them to be the M u ses’ reply. A nd indeed, they have a wise and tra d itio n a l ring th a t befits th e goddesses o f song. O n the o th e r hand, no speaker is in d icated and w e c a n n o t assum e, as W ilam ow itz does {HD II 67), th a t the change w o u ld have been felt in the reciter’s in to n atio n . O n e m ight well tak e th e co u p let as a gnom e, ad d ed asyndetically, w ith w hich th e p o e t su p p o rts his q u e stio n .66 In th a t case, the M uses w ou ld give no answ er at all, th e q u estio n w o u ld rem ain open and the strange effect o f the localities’ flig h t sim ply c o n ­ tinue.67 A th ird possibility is th a t the u n certain ty o f a ttrib u tio n is n atu ral. P erhaps it does n o t m atter w h e th er th e co u p let is a g nom e o r th e u tte r­ ance o f the M uses. For, at a tim e w hen M n em o sy n e’s d au g h ters c h arac ­ teristically assist a p o e t in recalling the “re c o rd e d ” past, th e differen ce will in fact be very small. W ith its venerable, a p o p h th eg m atic quality, the couplet has the appearance o f so m eth in g san ctio n ed by th e literary trad itio n , w hich to a large extent is w h a t th e M uses now em b o d ied . If this is so, it m ay be o f help in explaining the cultivated am biguity in the sense o f the couplet. F or th a t am biguity faith fu lly reflects the lit­ erary heritage - as we can see from a glance at w h a t th e tra d itio n h a d to say a b o u t nym phs and th e ir trees. A ccording to th e Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, an early and d etailed source, w h en th e nym phs are b o rn the manuscripts, favors our retaining ούκέτι in the text while letting μηκέτι appear in the app. crit. 64 In Fränkel’s terminology, the most “harmonious” caesura, cf. “Der homerische und kallimacheische Hexameter”, Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens (Munich 1968) 128 # 2 1 and 141 ad v.2. 65 For a similar analysis cf. L. Koenen, “Die Adaption ägyptischer Königsideologie am Ptolemäerhof”, in Egypt and the Hellenistic World, Proceedings o f the International Collo­ quium Leuven-24-26 May 1982 (Leuven 1983) 177 n.95. 66 Cf. K G II 345 for asyndeton with maxims following a question. This is also the interpretation of Körte-Händel, Die Hellenistische Dichtung (Stuttgart 1960) 36. 67 There is a similar problem at Hymn 1.7-8 (πότεροι, πάτερ, έψεύσαντο; / “Κρήτες άεί ψεΰσται”), where the quote may not represent the answer of Zeus, to whom the ques­ tion is addressed (cf. McLennan ad v.7 and ch.2 p .76 n.42 below).

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

43

“pines o r h igh to p p e d oaks spring up w ith th e m ..., b u t w hen the fate o f d eath is n e a r at h an d , first th o se lovely trees w ith e r w here they stan d , and the b a rk shrivels aw ay a b o u t them , and the twigs fall dow n, a n d at last th e life o f the nym ph and o f the tree leave the lig h t o f the sun to g e th e r” (v .264-272): τήσι δ’ άμ η έλάται ήέ δρύες ύψικάρηνοι γεινομένησιν έφυσαν έπί χθονί βωτιανείρη... άλλ’ οτε κεν δή μοίρα παρεστήκη θανάτοιο άζάνεται μεν πρώτον έπί χθονί δένδρεα καλά, φλοιός δ’ άμφιπεριφθινύθει, πίπτουσι δ’ απ’ οζοι, των δε χ’ όμοϋ ψυχή λείποι φάος ήελίοιο.

265 269

T h is tra d itio n is follow ed by P in d ar, am o n g o th ers, w h o tells how R h o ik o s saved a d ro o p in g tree by su p p o rtin g it w ith a vine p rop. T h e n y m ph su b seq u en tly adm its to him th a t she w o u ld have died, “having been a llo tte d a term as long as the years o f a tre e ”, ίσ ο δένδρου τέκμαρ α ίώ ν ο ς θεό φ ρ α σ το ν λ α χ ο ϊσ α (fr. 165 S n ell-M aeh ler).68 O n th e o th e r h and, P lu ta rc h {de def. orac. 415 c-d) quotes “H e sio d ” (fr. 304 M -W ), a source easily as venerable as the H o m eric H ym n o r P in d a r (and a passage k now n to C allim achus, cf. fr. 260.42 and P fe if­ fe r’s n.), as saying th a t N aiad s outlive th e ir trees, explicitly c o n trastin g this frag m e n t w ith th a t o f P in d a r m en tio n ed above: “N in e g en eratio n s lo n g is th e life o f the crow an d his caw ing, / nine g en eratio n s o f v ig o r­ ous m en. Lives o f fo u r crow s to g e th e r / equal th e life o f a stag, and th re e stags th e old age o f a raven; / nine lives o f th e raven equal the life o f th e P h o en ix ; / ten o f the P h o en ix we fa ir-h a ire d nym phs, d au g h ters o f Z eus o f th e aegis” . έννέα τοι ζώει γενεάς λακέρυζα κορώνη άνδρών ήβώντων έλαφος δε τε τετρακόρωνοςτρεις δ’ έλάφους ό κόραξ γηράσκεται- αύτάρ ό φοϊνιξ έννέα τούς κόρακας- δέκα δ’ ήμεϊς τούς φοίνικας νύμφαι έυπλόκαμοι, κοϋραι Διός αίγιόχοιο. P lu ta rc h calculates th a t th e nym ph thus lives 9720 O r again, co n tem p o rary w ith C allim achus, th ere in A p o llonios o f R h o d es’ Argonautica, w here the H esp erid es tu rn in to d u st and earth in fear at the

years! is th e strange scene nym phs know n as A rg o n a u ts’ com ing,

68 There is a similar story in Eumelos fr. 15 Kinkel. And in the scholia to 11.6.22 we hear that nymphs συναύξεσθαι μεν αύτοΐς τοις δένδρεσι, αύαινομένων δε αύτών καί ξηραινομένων συναποθνήσκειν. Likewise, in Ovid’s version of the Erysichthon myth (Met. 8.738 ff.) the nymph and her tree are indistinguishable (cf. esp. 762 fluxit discusso cortice sanguis, and her dying words, v. 771-773, Nympha sub hoc ego sum Cereri gratissima ligno, ! quae tibi factorum poenas instare tuorum / vaticinor moriens, nostri solacia leti).

44

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

b u t then, pitying th e ir plight, g ro w back in to trees, m iracu lo u sly c o m ­ pleting the entire n a tu ra l d ev elo p m en t o f a tree in a m o m en t (4.1423-30): “F irst grass sprang up fro m the g ro u n d ; th e n long sh o o ts appeared above the grass; and in a m o m en t th re e saplings, tall, stra ig h t and in full leaf, w ere grow ing there, H esp ere becam e a p o p lar; E ry th eis an elm; A egle a sacred w illow . Y et they w ere still them selves; th e trees could n o t conceal th e ir fo rm er s h a p e s - a n d th a t was the g re a test w o n ­ d er o f all” . ... καί δή χθονός έξανέτειλαν ποίην πάμπρωτον, ποίης γε μεν ύψόθι μακροί βλάστεον δρπτηκες, μετά δ’ ερνεα τηλεθάοντα πολλόν ύπέρ γαίης όρθοσταδόν ήέξοντοΈσπέρη αΐγειρος, πτελέη δ’ Έρυθηίς εγεντο, Αίγλη δ’ ίτείης ιερόν στύπος. έκ δε νυ κείνων δενδρέων, οΐαι εσαν, τοΐαι πάλιν εμπεδον αϋτως έξέφανεν, θάμβος περιώσιον... H ere, the trees an d th e ir nym phs are clearly n o t coeval.69 W e see, then, th a t the literary tra d itio n itself h a d no c o n sisten t answ er. C allim achus, o f course, was o ften set b e fo re co n flictin g tra d i­ tions and w o u ld have to choose betw een them (thus, fo r exam ple, th e d isputed location o f Z eus’ b irth in H y m n 1.5 f., έν boifj μ άλα θυμός, έπεί γένος ά μ φ ή ρ ισ τ ο ν . . . , w here he picks A rcad ia over C rete). B ut here it is as th o u g h he takes the M uses’ raw m aterial and, because it suits his purp o se in this H y m n , decides to skip th e ch o ice.70 T h e M uses resp o n d am biguously, o r fail to re sp o n d at all, because th ey em b o d y th e tra d itio n and give it voice. F o r C allim achus, w o rk in g in E gypt, this m eans th a t they are virtually synonym ous w ith th e lib rary o f A lex an ­ dria. In reach in g such a conclusion, I do n o t m ean to im ply th a t th ey h ad becom e a h ollow convention - th o u g h one m ay have d o u b ts later on, w hen M uses and b o oks becom e in d istin g u ish ab le (thus, in the 1st cent. B .C ./A .D . epigram by E uenus, cf. p. 19 above, a b o o k w o rm is to ld φ εϋγ’ άπό Μ ουσάω ν, i. e. keep aw ay fro m th e b o o k s; and a 4th cent. 69 On the relationship of nymphs and trees generally cf. A. Henrichs, “Thou shalt not kill a tree”, Bull. Amer. Soc. o f Papyr. 16 (1979) esp. 85-87. 70 Most scholars insist that the couplet represents a clear-cut choice. But the even split in opinions for and against coeval lives just goes to show the inherent ambiguity. Among those arguing for, see K. Kuiper, Studia Callimachea I (Leiden 1896) 130 and L. Koenen, op. cit. (n.66 above) 177 n.95; against, see Wilamowitz, H D II p.67, E. Howald and E. Staiger, op. cit. (n.63 above) 101, 109 n. ad 79f., and Mineur ad v. 82. So far as I can see, only K.J. McKay, Erysichthon, A Callimachean Comedy, Mnem. Suppl. 7 (Leiden 1962) 177 and Reinsch-Werner, op. cit. (n.63 above) 188, 192, take the position that the ambi­ guity is deliberate and functional in the poem.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

45

A .D . w orm in Sym phosius, X V I B uecheler, boasts “L ittera me pavit ...e x e d i M u sa s”). In the 3rd cent. B. C., how ever, the M u ses’ sphere o f action h ad sim ply m oved to th a t sam e m icrocosm w h ere the p o e t now fu n ctio n ed , nam ely in his books. T h e re , they w ere very m uch alive and, like the b o o k s them selves, exerted a stro n g fascin atio n on the poet. T h e sh ift in th e M u ses’ dom ain and the open ack n o w led g em en t o f th e b o o k in th e p o e t’s self-im age w ere the final steps in a long process th ro u g h w hich th e “w ritte n ” w o rd h ad com e to ever g re a ter prom inence (in the early p arts o f this ch ap ter we traced its p rogress u p th ro u g h the p h ilo ­ sophical schools). B ut the crucial push, in my view, th a t p ropelled those final steps, a t last dislodging p erfo rm an ce as th e p rim ary reality o f verse (cf. p. 16 f. above), w as the establish m en t o f th e g reat H ellenistic libraries, in p a rtic u la r th a t o f A lexandria. It w as only th en th a t th a t “little w o rld ” o f b o o k s becam e sufficiently am ple n o t ju st to contain the collected tra d itio n o f the G reeks, b u t to assert itself as the essential fact in th e p o e t’s life - a fact th a t, tra d itio n n o tw ith stan d in g , he could no lo n g e r ignore. F rom the new perspective o f this m icrocosm , the poets (as appeared in the b re a k d o w n o f regional distinctions) re in te rp re te d the w o rld o u t­ side. A nd perh ap s even A lexandria was recast in term s o f this “le tte re d ” aesthetic: T h e city, it seems, was divided into sectors called γρ ά μ μ α τα , a fte r th e five initial letters o f the alp h ab et.71 T h is was n o t in itself an u n u su al practice. It seems to have becom e cu sto m ary in P tolem aic E g y p t to call a city district γρ ά μ μ α (cf. Preisigke s.v. and Suppl. A b sch n .2 2 s.v.). A nd even in the 5th centu ry B .C . we find sim ilar p h e ­ n o m ena. E ach A th en ian tribe, fo r instance, was divided into ten μέρη, a th ro u g h κ, and the courts w ere d esignated by letters startin g w ith λ.72 T h e orig in al significance o f the A lexandrian exam ple w as doubtless no d ifferen t, th e letters m erely fo rm in g a reco g n izab le set in a stan d ard o rd e r. B ut a late source, p seu d o -C allisth en es (I 32), th o u g h t otherw ise, and in th in k in g so expressed som ething essential a b o u t this quintessentially b o o k ish city. F o r him , th e letters conveyed a m essage: Έ κέλευσεν (scil. A lexander) ούν κ τίζεσ θα ι την πόλιν. θεμελιώ σας δε τό κ λ εισ τό ν μέρος της πόλεω ς Α λ έξα ν δ ρ ο ς κ α ί χ ω ρ ο γρ α φ ή σ α ς έπ έγρ α ψ ε γρ ά μ μ α τα π έν τε- A Β Γ Δ Ε · τό μεν A ’Α λέξανδρος, τό δε βήτα βασιλεύς, τό δε γά μ μ α γένος, τό δε

71 Cf. Philo of Alexandria, In Flacc. 55: πέντε μοίραι τής πόλεως είσιν, επώνυμοι των πρώτων στοιχείων τής εγγραμμάτου φωνής, and Ps. Call. I 32, which I discuss below. On the division generally cf. A. Calderini, Dizionario dei Nomi Geografici e Topografici dell’ Egitto Greco-Romano I, 1 (Cairo 1935) 79 f. 72 Cf. Aristot. Ath. Poi 63.2-4 with the comments of P.J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politela (Oxford 1981) 702 and 704, and Aristoph. Eccl. 683 f.

46

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

δέλτα Διός, το δε Ε έκτισεν π όλ ιν ά μ ίη το ν (A lexander o rd e re d th e city to be fo u n d ed . A nd after having laid th e fo u n d a tio n s fo r m o st o f th e city and p lo tte d it out, he w ro te on th em five letters: A B Γ Δ E. T h e A ‘A lexander’, th e b eta ‘king’ [βασ ιλεύς], the gam m a ‘o ffsp rin g ’ [γένο ς], th e delta ‘o f Z eus’ [Δ ιός], th e epsilon ‘fo u n d e d ’ [έκτισ εν] an inim itable city). T h e m essage w ith w hich p seu d o -C allisth en es invests th e letters o f A lexandria gives them a m eaning in d e p en d e n t o f an d tran scen d in g th e ir significance sim ply as m em bers o f a set. T h a t is to say, he m akes them fu n ctio n specifically as letters qua letters, (n o t ju st as ciphers), activating them as vehicles o f com m u n icatio n . T o be sure, in an era inclined to view letters as significant, i.e. th e H ellen istic and its a fte rm ath, th e A lexandrian letters invited in te rp re ta tio n . B ut it is peculiarly apt th a t this city, th a t did m ore th a n any o th e r to in stitu tio n a liz e th e use o f le tte r s - a s w ritten o b je c ts - f o r com m u n icatio n , sh o u ld be singled o u t in such a w ay th a t the letters rep resen tin g its c o n stitu e n t p arts and collectively sym bolizing its to tality are m ade to co m m u n icate a m es­ sage; in o th e r w ords, th a t th e city itself is m ade a text. T h e rise o f th e b o o k w ith th e estab lish m en t o f th e g re a t libraries seem ed to o ffe r a fresh sta rt and countless p o etic p ath s u p o n w hich to set out. T o p arap h rase P feiffe r {Hist. p. 88), if p o e try was to be rescu ed from the d an g ero u s situation in w hich it lay by th e en d o f th e 5th an d in the 4th century, th e m eans to d o so w ere now at h an d . T h e aesthetic th e o ry w hich cam e to guide th e a tte m p t w as, I believe, well suited to the revo lu tio n b ro u g h t o n by th e full a ck n o w led g m en t and use o f w riting by th e H ellen istic poets. W h ereas an o ral cu ltu re p rom otes expression th a t is fluent, voluble and fu lso m e,73 its p o e try m arked by red u n d an cy and g re a t length, th e tech n o lo g y o f w ritin g fo s ­ ters a spare and finely etched style. O n ce again, th e m o st p ro m in e n t spokesm an o f the new Age is C allim achus. “A big b o o k is a big evil”, he says in a fam ous frag m e n t (fr. 465). C allim achus c h am p io n ed th e “sm all” p o etic form (cf. fr. 1.5 έπος δ’ επί τυ τθό ν έλ[ίσσω and th e ο λίγη λιβάς ά κ ρ ο ν αω τον, Η . 2.112), rejecting com prehensive poem s like those in th e old Epic Cycle (E p.28 ). T h e la tte r w ere “fa t” (fr. 1.23-4, cf. fr. 398) an d “blusterin g ” (fr. 1.19 μέγα ψ ο φ έο υ σ α ν ά ο ιδή ν). T h u n d e r­ ing m ight becom e Zeus, b u t n o t th e p o e t (fr. 1.20 β ρ ο ντά ν ούκ έμόν, άλλα Δ ιός). A poem sh o u ld be “slen d er” (fr. 1.24) and “c h ild -lik e” (παΐς άτε, fr. 1.6). It should be ju d g e d in term s o f “a rt” (τέχνη, fr. 1.17), n o t size. T h e re is yet a fu rth e r c o n tra st betw een oral an d literate styles th a t is o f relevance here. O ral p o e try favors “heavy”, th a t is to say “h e ro ic ” characters w hose deeds are m o n u m en tal (O n g op. cit., p .7 0 ), and hence 73 Cf. W.J.Ong op. cit., n. 1 above, p.40-41.

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

47

easily m em orable. T h is is the style o f the old G reek epic. C allim achus and his co n tem p o raries, how ever, focus on m arginal figures d elib ­ erately set ag ain st an h ero ic b ack d ro p so as to h eig h ten the c o n tra st.74 T h u s, fo r instance, in a recently discovered poem a b o u t H erak les and th e N em ean lion ( SH 254-269), C allim achus ap p aren tly has th e h ero h u n t do w n and dispatch the b east in a few sh o rt verses w hile lingering o n th e hom ely details o f H e ra k le s’ visit to the o therw ise obscure farm er M o lo rc h u s and on the la tte r’s successful h u n t o f b o th e rso m e h o u seh o ld ro d e n ts th ro u g h the invention o f a new so rt o f m o u setrap .75 P erhaps we m ay view the su d d en em ergence o f pasto ral p o e try now in this lig h t as well. A lth o u g h retain in g the m eter and d ictio n o f h ero ic epic, T h e o ­ critus and th e o th e r p asto ral poets fix u p o n th e m o st u n h ero ic p a rt o f th e epic tra d itio n , nam ely the ru stic w o rld o f the H o m e ric simile w ith its sh ep h erd s and h unters, w ildlife, vegetation, etc.76 A lth o u g h the H e l­ lenistic G reeks w ere u naw are th a t th e ir early p o e try was the p ro d u c t o f an oral culture, and it w o uld never have o ccu rred to them to co n sid er th e developm ents o f th e ir Age in term s o f “o rality -literacy c o n tra sts”, it is strik in g h ow th e ir aesthetic conform s, albeit unconsciously, to this p a tte rn . F o r us, it m ay be an in d icatio n o f the d ep th o f th e change th a t o ccu rred betw een the C lassical and H ellen istic Eras. In a n o th e r Age, faced w ith a sim ilarly changing w orld, the p o e t T e n ­ nyso n longed fo r the tim e “w hen song was g re a t”, w hen a p o e t like the m ythical A m phion could cause rocks and trees to move th ro u g h the p o w er o f his song. T e n n y so n w ished th a t he could p o p u late his ow n g ard en w ith th e m ightiest oaks and m o st delicate beech-trees, m aking th em ru n o b ed ien tly in to place ju st by stru m m in g his lyre. B ut such things are n o lo n g e r possible. T ry as he may, “Tis vain,” he says, “in such a brassy age I could not move a thistle; The very sparrows in the hedge Scarce answer to my whistle; ... But what is that I hear? a sound Like sleepy counsel pleading; O Lord! - ’tis in my neighbor’s ground, The modern Muses reading. They read Botanic Treatises, And Works on Gardening thro’ there, 74 It is interesting that Euripides, a forerunner in this regard, was reputed in antiquity to have had a large private library (Athen. I 3a-b). 75 Cf. especially P.J.Parsons, “Callimachus: Victoria Berenices”, ZPE 25 (1977) If. and E. Livrea, “Der Killer Kallimachos und die Mausefallen”, ZPE 34 (1979) 37 f. 76 For a perceptive, though somewhat different, explanation of the same phenomenon cf. F.T. Griffiths, Theocritus at Court, Mnemosyne Suppl. 55 (Leiden 1979) 40.

48

Poetic Inspiration and the Poet’s Self Image

And Methods of transplanting trees To look as if they grew there. The wither’d Misses! how they prose O’er books of travell’d seamen, And show you slips of all that grows From England to Van Diem en... Better to me the meanest weed That blows upon its mountain, The vilest herb that runs to seed Beside its native fountain. T h e attitu d e o f the H ellenistic poets w o u ld have been quite d ifferen t. U p o n h earin g o f M uses w ho read b o tan ical treatises, th e ir ears w o u ld have pricked up. T h e ir openness to in n o v atio n and read in ess to ex p eri­ m ent w ou ld have m ade them to le ra n t o f m o st p o etic ideas w ith w hich a n o th e r culture could c o n fro n t them . P erhaps, if th e y h a d h a d them , they w o uld be listening to rad io s to o , like C o ctea u ’s O rp h eu s.

“C allim achi M anes et C oi sacra Philetae, in vestrum , quaeso, me sinite ire nem u s.” P ro p ertiu s III 1.1-2

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past “W ho w o uld listen to a n o th e r? ” asks a stingy prospective p a tro n in T h e o c ritu s, “H o m e r is e n o u g h fo r all” (“τις δέ κεν άλλου ά κ ο ύ σ α ι; ά λ ις π ά ντεσ σ ιν "Ο μηρος.” 16.20), and th o u g h his rejectio n o f a new w o rk is p ro m p ted by m iserliness, it is also p ro b ab ly a fa ir gauge o f th e c o n se r­ vatism w hich c o n tem p o rary poets had to face, a scepticism to w ard s innovation, a preference fo r the fam iliar. F o r A lex an d rian verse as we kn o w it from T h eo critu s, C allim achus, A ratu s etc., proves ra th e r to have been the exception in the H ellen istic Age, and lengthy, tra d itio n a l epics prevailed as the n o rm .1 C allim achus co n d em n s th em p ro g ra m m a t­ ically as “h o llo w -th u n d e rin g ” songs on h ero es and kings (fr. 1.19, 4 -5 ). A nd a later poet, P ollianos, w o uld ch aracterize th e ir a u th o rs as τούς “α ύτάρ έπ ειτα ” λ έγο ντα ς / ... λω π ο δύ τα ς ά λ λ ο τρ ίω ν έπέων, i . e. “th o se w ho say ‘α ύτα ρ έπ ειτα ’ (the trite epic fo rm u la d e n o tin g th e next step in a poem ), ... pilferers o f o th e r’s epic verse” (AP X I 130.1-2 cf. A risto t­ le’s critique o f poets w ho depict things as h ap p en in g n o t διά τά δε b u t μετά τάδε, Poet. 10, 1452a 21). In keeping w ith this view, few m o d e rn critics have com plained th a t this thieving th ro n g should, by an o d d chance, have disappeared alm ost com pletely fro m o u r tra d itio n , leaving us w ith little m ore th a n th e ir nam es, som e titles, a few p a th etic fra g ­ m ents, a n d - m o s t in flu e n tia lly -th e polem ics o f th e A lex an d rian avantg arde against them . Y et th e ir w ork s are the b a ck d ro p against w h ich we m ust assess th e artistic developm ents o f the H ellen istic élite, and this is especially so o f the m an n er in w hich b o th g ro u p s ap p ro ach th e ir p o etic past and p u t it to w ork. In the absence o f a lo n g er piece by one o f these so-called “p ilfere rs”, som e critics have so u g h t elsew here fo r evidence fro m w hich to c h a ra c ­ terize th e ir style. T h e y have looked, fo r instance, to the m o n u m en tal a rt o f the A g e -s u c h as the frieze on the P erg am en e A ltar. A nd doubtless, the tim e -h o n o red them es o f h ero ic epic are there, m ajestically c o n ­ ceived and massive in execution, a valid aid in a ttem p tin g to catch som ething o f the spirit o f the H ellenistic epics.12 Y et if we rely ex clu ­ sively on analogies and polem ics, th e resu lt will be a d isto rtio n at best. 1 Cf. eh. 1 n. 14 and 59. 2 Cf. K.Ziegler, Das hellenistische Epos (Leipzig 1966) 43-52, J.Onians, Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age: the Greek World View 350-50 B.C. (London 1979) 140 and G .Zänker, A & A 29 (1983) 136.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

51

B etter, I th in k , to see w h a t can be gleaned fro m the surviving fra g ­ m ents, p a th etic th o u g h they m ay be. A nd if the resu ltan t p icture o f H ellen istic epic is n o t so relentlessly black and w hite as the polem ics suggest, p erh ap s it will be the m ore realistic fo r th e ad d itio n al shades o f u n certain ty . T w o ano n y m o u s epic fragm en ts preserved am ong the O x y rh y n ch u s papyri (P .O x y . 2883 = SH 946-947) will serve o u r p u r­ poses:

SH 946 τής προτέρης κραδ[ σ]τήμεναι ώς το πάροιθε[ άλλα τάδ’ αμμιν έπειτα θεώ[ν ίότ]ητι μελήσει. σύν Διί δ’ ήώιους τάχα κεν φεύγοντας ϊδοιμεν προτροπάδην, βελέεσσιν ύφ’ ήμετέροισι δαμέν[τας, οφρα τις έν Σπάρτηι βεβαρημ[έ]νος έλκεϊ λυγρώι μνησεται ήμείων μηδ’ άσκηθής ύπαλύξηι. __ ]α μεν ώς έπέοικε τελευτήσειε Κρονίων ...... ]ε φυλακτήρες πυρά κείατε καί μεμαώτες ........] εκτοσθεν φιλίην ρύεσθε πόληα. ........]ν ούδέ καί αύτός, έπεί τόδε κάλλιόν έστιν, έν μ]εγάροις μενέω, φύλακας δε μετείσομαι ώκα, __ δυ]σμενέων έμπαζόμεθ’ άλλ’ έπέοικεν ......... ]πάντα τελεΐν φρονέειν δ’ έπαρηρότα θυμώι. ]ε καί ϊαχε λαός όμαρτήι your former courage (?)[ to stand as beforef but these things will concern us hereafter by the will of the gods. With Zeus’ aid perhaps we may see them running away in the morning in headlong flight, overcome by our arrows, so that one in Sparta disabled by a grievous wound will remember us, nor would he escape unscathed. These things], as is fitting, may the son of Kronos accomplish. But now], watchmen, light the watch-fires and with fervent eagerness ] outside, protect your city. ] nor shall I, since it is more fitting thus, remain at home, but I shall swiftly visit the sentinels, not that] I give a damn about the enemy, but it is proper ] to carry out all things and to plan things that suit the heart. ] and at once the people raised a shout

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

SH 947 ως [είπών ά]πέπαυσε μάχην, έπίθοντο δε λαοί νυ[........] νίκηι γάρ άγαλλόμενοι ποθέεσκον κα[ί]περ κ[ε]κμηώτες άνά κνέφας άντιάασθαι. άσπασίη δε Λάκωσιν έπήλυθε νυκτός ομίχλη. thus [speaking], he broke off the battle, and the men yielded [to the swift night.] for revelling in the victory they yearned, even though worn out, to engage (the enemy) all through the night. But the mist of night came welcome to the Lakonians. In his editio princeps, E d g ar Lobel suggested th a t these tw o h ex am eter fragm ents derive from the Messeniaka, a local epic in at least 6 b o o k s by R hianos o f Bene, the 3rd cent. B .C . co n tem p o rary o f E ra to sth e n e s.3 A nd indeed, the depiction o f a S partan foe (τις έν Σ π ά ρ τη ι SH 946.6, δυ]σμενέων v. 13, Λ ά κ ω σ ιν5 7 / 947.4) attack in g a city (S H 947.10), and evidently having the w o rst o f it (S H 946.4 f f ., 13; SH 947.2 ff.), squares well w ith P au san ias’ acco u n t o f th e 11 y ear S p artan siege o f E ira in the 2nd M essenian W ar. As P ausanias him self tells us (IV 6 .1 -3 ), R h ian o s was his prim ary source fo r this p a rt o f the w ar. T h e sp eak er o f th e first fragm ent, and perhaps also o f the speech th a t p reced ed the second (ώς [είπών v. 1), m ay well have been the M essenian h ero (and S p artan n em e­ sis) A ristom enes.4 H is p o rtray a l by R h ian o s evidently aim ed at m a tc h ­ ing those o f earlier epic h e r o e s - o r at least it p ro m p ted P au san ias to m ake such a com parison: “In R h ian o s’ epic, A risto m en es is no less glorious th an A chilles in H o m e r’s Iliad ”, (IV 6.3 'Ρ ια ν φ δε έν το ΐς έπεσιν ούδέν Α ρ ισ το μ έν η ς έσ τίν α φ α νέσ τερ ο ς ή Ά χ ιλ λ εύ ς έν Ί λ ιά δ ι Ό μ ή ρ ω ). O u r fragm ents are indeed cast in the tra d itio n a l m old o f h e ro ic epic b o th as regards diction and conten t. A nd, at least on a th em atic level, they m ay have a specific epic m odel. F o r n o t only does th e general them e o f the city beleagered fo r years by a hostile p o w er recall th e cir-

3 On the identification cf. also E. Livrea, Gnomon 57 (1985) 600-601. Given the echoes of Iliad 8 in both fragments (cf. below), I think it likely that Lobel was correct when he suggested (ad finem fr. 2) that “if [the two fragments] were contiguous (or even close neighbors), it would be reasonable to suppose that the night referred to in fr. 2 was that preceding the daybreak envisaged in fr. 1.4, and that the order of the two should be reversed.” Rhianos also wrote several other long epic poems on local history: Θεσσαλικά in at least 16 books, ’Αχαϊκά in at least 4 books, ’Ηλιακά in at least 3 books. 4 It seems probable that the siege of Eira comprised the bulk of the epic, though the fate of the Messenians after their ultimate defeat there and the death of Aristomenes in Rhodes were also described. Cf. W. R. Misgeld, Rhianos von Bene und das historische Epos im Hellenismus (Diss. Köln 1968) 77-99.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

53

cum stances o f T ro y ,5 the situ atio n resem bles quite specifically th a t in th e e ig h th b o o k o f the Iliad w here, after th e d ay ’s com bat, n ig h t falls o n the d efen d ers o f the city. F o r these, the com ing o f n ig h t is u n w an ted , since it halts th e ir advance; fo r th e ir fru stra te d attackers, how ever, it is th e answ er to th e ir prayers (Τ ρω σ ίν μέν ρ ’ άέκουσ ιν έδυ φ άος, αύχάρ Ά χ α ιο ΐς / άσ πα σ ίη τρ ίλ λ ισ το ς έπήλυθε νύξ έρεβεννή ν. 4 8 7 -4 88). Sim ilarly in SH 947, the victorious d efen d ers w ish to extend th e b attle th ro u g h the night, w hile the d efeated L akonians are gratefu l fo r th e a d v en t o f d arkness (...ν ίκ η ι γά ρ ά γα λ λ ό μ εν ο ι ποθέεσ κον / κα[ί]περ κ[ε]κμηώχες ά νά κνέφ ας ά νχιά α σ θα ι. / ά σ πασ ίη δε Λ άκω σιν έπήλυθε νυκχός ομίχλη, ν. 2 -4 ). In Iliad 8 again, H e c to r exhorts his tro o p s to keep p ressuring the A chaeans so th a t “at least n o t w ith o u t a struggle, u n m olested, m ay th ey b o a rd th e ir ships, b u t in such a w ay th a t som e one o f them will nurse his w o u n d even back hom e, stru ck w ith an arro w o r a sh arp spear springing to his ship” (μη μάν ά σ π ο υ δί γε νεώ ν έπ ιβ α ΐεν έκηλοι, / ά λ λ ’ ώς χις χούχω ν γε βέλος κα ί ο’ίκοθι πέσση, / βλήμενος ή ίφ ή έγχει όξυόενχι / νηός έπιθρώ σκω ν ν. 512-515). L ike­ wise, the sp eak er in o u r hex am eter frag m e n t hopes th a t “we m ay see th em ru n n in g aw ay in the m o rn in g in h ead lo n g flight, overcom e by o u r arrow s, so th a t one in S parta disabled by a grievous w o u n d will rem em ­ b er us, n o r w o u ld he escape u n sca th e d ” (συν Διί δ’ ήώ ιους χά χα κεν φ εύ γο νχα ς ϊδ ο ιμ εν / πρ οχροπά δη ν, βελεεσσιν ύ φ ’ ή μ εχέροισ ι δαμέν[χας, / δ φ ρ α χις έν Σ πάρχηι βεβαρημ[έ]νος έλκει λ υ γρ ώ ι / μνήσεχαι ήμείω ν μηδ’ άσκηθής ύπαλύξηι. ν. 4 -7 ). Finally, b o th H e c to r and the speaker o f S H 946 o rd e r fires to be lit (//. 8.509 καίω μ εν π υρ ά π ο λ λ ά -π υ ρ ά κείαχε S H 946.9). T h e se echoes m ay ad d a m elancholy u n d e rc u rre n t to the ostensible M essen ian success, fo r these and th e ir cham pion, like the T ro ja n s an d theirs, w ere d o o m e d to fail in th e long run. Pausanias (IV 20.5) explicitly com pares the fall o f E ira to th a t o f T ro y . B ut w hile these elem ents hew quite closely to th e final p a rt o f Iliad 8 (an d so resem ble th e p o in te d allusions o f th e A lex an d rian élite), o th ers derive from a lto g e th e r d iffe re n t scenes. A nd y et o th ers show th a t o u r p o e t conceived o f this passage as largely conventional - a “typical scen e” as H o m e rists w o u ld call i t - , the n o c tu rn a l assem bley w ith paraenetic speech.6 T h e concern w ith the nigh t-w atch , fo r instance, is ty p i­ cal (//.8.529, b u t also cf. 7.371, 18.299). Sentinels are described as k eep ­ ing w atch by a fire elsew here to o (//.9.88 πΰρ κήανχο on th e A chaean 5 Cf. A. Couat’s discussion of Homeric echoes in the Messeniaka in Alexandrian Poetry under the first three Ptolemies (transi. J. Loeb, New York 1931) Bk. 3 ch.2, esp. pp. 366-370. 6 For a listing of paraenetic speeches generally cf. J. Latacz, Kampfparànese, Kampfidarstellung und Kampfiwirklichkeit in der Ilias, hei Kallinos und Tyrtaios (Munich 1977) 246-250.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

side; 10.418-420). T h e them e o f leaders go in g am o n g th e sentinels appears in //. 10.97 f. (δεϋρ’ ές τούς φ ύλακας κ α ταβ ή ομ εν cf. also 10.180 f.). T h e verb ρ ύομ α ι used, as at S H 946.10, o f the n ig h t-w a tc h p ro tectin g its side is fo u n d at Iliad 10.416-417 (φ ύλακας δ’ ας είρεαι, ήρως, / ού τις κεκριμένη ρ ύετα ι σ τρ α τό ν ούδέ φ υλάσσ ει; used in c o n ­ nection w ith a city cf. “H e s.” Scut. 105 ρ ύ ετα ι τε πόλη α). T h e sen tim en t w ith w hich o u r frag m en t begins, nam ely o f “stan d in g firm , as b e fo re ” (S H 946.2), is fam iliar e .g . fro m A ias’ w o rd s to M en elao s in Iliad 17.719-721: “we tw o shall f ig h t.. . / . . . w h o p reviously / sto o d firm against b itte r A res” (νώ ι μ α χ η σ ό μ ε θ α .. . / . . . ο ϊ το π ά ρ ο ς περ / μ ίμ νομ εν ό ξ ύ ν ’Ά ρ η α ). T h e desire to see the enem y overw helm ed by o n e ’s arro w s at V. 4 -5 of o u r frag m en t m ost closely ap p ro x im ates the w o rd in g o f Iliad 4.98-99 w here P a n d a ro s is to ld h o w P aris w o u ld rejoice “if he w ere to see M enelaos ... overw helm ed by y o u r a rro w ” (α ϊ κεν ιδη Μ ενέ­ λ α ο ν . . . / σ φ βέλεϊ δμηθέντα). Finally, w h a t m ore co n v en tio n al c o n clu ­ sion could o u r p o e t have given this speech th a n the p eo p le’s sh o u t o f approval? T h e conventional c h arac te r o f the passage stan d s o u t even m ore clearly in its diction. T h e first th in g to observe in this re g a rd is th a t this p o e t does not fav o r epic rarities, th a t is he does n o t seek o u t the H o m ­ eric hapax legomena o r d isp u ted w o rd s th a t are so ch aracteristic o f th e H ellenistic avant garde. O n e is always left w ith th e im pression (after having sw eated b lo o d to trace the u n u su al w o rd s o r fo rm s by m eans o f lexica and concordances) th a t the A lexandrian p o ets w ro te w ith th e ir “glossai” close at h and. Ju d g in g fro m w h a t is left o f this poem , its p o e t did n o t need them . H is style, m oreover, is freq u e n tly clum sy.7 I refer, fo r instance, to the re d u n d a n cy o f μηδ’ άσκηθής ύπαλύξηι (v. 7), “n o r w o u ld he escape u n sca th e d ”, a fte r the w ish th at, overcom e by arrow s, th e w o u n d e d enem y should rem em ber his adversary even b ack hom e; o r to the alm ost m echanical recourse to divine a ssistan c e -θ εώ [ν ίότ]ητι (v. 3), σύν Δ ιί (v. 4), τελευτήσ ειε Κ ρονίω ν (v. 8) - as well as to th e p ecu liar h arp in g on w h a t is “p ro p e r” - ώ ς έπέοικε (v. 8), έπεί τόδε κ ά λ λιό ν έσ τιν (ν. 11), ά λ λ ’ έπέοικεν / .......... ]πάντα τελεΐν φ ρ ο νέειν δ ’ έπ α ρ η ρ ό τα θυμώ ι (ν. 13-14). Such clum siness is co m p o u n d ed by a n o th e r fe a tu re o f o u r p o e t’s d ic­ tio n - n a m e ly the num ero u s epic locutions ad d u ced by Lobel, and now reh earsed and augm ented by P arso n s and L loyd-Jones in th e ir co m ­ m entary to th e fragm ents. F o r a fte r exam ining the m an y parallels, exact o r near, fo r such expressions as ώς τό π ά ρ ο ιθ ε (O d. 2.312), θεώ ν ίό τη τι (II. 19.9, Od. 7.214, etc.; cf. the w hole p h rase έπ ειτα θεώ ν ίό τη τι at Η. 7 “stilus inconcinnus”, say Lloyd-Jones and Parsons.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

55

H.Aphr. 166), συν Δ ιί (Oc/. 16.260, Η. Η. 24.5, b o th u n n o te d by the ed ito rs), ελκεϊ λ υγρ ώ ι (II. 15.393, 19.49), τελευτήσ ειε Κ ρονίω ν (Od. 20.236 etc.), έπεί χόδε κ ά λλιόν έσ χιν (Od. 3.70, 8.543, 7.159), ΐα χ ε λαός (//. 13.822, 834, 17.723, etc.,8 a re a d e r com es aw ay w ith the overw helm ­ ing im pression th a t this a u th o r em ploys epicism in a “non -allu siv e” w ay - t h a t is, his v o cabulary is generally n o t in ten d ed to recall p a rticu lar ch aracters, descriptions o r tu rn s o f phrase in specific scenes o f the Iliad o r Odyssey,9 R ath er, it is sprinkled indiscrim inately th ro u g h o u t so as to lend the n arrativ e a b ro a d epic coloring, an elevated, venerable tone. P arad oxically, the very freq u en cy o f these ultim ately g ratu ito u s epicism s c o n trib u te s to the aw kw ardness o f th e style. G iven th e d o m in a n t im pression o f b ro a d H o m erizin g , it can h ard ly be ju s t coin cid en tal th a t no critic has n o ted th e larg er resem blance in situ atio n , discussed above, betw een o u r passage and Iliad 8 - th o u g h th ey d u ly cite th e individual echoes.101R a th e r such n o n -a llu s iv e epicism tends, precisely because o f its em phatically rep ro d u ctiv e and vaguely evocative quality, to obscure specific sim ilarities. T h e m any conven­ tional, non-sp ecific epic elem ents effectively m u d d y th e w a te r s - o r , in th e p ro g ram m a tic “B ildersprache” o f C allim ach u s’ second hym n (v. 108 f .), we can say th a t o u r fragm ents are as fa r fro m th e ir H o m e ric origins as th e im m ense b u t filth y A ssyrian stream (an im age o f the stale c o n te m p o ra ry epic) from its pu re (H om eric) so u rce.11 8 Cf. even such phrases as v. 11 καί αύτός, έπεί = Od. 17.573 same sedes; and while ούδέ καί αύτός does not exist in Homer, we do find οιδα καί αύτός in the same position (//. 19.421). 9 This seems to be what Lobel meant when, in his introductory remarks to the frag­ ments, he said that “the language has a vaguely Homeric tincture without being in detail particularly imitative”. If these fragments are indeed by Rhianos, one should note how dissimilar they are to his epigrams, for these exhibit a playfully elegant style entirely in keeping with Alexandrian practice. This is likewise true of the self-conscious allusiveness of his longest fragment (21 verses, p.9 Powell, fr. 1; cf. G.Zanker’s evaluation, Realism in Alexandrian Poetry [Kent 1986] 110-111 n. 151.). We note, moreover, that like many Alexandrian poets he was an active scholar, producing an edition of Homer which was frequently cited in the Scholia (cf. Pfeiffer, Hist. pp. 122, 148-149). Our fragments, by contrast, while clearly drawing on the style of old epic, are awkward and repetitive. Should we assume that Rhianos adopted different styles for different projects?. 10 I refer to Lobel {op. cit.). Parsons and Lloyd-Jones {op. cit.), Livrea {op. cit.), and W .Luppe in his review of Lobel, Gnomon 46 (1974) 647-648. 11 I follow here the interpretation of F. Williams, Callimachus; Hymn to Apollo (Oxford 1978) 85-89, who argues that when Phthonos stealthily whispers into Apollo’s ear, criticizing the poet whose song is not as great as the sea (ούκ αγαμαι τον άοιδόν δς ούδ’ δσα πόντος άείδει ν. 106), he is playing on a topical comparison of the sea (Pontos/ Okeanos) with Homer. Tacitly accepting the sea, i. e. Homer, as a positive standard, Apollo parries with different images for various kinds of song: the huge but muddy Assyrian river (traditionalist epic); the pristine droplets from the unsullied spring (refined, diminutive Callimachean verse). Both waters, in the old conception (cf. II.

56

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

A final p o in t rem ains to be m ade, nam ely th a t such m echanical use o f epic conventions seems strongly to affirm th e c o n tin u e d fu n c tio n in g o f a living tra d itio n . W e fin d no percep tio n w h a tso e v e r o f th e g e n re ’s anem ia. R hianos can devise an epic h e ro w h o is “n o less g lo rio u s” th a n H o m e r’s A chilles. A nd am ong the general p o p u lace th e re is evidently still an audience eager fo r such la tte r-d a y A chilleses. O ld -fa sh io n e d epic is here alive and fam iliar, a taste passed o n fro m g e n eratio n to g e n ­ e ra tio n -u n m in d fu l o f the rift w hich A lex an d er’s conquests h a d p r o ­ duced in society and culture. A nd th o u g h th e p o in te d allusions to Iliad 8 prevent us fro m describing the frag m en ts as m erely “das g e d a n k e n ­ lose ‘kyklische’ N a c h p la p p e rn ” o f old epic style (C h rist-S ch m id , Ge­ schichte der griechischen Literatur II, 1 p. 116), th e ir co n v en tio n al q u ality is unm istakable, p robably desired by, and pleasing to th e public. P e r­ h a p s - i f they possessed som e aw areness o f th e r i f t - i t was even c o m ­ forting. O u r fragm ents, th e n ,- w ith th e ir non-allusive epicism, fam iliar epic vocabulary, “typical” actions tak en over intact, above all the sense th ey convey th a t tra d itio n a l epic language and c o n ten t rem ain n o t ju st viable b u t u n dim inished by any ru p tu re betw een the old w o rld an d the n e w -p ro b a b ly provide us w ith a fa ir exam ple o f th o se traits th a t c h a r­ acterized the b u lk o f epic p ro d u c e d at this tim e. Y et there w ere poets in w hom the altered circum stances o f th e H e ll­ enistic w o rld p ro d u c e d an acute sense o f d isco n tin u ity an d iso latio n . T h is was especially tru e o f th o se w h o left th e ir native lands to com e to A le x a n d ria -a city n o t ju st geographically rem o te fro m th e re st o f the G reek w o rld b u t lacking even th o se ties en jo y ed by colonial G re ek fo u n d atio n s, i.e. the in stitu tio n al co n n ectio n to a m o th e r city w ith w hich it could share political, cultu ral and religious tra d itio n s .12 T h e ru p tu re w ith the literary past, w hich these poets so keenly felt, is m anifested in a variety o f w ays. T h e o c ritu s, fo r instance, w rites fo u r epigram s th a t pose as inscriptions fo r the statues o f an cien t po ets (X V II A nacreon, X V III E picharm us, X X I A rchilochus, X X II P e isa n d e r).12a W e may, on the one hand, constru e these poem s as sim ple trib u tes to the greats o f the past, as a setting o f m em orials - fictitio u s th o u g h th ey m ay be. Y et they also express T h e o c ritu s’ rem o ten ess fro m his p re d e 21.195-197, Xenophanes fr.30 D K ), derived from the sea; just as all subsequent poetry was thought to have its fountain-head in Homer. But while the droplets of the spring communicate unimpeded with their source, the river’s streams become sluggish and pol­ luted, estranged from their origin. In literary terms, Callimachean song, though small in scale, is truer to its Homeric source than are those epics that resemble Homer in exter­ nals. For criticism of Williams’ interpretation cf. A.Koehnken, AJPh 102 (1981) 411-422. 12 Cf. G .Zänker, A & A 29 (1983) 137f. 12a I hope to treat these epigrams in detail in a future article.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

57

cessors inasm uch as he explicitly consigns them to a n o th e r age: A n a­ creo n is “p re -e m in e n t, if an y th in g is, am ong p o ets o f y o re ” (τω ν π ρ ό σ θ’ εί τ ι περ ισ σ ό ν φ δ ο π ο ιώ ν X V H .4); A rchilochus is το ν π ά λ α ι π ο ιη τά ν (X X L 1); P eisan d er, π ρ α το ς τώ ν έπάνω θε μ ουσοπ οιώ ν (X X II.3); E p ich arm us, ό τά ν κ ω μ ω δία ν / εύρώ ν (X V III. 1-2). O f course, this id e n ­ tifies the a u th o r o f th e epigram s, as well as his readers, as “m o d e rn ” even as it sets A nacreon, E picharm us, A rchilochus and P e isan d e r ap art in th e past. T h e re is, how ever, a n o th e r aspect o f these poem s th a t is even m ore im p o rta n t in this reg ard . I m ean th e fact th a t T h e o c ritu s is h ere casting th e h eritage in a very suggestive f o r m - a s a m o n u m en t o f sto n e o r b ro n z e , a literary fossil, envisioned by th e p o e t and his read er. C o n tra ry to w h a t one m ay have heard, in this instance at least the m ute stones do n o t speak. O n e could h ard ly im agine a m ore e lo q u en t im age fo r th e radical otherness o f the poetic past. Y et such an im age did in fa c t exist, and it rises now to su d d en p ro m i­ nence: the im age o f u ltim ate ru p tu re, death. T h e p o e try o f this age c o n ­ tains num ero u s expressions o f m o u rn in g fo r th e literary heritage. In his p ro g ram m a tic elegy, fo r instance (S H 705.18-20, discussed in th e previ­ ous ch. p. 15, 37 f.), P oseidippus bids his readers to pay trib u te to the great P a ria n p o e t A rchilochus as follow s: “b u t to the P arian n ightingale give a m o u rn fu l / floo d, sh ed d in g em pty tears fro m the eyes and g ro an in g in la m e n ta tio n ” (άλλ’ επί μεν Παρ(ί)ηι δος α η δό νι λ υ γρ ό ν έφ.[ / νά μ α κ α τά γλ η νέω ν δ ά κ ρ υα κεινά χ£φ [ν / κα ί σ τενά χω ν). T o appreciate the full force o f this gesture o f m ourning, one m ust recall th a t A rchilochus h ad n o t died yesterday: P oseidippus is calling atte n tio n to the d eath o f a p o e t w ho h a d flo u rish ed som e 300 years before! Yet, fo r th e H ellen is­ tic a u th o r th e p ainful sense o f separation , n o rm ally m ark in g only the initial p erio d o f b ereavem ent, has once again becom e acute. In the 3rd cent. B .C ., they are w e e p in g - a g a in - f o r A rchilochus. T h is sam e p ersisten t g rief appears in th e Lament fo r Bion (late 2nd, early 1st cent. B .C .), w here so rro w at the d e ath o f this c o n tem p o rary bucolic a u th o r is likened to th a t felt fo r the poets o f th e past. H o m e r’s d e ath com es first, o f course (v. 70 ff.), w ith a detailed description o f how his fa th e r, th e riv er-g o d M eles, filled his stream s w ith tears and th e sea w ith his cries o f lam entation. A catalo g u e o f fu rth e r fam ous poets follow s a fte r (v. 87 ff.): ’Άσκρα μέν γοάει σε (scii. Bion) πολύ πλέον 'ΗσιόδοιοΠίνδαρον ού ποθέοντι τόσον Βοιωτίδες ύλαιού τόσον Άλκαίω περιμύρατο Λέσβος έραννά, ούδέ τόσον τόν άοιδόν όδύρατο Τήιον άστυσέ πλέον Άρχιλόχοιο ποθεί Πάρος, αντί δε Σαπφοϋς είσέτι σεΰ τό μέλισμα κινύρεται ά Μιτυλήνα.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

Askra bewails you (scii. Bion) more by far than it does Hesiod. The Boeotian woods do not yearn as much for Pindar. Not so much did lovely Lesbos lament Alcaeus, nor so much d'd the city of Teos mourn its singer (scil. Anacreon); Paros misses you more than it does Archilochus, and not still for Sappho’s song, for yours Mitylene now laments. W ith this ex trav ag an t enu m eratio n , th e g rief at B ion’s d eath is d ep icted as exceeding even th a t fo r the g reatest po ets o f the past. Y et fo r o u r purposes the p o in t o f in te re st is th e u n d erly in g assu m p tio n th ro u g h w hich th a t g rief is m agnified all the m ore: nam ely th a t A sk ra is still bew ailing H esio d , the B oeotian w o o d s still y earn fo r P in d ar, P a ro s still misses A rchilochus. A c o n tem p o rary sense o f loss fo r th e p o ets o f th e past is simply taken fo r g ra n te d .13 T h e sentim ent th a t we find reflected in these poem s, how ever, receives its m o st striking em b o d im en t elsew here, nam ely in th e d ev elo p ­ m en t and p ro liferatio n o f a specifically literary, p u rely fictitious version o f the trad itio n al epitaph (cf. ch. 1 p .3 9 f.), am o n g w hich th o se fo r th e g re a t poetic personalities o f the p a st becom e especially c o m m o n .14 H o m er, H esiod, A rchilochus, P in d ar, etc. are recipients o f fu n ereal h o n o rs accorded to them across a gulf o f space and tim e by an e x tra o r­ dinary range o f H ellenistic poets. A n tip ater o f Sidon (m id 2nd cent. B. 13 With the Hellenistic Age, the death of poets' becomes itself a poetic theme. Thus Euphorion of Chalkis (2nd half of the 3rd cent. B.C.?) wrote a poem called “H esiod” (fr. 22, 22 b p.34 Powell) in which the only event we can identify with some certainty is the poet’s death. And in a poem transmitted under the name of the early 3rd cent. B.C. author Sotades (15 p.243 Powell) we encounter a straightforward list of great poetic dead: ... πάντες όσοι περισσόν ήθέλησαν εύρεϊν ή μηχανικόν ποίημ’ ή σοφόν μάθημα, ουτοι κακόν εις τόν θάνατον τέλος έποίησαν__ Αίσχύλφ γράφοντί (τι) έπιπέπτωκε χελώνη. Σοφοκλής ράγα φαγών σταφυλής πνιγείς τέθνηκε. Κύνες οί κατά Θρςικην Εύριπίδην έτρωγον. Τόν θειον Ό μηρον λιμός κατεδαπάνησεν.

5

13

All those who exceedingly wished to discover either an artful product or subtle knowledge, these made a bad end in death__ A tortoise fell on Aeschylus as he was writing something. Sophocles choked while eating a grape from a bunch and died. Dogs in Thrace devoured Euripides. Hunger consumed the god-like Homer. At a later time (3rd cent. A.D .) we think of Diogenes Laertius’ Pammetros, a book of epigrams on the deaths of famous figures from the Greek tradition (cf. Diog. Laert. I 63). 14 These form a large proportion of the Hellenistic epigrams on poets collected by M. Gabathuler, Hellenistische Epigramme au f Dichter, (Basel 1937).

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

59

C.) w ro te no less th a n five sepulchral poem s on Anacreon alone (AP V II 23 = G-P X III, A P V II 26 = G-P X IV , A P V II 27 = G-P X V , AP V H 29 = G-P X V I, A P V II 30 = G-P X V II). P erh ap s this show s a fo n d n ess o f “variatio n s on the sam e th em e”, as G ow and Page rem ark (voi. II p. 33), b u t it also reflects a significant, if b izarre, p reo ccu p atio n w ith A n acreo n dead! F o r A n tipater, as fo r m any o f the m ore self-co n ­ scious poets o f the Age, such fictitious epitaphs m ay have fulfilled a need to deal w ith the fact th a t the old poetic w o rld (and its m overs) in som e fu n d a m e n ta l sense n o lo n g er existed. A n ep itap h by Simias o f R h o d es (flor. ca. 300 B. C.) fo r the trag ed ian Sophocles provides an early exam ple (AP V II 21 = G-P 4): Τόν σε χοροίς μέλψαντα Σοφοκλέα, παΐδα Σοφίλλου, τον τραγικής Μούσης άστέρα Κεκρόπιον, πολλάκις ον θυμέλησι καί έν σκηνήσι τεθηλώς βλαισός Άχαρνίτης κισσός έρεψε κόμην, τύμβος έχει καί γής ολίγον μέρος- άλλ’ ό περισσός αιών άθανάτοις δέρκεται έν σελίσιν. You who sang in the choruses, Sophocles, son of Sophillos, Kekropian (i.e. Athenian) star of the tragic Muse, whose hair the twisting Acharnian ivy, blossom-bedecked, often crowned by the orchestra’s altar and on the stage, a tomb and a little plot of earth now holds you; but the rest of time beholds you in the deathless columns of your writing. T h e poem contains all the earm arks o f a tra d itio n a l sepulchral epigram . T h e d ead m an is nam ed, his ancestry and h o m elan d established, his p ro fessio n c h arac te riz ed and his achievem ents praised. T h e glory o f his life, we are to ld , stands in sh arp est c o n tra st to th e p itiful fact o f d eath: a little p lo t o f e arth suffices to h o ld even so g re a t a m an as Sophocles. T h e re could be no p lain er statem en t of d isco n tin u ity and, w ith it, o f the g u lf th a t Sim ias felt betw een him self and the p o e t o f th e past. T h e irre ­ p arab le rift is m irro re d even in the simple o p p o sitio n o f tenses (aorist, V. 1-4, fixing th e d ra m a tist’s accom plishm ents in tim e gone by; present, V. 5, asserting th e c o n tin u in g fa c t o f his d eath ). A nd alth o u g h the c o n ­ ven tio n al c o n so la tio n th a t the dead m an’s w orks live on appears to se­ cure a kind o f c o n tin u ity (v. 5 -6 ), it in fact conceals a n o th e r kind o f gulf, nam ely th a t c o n tain ed in the p o in ted c o n tra st o f έν σκηνήσι (v. 3) an d έν σ ελ ίσ ιν (v .6 ) - t h e old norm o f p erfo rm an ce; the new im p o r­ tan ce o f reading, δέρ κ ετα ι (v. 6) describes n o t th e action o f the A th e ­ n ian sp e c ta to r w h o m ig h t have h eard Sophocles singing (μ έλψ α ντα v. 1) in th e T h e a tre o f D ionysus, b u t th a t o f the 3rd cent. B .C . re a d e r “see­ in g ” th e play in his m ind. “T h e rest o f tim e”, ό περ ισ σ ό ς / α ιώ ν (v. 5 -6) seem s also to set th a t action a p art as “m o d e rn ” and d istin ct fro m the

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

previous age. N o t only is Sophocles dead, then, his m edium o f c o m m u ­ nication has becom e (fo r th e learn ed Simias, at least) rem ote. It is instructive to com pare a very d iffe re n t (so m ew h at earlier) response to th e literary heritage, in w hich p ast poets, fa r fro m restin g in th e ir graves, com pete actively w ith th e ir successors. Such a situ atio n appears in an epigram w hich the trag ed ian A stydam as w ro te fo r a statue o f him self erected by the A thenians in th e th e a tre o f D io n y su s to com m em orate his victory in the d ram atic co m p etitio n o f 340 B. C. (Page FGE p .3 3 -3 4 = Snell TrGF 1, 60 T 2 a). A stydam as h ere refers to the practice, in tro d u ce d in 386 B .C ., o f reviving one fifth -c e n tu ry tra g e d y p rio r to the p erfo rm an ce o f th e th re e new trilo g ies.15 ει'θ’ εγώ εν κείνοις γενόμην ή κείνοι αμ’ ήμϊν οϊ γλώσσης τερπνής πρώτα δοκοΰσι φέρειν, ώς επ’ άληθείας έκρίθην άφεθείς παράμιλλος· νυν δε χρόνφ προέχουσ’, οις φθόνος ούχ επεται. Would that I had been born with them, or they with me, who are esteemed for taking the prize in the pleasing word, so that I, as befits the truth, would have been judged an equal competitor, starting level with the rest. But now they are ahead in time, pursued no more by envy. T h o u g h this epigram is so b o astfu l th a t the A th en ian s w o u ld n o t allow it to be incised on the statu e-b ase (Suda s.v. σ α υτή ν έπ α ινεϊς), it still betrays a keen aw areness o f the situ a tio n ’s u n d erly in g oppressiveness. F o r alth o u g h the o ld e r tragedies w ere p e rfo rm ed o u tsid e th e actual com petition, they nevertheless shared th e sam e stage and g en eral tim efram e, so th a t the audience w ou ld inevitably and easily co m p are and debate the relative m erits o f the tw o .16 T h e p o e t th u s sees h im self as a co m p etito r (πα ρά μ ιλλος v. 3) in a race in w hich his o p p o n e n t enjoys a p erpetual edge,17 u n checked by the h an d icap o f envy. W hile A risto ­ phanes in the Frogs had im agined a co n test betw een deceased tra g e d i­ ans in the u n d erw o rld , this p o e m - a n d th e 4th cent, situ atio n it reflects 15 Cf. IG ii2 2338 = Snell, TrGF 1 , DID A l 201 reprinted in Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals o f Athens1 (Oxford 1968) 104 f. whose comments (p.72) are apposite. Later, by the mid 3rd cent. B.C., several old tragedies would be performed in competition with each other, cf. Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. p.123-124 = Snell, op. cit. DID A4b. 16 Thus also G.A. Seeck, Das griechische Drama (Darmstadt 1979) 185-186, who speaks of “Das 5.Jh. als Konkurrent”. Cf. G.Xanthakis-Karamanos, Studies in Fourth Century Tragedy (Athens 1980) 22-24. 17 χρόνφ προέχουσ’ playing cleverly on the custom that the performance of the revival preceded that of the trilogies. The epigram elaborates a comparison in the well-known lament of Choirilos of Samos (5 //3 1 7 , cited in the previous chapter p. 13), where the poet complained that, in literary terms, he had been “left behind like the last in a race”, ύστατοι ώστε δρόμου καταλειπόμεθ’ (ν.4).

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

61

- t a k e us a m acabre step beyond: here the living m u st com pete w ith the d e a d .18 T h e situ a tio n o f th e A lex an d rian poets w as alto g e th er d ifferen t. F o r th e ir w orks and those o f th e ir predecessors w ere n o t req u ired to ap p ear in p o te n tia lly em b arrassin g pro x im ity to one a n o th e r o n the sam e stage. O n the co n trary , the sim ple act o f reading w hich, as we have seen, now cam e to d o m in a te p ro d u c tio n and receptio n o f verse, k ep t th em p al­ pab ly apart. T h e distin ctio n could n o t be m ore tellingly enunciated th a n in the tw o poem s w e have ju st exam ined. F o r Simias, a d ram atic w o rk existed n o t as it h ad fo r A stydam as in “live” p erform ance, b u t in “deathless colum ns o f w ritin g ” (ά θ α ν ά τ ο ις ... έν σ ελίσιν v. 6). T h e genre w hich m ore th a n any o th e r had been addressed to the com m unity and experienced in public was now received in a qualitatively d ifferen t way, in the largely private act o f reading, w here it was up to th e individual to d ecid e w h e th e r to com pare a given play w ith any other, o r even to te rm in ate his ow n experience o f the sam e sim ply by p u ttin g dow n the scroll. P o etic w orks thus rem ained discrete n o t only fro m each other, but, in a new and significant way, from th e ir readers as well; fo r they w ere now co m m u n icated n o t by one hum an being to an o th er, b u t by an o b je c t- th e s c ro ll-w h ic h could be viewed as “living” only in th e m eta­ p h o rical sense im plied by th e q u o ta tio n m arks w ith w hich I have set o ff th e w o rd . It is n o t least o f all the new role o f reading, and w ith it the fu n d a m e n ta l difference in existential m ode betw een read er and poem , th a t opens the d o o r to th a t sense o f ru p tu re expressed in the re c u rre n t im age o f d eath . T h e m ore co n ventional 3rd cent, poets, o f course, (purveyors o f tra ­ d itio n al epic) could reg ard them selves as vying w ith th e ir g reat fo re ru n ­ ner, H o m e r. Indeed, precisely this is im plied in a fam ous passage fro m T h e o c ritu s ’ Thalysia (Idyll 7) w here the g o a th e rd -p o e t Lycidas avows th a t he hates th o se “cocks o f the M uses w h o lose th e ir toil w ith cro w ­ ing ag ain st th e C h ian b a rd ” (v. 4 7-48). B ut fo r th o se w ith som e sense o f the rift it w as vain to com pete w ith the past. So fa r as I can tell, the H ellen istic a v an t-g ard e is o f a piece in never expressing its relatio n sh ip to w ard s the literary h eritage in agonistic term s. F ar m ore characteristic (an d p erhaps a deliberate c o n tra st to th e attitu d e described above) is Lycidas’ w ish so m ew h at la te r in the Thalysia th a t his illustrious p re c u r­ so r in bucolic song, K om atas, could be alive to sing to him to d a y (v. 86-89): 18 Later, the idea of living authors in competition with their predecessors entered the literature of critical theory. Pseudo-Longinus, for instance, describes Plato’s relationship to Homer as follows (13.4): ώς ανταγωνιστής νέος προς ήδη τεθαυμασμένον, ίσως μέν φιλονεικότερον καί οίονεί διαδορατιζόμενος, ούκ άνωφελώς δ όμως διηριστευετο- θεοφοροΰνται πνεύματι τον αύτόν τρόπον, όν καί την Πυθίαν λόγος έχει.

62

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

αϊθ’ επ’ έμεϋ ζωοϊς έναρίθμιος ώφελες ήμεν ώς τοι έγών ένόμευον άν’ ώρεα τάς καλάς αιγας φωνας είσαΐων, τύ δ’ ύπό δρυσίν ή ύπό πεύκαις άδύ μελισδόμενος κατεκέκλισο, θειε Κομάτα. If only you had been numbered among the living in my day that I might have pastured your lovely goats in the mountains listening to your voice, while you reclined beneath oaks or pines sweetly singing, O sacred Komatas. T h e sim ilarity to A stydam as’ w ish, exam ined above, is striking. Y et it only underlines the g re a t difference in to n e. Like Lycidas, A stydam as w ants to com m une w ith the poets o f th e past, b u t w hereas th e d ra m a ­ tist’s desire stem s from a fru stra tio n at being c o n fro n te d w ith a living p ast w ith w hich in effect he h ad to com pete, Lycidas’ w ish is n o stalg ic in its aw areness th a t K om atas belongs irrevocably to a n o th e r age. Y et we m ust n o t th in k th at, th o u g h en to m b ed , th e literary p a st was m orib u n d o r w ith o u t effect on the present. O u r fictitious epitaphs do n o t attem pt to nail dow n the coffin lid. O n the co n trary , th ey reveal th a t rigor mortis could be perceived in varying degrees and th a t despite th e ir aw areness o f being “ep ig o n o i”, i. e. o f having been b o rn a fte r the fact, the H ellenistic poets saw no cause fo r despair. T h e ir response is n o t one o f fro ze n grief. R a th e r they fo u n d in this situation a source o f em pow erm ent. In Sim ias’ epigram fo r S ophocles we saw that, w hile the d ra m a tist m ig h t be dead, his w ritten legacy lived on, an a rtifact open to critical scrutiny and ap p reciatio n . In one o f A n tip ater’s sepulchral epigram s fo r A nacreon, m en tio n ed above, w e are taken a step fu rth e r (AP V II 2 6 .1 - 4 = G-P X IV 1 -4 ) : Ξεΐνε, τάφον πάρα λιτόν Άνακρείοντος άμείβων, εϊ τί τοι εκ βίβλων ήλθεν έμών οφελος, σπεΐσον έμη σποδιη, σπεΐσον γάνος, οφρα κεν οΐνω όστέα γηθήση τάμά νοτιζόμενα__ Stranger, you who pass by Anacreon’s humble grave, if ever any advantage came to you through my scrolls, pour on my ashes, pour the delicious libation, so that my bones may rejoice, being sprinkled with wine__ H e re again the effect o f the a u th o r’s boo k s e n d u res b ey o n d his d e ath . Y et we note tw o in teresting differences. First, th e co n tem p o rary p a s­ serby can, th ro u g h a sym pathetic act, a libation, in som e sense reactivate A n acreo n ’s b o isterous w a y s - if only in th e u n d e rw o rld . Second, A n tip a ­ te r effectively does ju st th a t by letting th e d ead m an speak fo r him self and evoke those ways. T h a t the d ep arted sh o u ld speak is, o f course, a com m on featu re o f sepulchral verse. T h e use o f this tech n iq u e here, how ever, in a poem m erely posing as an ep itap h som e 300 years a fte r

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

63

A nacreon’s demise, may be said to embrace also the desire o f the H ell­ enistic poet to reanimate the spirit o f his literary ancestor, to capture his voice. A n tip a te r is not, how ever, like the m o d ern m edium w ho, subm erging his consciousness, su b o rd in ates his p erso n ality to th a t o f th e d eceased .19 H e ra th e r tran sfo rm s the voice o f his subject, m aking it u n m istak ab ly his own: the public’s “ad v an tag e” (όφ ελος v. 2) was n o t an aim o f A n a cre o n ’s verse as w e know it; w h a t is m ore, th e 6th cent. B .C . p o e t w ou ld h a rd ly have talk e d o f “my b o o k s” . T h a t reference prom pts us to re c o n sid e r o u r initial response to th a t tra d itio n a l figure o f sepulchral epigram , the passerby: w hile this c h arac te r is u n ique w ithin G re ek literary genres as having always em bodied th e “re a d e r” (fo r he was co n v en tio n ally assum ed to resp o n d to th e grave-stele as “te x t”), the re a d e r o f this poem rem ains a passerby only figuratively. F o r he en co u n ters A n a cre o n ’s ep itap h as he m akes his w ay th ro u g h the scroll. H e re , as in o th e r com parable epigram s, this c o n tem p o rary nuance is p a rt o f the p o em ’s p o in t and ch arm .20 A nd hence, as in th e case o f the fictitious b o o k inscriptions discussed in the previous c h ap ter (p. 29 f.), the p o em ’s m o d e rn ity w as never in doubt. A n tip a te r’s A n acreo n speaks and is view ed as acting entirely from the confines o f the u n d e rw o rld . Y et th ere w ere cases in w hich a p o e t’s p e r­ so n ality was depicted as re ta in in g such a h ig h degree o f p o ten cy that, even in d eath , it m ight en cro ach on the realm o f th e living. Such was the conceit applied by a n u m b er o f H ellen istic poets to th a t ferocious a u th o r o f invective, H ip p o n a x . In these poem s, the re a d er is typically w a rn ed to tre a d softly in passing by the to m b o f the iam b o g rap h er lest he aro use his slum bering ire -s in c e even in th e p erp etu al n ig h t o f d eath he is a p p aren tly a very light sleeper. T h u s Leonidas o f T a re n tu m (m id 3rd cent. B. C.) cautions the passerby n o t to “w ake th e angry w asp w ho has p au sed fro m his an g er in sleep” (A P V II 408.1-2 = G-P LV III 1-2), and the epig ram m atist A lcaeus (early 2nd cent. B .C .) advises him to “p ra y th a t th e corpse sleep in g o o d w ill” (A P V II 536.6 = G-P X III 19 We note that Pseudo-Longinus would later describe the relationship between a poet and his literary antecedent in just this way, namely by depicting the former as possessed by the latter, like the Delphic Pythia by her god (13.2): πολλοί γάρ [scil. poets] άλλοτρίφ θεοφοροϋνται πνεύματι τον αύτόν τρόπον, όν καί την Πυθίαν λόγος εχει. 20 If, as Η. White has proposed (N ew Essays in Hellenistic Poetry [Amsterdam 1985] 60-64), we retain the MS reading of line five (ώς ό Διονύσου μεμελημένος ούασι κώμος) rather than the emended text printed by Gow and Page (ώς ό Διωνυσου μεμελημενος εύάσι κώμοις), there may once more be a deliberate contrast between Anacreon’s former performative mode of communication and the present reception of his work through books (cf. Simias’ epitaph for Sophocles, above p. 59 f.). For White defends the MS tradi­ tion by arguing that κώμος should appear with a capital K, and that Antipater’s Anacreon describes himself as “I, Komos personified, who am dear to the ears of Dionysus”.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

6). P articu larly interesting fo r o u r p u rp o ses is th e v ariatio n w ith w hich T h e o c ritu s provides us (AP X III 3 = G-P X III = G o w X IX ). 'Ο μουσοποιός ένθάδ’ Ίππώναξ κεΐται. εί μεν πονηρός, μή προσέρχευ τφ τύμβον εί δ’ έσσί κρήγυός τε και. παρά χρηστών, θαρσέων καθίζευ, κήν θέλης άπόβριξον. Here lies Hipponax, maker of verses. If you are wicked, do not approach this tomb; but if you are honest and a child of good parents, fear not, have a seat and, if you want, take a nap. As in A n tip ater’s sepulchral poem fo r A n acreo n , th e verses m ay be view ed as the u tteran ce o f the deceased,21 and h ere again th e p o e t tra n s ­ form s the dead m an’s voice to m ake it his ow n. Y et w e n o te an im p o r­ ta n t difference w hich, on the one hand, draw s T h e o c ritu s sig n ifican tly closer th an A n tip ater to his archaic m odel, w hile sim u ltan eo u sly s h ift­ ing him aw ay fro m conventional (if fictitious) ep itap h . F o r the poem is w ritten n o t in any m eter typical o f epitaphs - indeed, it is to m y k n o w ­ ledge u n p re c e d e n te d -, b u t in “scazo n s” (o r lim ping iam bs), th e c h a ra c ­ teristic cadence o f H ip p o n a x ’ verse. M o reo v er, it is gen erally th o u g h t th a t T h e o c ritu s even ap p ro p riates H ip p o n a c te a n v o cab u lary (cf. G o w an d D o v er ad κρήγυος v. 3), and it seem s to me th a t th e re is also an attem p t to capture som e o f th a t p o e t’s h u m o r, th o u g h in a very m ild form , in the unexpected o ffe r o f a to m b sid e nap (the w hich one m ig h t regard, w h e th e r one w as h o n e st o r not, w ith a certain ju stifiab le a p p re ­ hension). In all, then, we see n o t ju st th e critical ap p reciatio n p re se n t in Sim ias’ poem on Sophocles, n o r the so m ew h at m o re specific a tte m p t o f A n tip ater to “catch the sp irit” o f A nacreon, b u t ra th e r an en g ag ed exploration and ad ap ta tio n o f H ip p o n a x - a n a u th o r so vivid as v irtu ­ ally to leap o u t o f his g r a v e - , dow n to the details o f diction, m e te r and style. R eflected, then, in varying degrees o f in ten sity in these fictitio u s epitaphs is precisely the tension w hich c h arac te riz ed the rela tio n sh ip o f th e A lexandrian a u th o rs w ith th e ir poetic past: on the one h a n d th e aw areness o f ru p tu re so evident in this p reo ccu p atio n w ith th e literary dead; on the o ther, the a rd e n t desire to b rid g e th e g u lf and establish a lin k - th o u g h one com m ensurate to the needs an d exp ectatio n s o f th e age. F o r the p ecu liar blend o f tra d itio n and in n o v atio n w hich d istin ­ guishes H ellenistic verse stands in d irect p ro p o rtio n to th e in ten sity w ith w hich th e rift is felt; and if, as H a ro ld B loom has said, “d isco n ti21 Cf. Gow ad v. 1 κεΐται and note Hipponax’ fondness for naming himself fr. 32.4; 36.2; 37; 117.4 West.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

65

n u ity is fre e d o m ”,22 then th e linkage w hich these poets so u g h t contains, I th in k , a h e alth y dose o f th a t freedom . T h e A lex an d rian a tte m p t to bridge the g u lf- w h ile still ack n o w led g ­ ing it- y ie ld e d strik in g contrivances, the m o st obvious o f w hich was sim ply to b rin g the dead back to life.23 T h u s C allim achus, building on th e idea o f H ip p o n a x ’ p o sth u m o u s virulence, actually resuscitates the p o e t in his first Iambos (fr. 191), having him scold the co n ten tio u s philologoi a t th e S arapeion (D ieg. V I 1.3-4) o f his ow n A lexandria. Άκούσαθ’ Ίππώνακτος- ού γάρ -άλλ’ ηκω έκ των δκου βουν κολλύβου πιπρήσκουσιν, φέρων ’ίαμβον ού μάχην άείδοντα την Βουπάλειον... Listen to Hipponax. For indeed I have come from the place where they sell an ox for a penny [i.e. Hades], bearing an iamb which does not sing the Boupaleian battle... T h e m eter here is th e H ip p o n a cte a n scazon, th e d ialect Ionic, b o th o f w hich w e en co u n te re d in T h e o c ritu s; likew ise H ip p o n actean is the p o e t’s nam ing o f him self (cf. fr. 32.4; 36.2; 37; 117.4 W est), his p o o r m an ’s in te re st in cheap b eef24 and the ta rt, b a n terin g style w ith w hich the frag m e n t co n tin u es.25 T h e content, how ever, is trim m ed entirely to 22 The Anxiety o f Influence (Oxford 1973) 39. 23 The basic thought is caught by D. A. Russell, “De imitatione” in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, ed. D. West & T. Woodman (Cambridge 1979) 2, though apparently without thinking of such a striking manifestation: “The Hellenistic period..., with its blend of changing ideas and archaic forms, gave quite a new perspective to the use of models and tradition. It turned it into a matter not so much of continuity as of revival.” Aristophanes had, of course, already paved the way for this Hellenistic fashion with the planned resurrection of either Aeschylus or Euripides in the Frogs. Significantly, however, both tragedians had died within recent memory; that is, they did not yet possess that patina of antiquity that the poets of archaic and classical Greece held for the Hellenistic Age. Cf. the case of Timon of Phlius (below p.71 f.). I assume that Old Comedies with titles such as Άρχιλοχοι (Cratinus) or 'Ησιοδοι (Telekleides frs. 14-21 Kock I p.213-215) referred exclusively to “followers” of these poets rather than to a resurrected Archilochus and Hesiod together with their followers, or to multiple resurrected Archilochuses and Hesiods. There is simply no evidence in the texts for either of the latter two suppositions. This is a question, however, about which there has been much speculation and little agreement. Cf. Kassel-Austin’s preface to Cra­ tinus’ Άρχιλοχοι PC G IV p. 121. Cf. also the Demoi, where Eupolis brings back dead statesmen. 24 Cf. F.Jung, Hipponax redivivus (Bonn 1929) 39. 25 Cf. The analysis of D.L. daym an, Callimachus’ Iambi (Leiden 1980) 11-16. For the character of Callimachus’ “revival” of Hipponax here, and generally in the Iambi cf. E. Degani, “Note sulla fortuna di Archiloco e di Ipponatte in epoca Ellenistica”, in Poeti greci giambici ed elegiaci (ed. Degani, Milan 1977) 106-108, 113 ff.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

th e H ellenistic present: no barbs fly at B oupalos, H ip p o n a x ’ q u o n d a m ta rg e t (cf. f r . l ; 12.2; 15; 84.18; 95.3-4, 15; 95 a; 120 W est). T h e p o e t ra th e r sum m ons the A lexandrian literati to th e tem ple o f Sarapis, w h ith e r they ru n in droves, anxious (as any m o d e rn sch o lar w o u ld be) to view the w o n d ro u s ap p aritio n o f a p o e t lo n g dead, to w h o se w orks they w ould p robably have devoted co n sid erab le study. T h e d e fu n c t iam b o g rap h er in tu rn m arvels at the m u ltitu d e o f the living w h o sw arm ab o u t him “like flies a ro u n d a g o a th e rd ” (v. 26), an iro n ic inversion o f O dysseus’ am azed fear at the m ultitu d e o f dead th a t g a th e r a ro u n d him in the u n d e rw o rld at Odyssey 11.36-43. C o m m an d in g th e scholars to be silent, H ip p o n a x o rd ers them to w rite d o w n - c o u ld his w o rd s im press them any o th e r w a y ? - th e tale w hich he is go in g to tell (σω πή γενέσθω καί γρ ά φ εσ θε την ρ ήσ ιν ν. 31). H e th e n dictates to them a s u r­ prisingly benevolent fable in ten d ed to m ake them p u t aside th e ir je a ­ lous rivalries, th e ir literary disputes, and live in c o n co rd (D ieg. V I 1.5-6, 19-21). P erhaps f r . 216, “they co u g h ed as th o u g h d rin k in g v in e­ g a r”, represented the sch o lars’ revulsion at such a d isg u stin g th o u g h t (thus, apparently, P feiffe r ad loc.). If so, th e entire scene m ig h t reflect the am biguous attitu d e o f the A lexandrians to th e past: o n the one h an d keen to e n co u n ter it, o n the o th e r d istru stfu l o f its a u th o rity . In any case, H ip p o n a x is n o t long fo r this w o rld .26 “N o t even I have m uch tim e to spare,” he says, “fo r I m u st w hirl ab o u t, alas, in the m id st o f A ch ero n ” (v. 33 - 35).27 A nd consequently, u p o n fin ish in g his tale, he states “the tim e has com e to sail a w a y ... (in the bo at) o f C h a ro n ” (v. 9 6 -9 7 )- a significant reassertio n o f distance, since C allim achus, w hile startin g from H ipponax, proceeds in his rem ain in g twelve Iamboi to stretch the lim its o f the genre, p ro d u cin g poem s in various u n c h a ra c te r­ istic m eters, atypical dialects, w ith bold th em atic in n o v atio n s (an “epinician” iam bos in V III, a b irth d ay song in X II, etc.).28 In the final poem o f the series (X III) he asserts th a t distance o n a g eo g rap h ical level as well, stating th a t he sings Iamboi w ith o u t having gone to E phesus (hom e o f H ip p o n ax ) o r having m ingled w ith Io n ian s (v. 6 3 -6 4 ). T h e “revival” o f iam bic verse, as d ram atized by C allim achus th ro u g h th e figure o f H ip p o n ax , is thus a co n d itio n al revival, one q u alified by a 26 He is Callimachus’ temporary spokesman and not, as daym an has argued {op. cit. p.56-57), reincarnated in Callimachus. 27 Incidentally, this is an unnoticed parallel to the troublesome Theocr. 1.140 where Daphnis “went to the stream and the whirlpool washed over” him. Hipponax’ words seem to show that, while strictly speaking “the souls of the dead were not submerged in Ach­ eron, but waited at the water’s edge to be ferried across” (thus Dover ad Theocr. 1.140; cf. R.M.Ogilvie, JHS 82 [1962] 108-109 = WdF p. 173-174), one could nevertheless speak in this way of passing to the Underworld. 28 Thus also Clayman, op. cit. p.48.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

67

stro n g aw areness o f difference in tastes an d aims, o f frac tu re in tim e and place. It m ay be ap p ro p ria te at this p o in t to discuss a p ro b lem atic frag m en t fro m C allim ach u s’ Aetia (fr. 64) th a t falls m id w ay betw een the ficti­ tio u s epitaphs w hich we exam ined and the full-scale resu rrectio n o f Iambos 1. P fe iffe r called it “Sepulcrum S im onidis”, “T h e T o m b o f S im o n ides”. Ούδ’ d]v τοι Καμάρινα τόσον κακόν όκκόσον ά[ν]δρός κινη]θείς όσιου τύμβος έπικρεμάσαικαί γ]άρ έμόν κοτε σήμα, τό μοι προ πόληος εχ[ευ]αν Ζην5] Άκραγαντϊνοι Ξείνι[ο]ν άζόμενοι, ... κ]ατ’ ούν ήρειψεν άνηρ κακός, εϊ τιν’ άκούεής Φοίνικ]α πτόλιος σχέτλιον ήγεμόναπύργω] δ’ έγκατέλεξεν έμήν λίθον ούδέ τό γράμμα ήδέσθη τό λεγον τόν [μ]ε Λεωπρέπεος κεϊσθαι Κήιον άνδρα τόν ιερόν, δς τα περισσά .. καί] μνήμην πρώτος δς έφρασάμην, ούδ’ ύμέας, Πολύδευκες, ύπέτρεσεν, οϊ με μελάθρου μέλλοντος πίπτειν έκτος έθεσθέ κοτε δαιτυμόνων άπο μοΰνον, δτε Κραννώνιος αίαΐ ώλισθεν μεγάλους οίκος επί Σκοπάδας. ωνακες, άλ.. [ι.. ]. γάρ έτ’ ήν[

5

10

15

N ot even Kamarina could threaten so great an evil as the removal of a sacred man’s tomb. For my sepulcher, which before their city the Akragantians threw up for me in awe of Zeus Hospitable that sepulcher an evil man tore down, if you have heard of Phoinix, wicked commander of the city. And he embedded my tombstone in the rampart tower, nor did he reverence the inscription which says that I, son of Leoprepes, lie here, the sacred man of Keos, who devised the extra ... and first contrived the skill of memory; nor did he tremble before you both, Polydeukes, who once removed me alone of all banqueters from the hall, which was about to fall, when the Krannonian palace, alas, crashed down upon the mighty Skopadae. O lords,— H e re , as in Iambos 1 and the epitaphs fo r A n acreo n and H ip p o n ax , a d ead p o e t speaks. Y et it is tan talizin g ly u n clear fro m w hence his voice is th o u g h t to em anate and to w hom it is ad d ressed (cf. v. 5 -6 ). Sim o­ nides does n o t a p p ea r to have risen from th e dead, yet n eith er does he sp eak th ro u g h the m edium o f his to m b sto n e. T h e m edium seem s ra th e r

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

to be C allim achus w ho im personates th e d ead m an, allow ing him to b o rro w his voice in o rd e r to speak n o t from , b u t a b o u t his to m b sto n e w hich, as we learn, has been desecrated and rem oved fro m its p ro p e r place. A nd ju st as the source o f th e voice is so disposed as to be tra c e ­ able to no one b u t C allim achus, so the addressee can be n o n e b u t the read er o f the poem : fo r the A krag an tin es w o u ld n o t need to be to ld th a t they had b u ilt Sim onides a tom b (v. 3 -4 ), o r asked if th ey had h eard o f P ho in ix (v. 5-6). T h e first co u p let alludes to an oracle given the in h ab itan ts o f K am arina w hen they asked if they sh ould drain an epon y m o u s lake. “D o n o t m ove K am arina, fo r unm oved is b e tte r”, th ey w ere to ld . B ut th ey ignored the oracle and th e ir city su ffered a catastro p h e. It is even w orse, how ever, to m ove a sacred m an ’s tom b, asserts Sim onides (Ο ύδ’ d]v to t Κ α μ ά ρ ινα τό σ ο ν κακόν ό κ κ ό σ ο ν . . . v. 1); and th e Suda (s.v. Sim onides) rep o rts th a t A kragas was in d eed ta k en in w a r by Syracuse as a consequence o f P h o in ix ’ w icked d eed .29 N o o th e r source refers to this Phoinix. T his otherw ise u n a tte ste d figure, how ever, was clearly o f in te re st to C allim achus. F o r his rash indifference encom passes n o t ju st th e d ese­ cratio n o f a tom b, b u t th a t o f a very special tom b, nam ely a g re a t p o e t’s. B ut this m eans n o th in g to Phoinix, fo r the co m m an d er is a philistine. N o t only does he ignore Z eu s’ gu est-rig h t, w hich Sim onides en jo y ed in A kragas (v. 4), he is u tte rly w ith o u t re g a rd fo r th e literary d ead o r reverence fo r the a u th o rity o f the w ritten w o rd (as em b o d ied in th e epitaph, ούδέ to γρ ά μ μ α / ήδέσθη v. 7 -8 ).30 N o r does he k n o w his lit­ erary history, as is clear from S im onides’ allusion to th e sto ry o f his re s­ cue by the D io sk o u ro i w hen they b ro u g h t the h ouse do w n on th e im p i­ ous Skopadai (v. 11-14). B ut m ore, P h o in ix ’ act m ay be view ed as p e cu l­ iarly insulting to the c h arac te r o f S im onides’ oeuvre since th a t p o e t was especially fam ous fo r his poem s on the d ead (on th o se fallen at T h e r ­ m opylae cf. PMG 531, H d t. V II 228; at M a ra th o n (?) cf. Vita Aesch.; 29 Pfeiffer ad 6 ff. suggests that the war was one mentioned by Diod. XIX 3.70 during the reign of the Syracusan tyrant Agathokles (last quarter of the 4th cent.). It seems likely that the fragmentary 3-4 verses at the end of the poem referred to this defeat, since the Suda twice cites Callimachus’ poem (v. 7-9 and 11-14) and may well depend on it for its information. 30 This latter point will be even more emphatic if, as Lobel thought likely (ad P. Oxy.2211 w . 9-10), the lacuna at the beginning of v. 10 contained a reference to Simo­ nides’ invention of the letters η, ω, ξ, ψ , cf. ad toc. P.Oxy. 1800, fr. 1.45f. and Suda s.v. Simonides. This seems to me preferable to Maas and Pfeiffer’s suggestion {ad toc.) that τα περισσά referred to Simonides’ “sapientia”: the coordinate relatives 6 ς . . . / ... δς in w . 9-10 speak for two equally weighted statements, not for one which was very general, the other very specific. In either case, however, a suitable supplement for the lacuna has yet to be found.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

69

see also C atull. 38.8; H o ra c e II 1.38; Q u in t. X 1.64; D ionysius de imit, P· 205, 7 U sen er; A ristid. X X X I 2 p .212 Keil; cf. also H . Frankel,

Dicht,

u. Phil, p .3 4 6 ). Sim onides thus defends from the grave the very tra d i­ tio n o f fu n e ra ry verse o f w hich he was so p ro m in en t a representative. Finally, P h o im x did n o t recall th a t Sim onides was ren o w n ed fo r his inv en tion o f m nem otechnics, the system o f m em ory (v. 10); and Sim o­ nides confirm s his re p u ta tio n in this reg ard by fo rg ettin g n o th in g . T h ro u g h C allim ach u s’ com m em orative m ediation, th e m em ory o f P h o inix lives on: an “evil m an” (άνηρ κακός v. 5), a “w icked c o m m an d er” (σ χέτλ ιο ς ή γεμ ώ ν v. 6), d isd ain fu l o f epitaphs (v. 7 -8 ), unaw ed by the gods (v. 10) - dam ned, in sh o rt, by the very μνήμη he so u g h t to destroy. L earned H ellenistic recollection thus com es to th e aid o f its archaic c o u n te rp a rt and kin. A nd C allim achus’ love o f arcana could find no m o re a p p ro p ria te co n d u it. It is significant th a t this poem is full o f first a ttestatio n s: the sto ry a b o u t K am arina, P h o in ix him self, the m em ory system , S im onides’ deliverance fro m the d estru ctio n o f th e S kopadai - a l l these first ap p ear here. W hile one could h a rd ly suggest th a t C alli­ m achus really was the first to relate these things (as Slater, Phoenix 26 [1972] 233, and others have po in ted out, he p ro b ab ly had access to C h am aile o n ’s περ ί Σ ιμω νίδου), I believe we can call this a learned poem ; th e full force o f S im onides’ in d ig n atio n (so m em orably expressed by his rep eated use o f possessive and p erso n al p ro n o u n s: έ μ ό ν ... σήμα, μοι v. 3, έμήν λίθον v. 7, με Λ εω πρέπεος ν. 8, με v. 11) will have been sh ared only by the learned audience to w hich it is addressed. T o the A lexandrian, Sim onides qua dead m an is evidently m eaningful, his m em orial w o rth preserving. Y et th e very fo rm w hich C allim achus gives to his poem u n d ersco res th e com plexity o f the relatio n sh ip betw een co m m em o rato r and the th in g com m em orated. In this regard, the placing o f the text o f Sim o­ n id es’ to m b sto n e in in d irect discourse (v. 7 -9 ) is significant. O n the one h an d , this m ay reflect at a syntactic level th e inclusion o f the original m e m o rializatio n w ithin S im onides’ p resen t discourse - itself a resu lt o f th e e p ita p h ’s displacem ent fro m its p ro p e r site on th e tom b and th e fact th a t it has been em bedded elsew here (in a place u n w o rth y o f it). M o re im p o rtan tly , how ever, it m irro rs the overall obliqueness o f the p resen t co n tex t w here C allim achus com m em orates S im onides’ epitaph or, m ore precisely, Sim onides recalling and th ereb y rep airin g the loss o f his m em orial. T h e poem is thus a co m m em o ratio n o f a co m m em o ratio n o f a c o m m em o ratio n . A nd at each stage we see a process o f in co rp o ratio n : at th e level o f im agery, the to m b sto n e em b ed d ed in th e tow er; at the level o f syntax oratio obliqua ; and at the level o f poetic tra d itio n , one p o e t’s voice inscribed in th a t o f an o th er. F o r o u r previous difficulty in lo catin g the source o f S im onides’ voice m ay now be view ed as a n o th e r

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

instance o f w h a t occurs w hen the archaic p o e t re fo rm u late s his ep itap h in indirect discourse. It p o ints up the m ediated, oblique q u ality o f the relatio n sh ip betw een C allim achus and his rem o te p red ecesso r. B u t- a n d here again we c o n fro n t this p arado x ical aspect o f H ellen istic p o e t r y - i t does so even as the m o d ern p o e t self-consciously aligns h im self w ith the deceased and co n trib u tes to an act o f re trib u tio n in d eed p erh ap s m ore terrible th a n th a t w hich atte n d ed K am arina. A krages m ay in re a l­ ity have been captured, b u t the poem itself is an act o f reprisal. A m ore radical contrivance to bridge th e g u lf was th a t em ployed by E nnius in the proem to his Annals (early 2nd cent. B .C .). P ro b ab ly fo l­ low ing a H ellenistic m odel,31 the L atin p o e t claim ed th a t H o m e r h ad appeared to him in a dream and to ld him th a t his soul h ad been re b o rn in E nnius’ b o d y .32 W e see at once h o w such an idea com pels a p o e t to declare his literary allegiance and in d eb ted n ess in a fa r m ore c o n se ­ q u en t and, ultim ately, restrictive w ay th an h ad C allim achus in Iambos 1 o r in the poem on Sim onides: it w ould n o t be easy fo r E nnius to w riggle o u t o f such a claim and profess a very d ifferen t p o etic o rie n ta ­ tion. Y et even this device w ou ld leave sufficient ro o m fo r m an o eu v ering. E nnius could at once acknow ledge d isco n tin u ity w hile assertin g th a t it was n o t absolute: th o u g h H o m e r was deceased, his spirit could re-em erge in new circum stances and w ith a new s h a p e -w ritin g L atin hexam eter, on R om an them es. It was up to E nnius to in te rp re t w h a t it m eant to be an alter Homerus (Lucilius fr. 1189 M arx, H o ra e e Ep. II 1.50), a n o th e r H o m er. T h e dream o f the dead H o m e r points us to yet a fu rth e r w a y - n o t in itself im bued w ith the im age o f d e ath yet closely related to i t - i n w hich H ellenistic poets could express th e ir distance fro m th e literary p ast and th e ir desire to overcom e th e ir isolation. In th e p ro lo g u e to th e Aetia (fr. 2), C allim achus describes a dream in w hich he was tra n slated to M t. H elik o n and, like H esio d , en co u n tered the M uses, w h o fo rth w ith initiated him into the m ysteries o f song and related to him th e stories w hich form the first tw o b o o k s o f th e Aetia. W h a t is o f p a rtic u la r in te r­ est to us is th a t C allim achus no lo n g er has an u n m ed iated e n c o u n te r w ith the M uses on M t. H e lik o n as H esio d h ad h ad . In o rd e r to re c ap ­ tu re the H e sio d ic experience, he puts him self in to th e state o f c o n ­ sciousness w hich, to the G re ek m ind, m ost nearly ap p ro x im ated d eath , i. e. s le e p -th e b ro th e r o f d eath, in m ythological term s. T h e p ro lo g u e to the Aetia thus reverses the p ro ced u re w hich w e saw in C allim ach u s’ first Iambos and in E n n iu s’ proem . T h e re th e dead en cro ach ed o n the 31 Cf. C.O. Brink, AJPh 93 (1972) 559-560. 32 For sources and discussion cf. O.Skutsch, The Annals o f Q.Ennius (Oxford 1985) 147-153.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

71

w o rld o f the living, thus fo rg in g a link betw een past and present; here a living p o e t assum es a d e ath -lik e state and thus has access to the experi­ ence o f the p a st.33 It is o nly ap p ro p riate th a t C allim achus presents the m aterial o f th e first tw o b o o k s o f his Aetia as having been received in this state. F o r this, C allim achus’ central w ork, is itself a m ost telling m o n u m e n t to th e sense o f ru p tu re: a com pendium o f tales attem p tin g to explain th e peculiarities o f the p resen t by reference to th eir “causes” in th e d ista n t past, the very need fo r w hich bespeaks at once an aw are­ ness o f the e n o rm o u s g u lf sep aratin g past and present, and the desire to b rid g e it.34 O n e final ro u te to the p o etic past was th a t tak en by T im o n o f Phlius, th e 3rd cent. B. C. C ynic poet, and w ith it we arrive at the opposite pole fro m the full-scale re su rre ctio n o f Iambos 1. In a p a rt o f his Silloi, o r “sq u in t-ey ed verses”, T im o n appears to have jo u rn ied to th e u n d er-

33 We note the strong possibility that Herodas (in his 8th Iambos, the “Dream”) like­ wise used the medium of sleep in order to describe an encounter with a literary anteced­ ent, i.e. Hipponax, whom the poet claims in the last lines of his poem to have emulated. It has often been assumed that the angry old man who upbraids him in his dream is none other than the archaic iambographer. And indeed, such abusive behavior, even towards an admirer, is precisely what we would expect from a notorious practitioner of invective. When the old man threatens the dreamer (καίπερ ών πρέσβυς / ουλρ κατιθύ τχ\ βατηρί-η κόψω V. 59-60), he virtually quotes a line of Hipponax (δοκέων εκείνον τήι βα{κ)τηρίηι κόψαι fr. 8 Degani = 20 West), κόπτειν, moreover, seems to be one of Hipponax’ charac­ teristic words (cf. fr. 120 and 121). And lastly we note that Alcaeus of Messene (AP VII 536 = 13 G-P) refers to Hipponax simply as ό πρέσβυς for the first four lines of a six line poem before finally mentioning his name. Unfortunately, given the state of Herodas’ poem, we cannot be sure of the identification, cf. I. C. Cunningham, Herodas’ Mimiambi (Oxford 1971) 194 with bibliography. We should also note the scene of poetic initiation that occurs as a dream encounter with Anacreon in the opening poem of the Anacreontea (fr. 1 West). This poem may, as West has said ( Greek Metre p. 152 and in the preface to his edition p.XVI-XVII), be as early as the 2nd or 1st cent. B.C. 34 This point has been forcefully made by Zänker (Realism p. 120 f.), who points to the frequency of formulae such as είσέτι νΰν περ and ένθεν in Hellenistic poetry to denote continuity (cf. esp. p. 121 n.32). One could establish a scale of aetiological interest between Homer, at the one extreme, and Callimachus at the other. Homer has remark­ ably few aetia, the only one of real prominence being that of Achilles’ tomb (Od. 24.80-84; cf. II. 7.84-91 and 23.245-248). As Nagy has pointed out (The Best o f the Achaeans [Baltimore 1979] 342; cf. 159-161), the only other example is in the narrative of the Achaean wall (It. 12.2-33), where - significantly-we learn why there is no trace of that wall in the present: “It is almost as if all the ‘props’ that mark an Achaean expedition against Troy are to be obliterated once the expedition is over and the attention of epic switches to other places, other stories” (Nagy p. 160). There is, then, little attempt to link the heroic world to the poet’s present. The Age of Heroes stays remote: that is part of its affect. While aetia are certainly present in pre-Hellenistic verse (e.g. at the end of many tragedies), they are not nearly as all pervasive as they are in Hellenistic verse. There, the interest in forging a link between present and past seems to reach its height.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

w o r ld - in self-conscious em ulation o f O d y s s e u s - to q u estio n his g re a t predecessor in Sillography, the in v en to r o f th e genre, X e n o p h a n e s.35 As A. A. L ong has w ritten, “X e n o p h an e s played a role in th e Silloi c o m p a­ rable to th a t o f V irgil in D a n te ’s Inferno .”36 ’H e served as T im o n ’s guide, and answ ered his queries a b o u t th e shades o f the p h ilo so p h ers. W hile it rem ains unclear h ow m uch o f the Silloi assum ed this d ram atic form (cf. A. A. Long, op. cit. p.81), a statem en t in D io g en es L aertiu s IX 111 suggests th a t it com prised at least the last tw o o f th re e b ooks: “T h e second and th ird books take the fo rm o f a dialogue. [T im o n ] appears asking X e n o p h an es o f C o lo p h o n a b o u t every p h ilo so p h er, an d X e n o ­ phanes describes them to him ; the o ld e r p h ilo so p h ers in th e second bo o k ; the later ones in the th ird .” T o m y know ledge, n o one has n o te d the suggestive sim ilarity betw een (the last tw o b o o k s of) T im o n ’s Silloi and the first tw o books o f Aetia by his c o n tem p o rary , an d possible acquaintance, C allim achus.37 B oth poets avail them selves o f th e d ia ­ logue form s e t - i n e ith er c a s e - in a su p ern atu ral e n c o u n te r w ith a u th o r­ itative figures o f the literary tra d itio n and conceived as a stra teg y fo r gaining access to them es fro m the d istan t past. W e see th en th a t im ages o f d eath ab o u n d . Y et th ey are o n ly one expression o f discontinuity. A n o th er, w hich will concern us in the rem ain d er o f this c h a p te r - in a p a ir o f h e tero g en e o u s exam ples d raw n fro m C allim achus’ H y m n s - , is literary allusion: p erh ap s th e single m o st characteristic m ark of H ellen istic verse. W e observed in discussing the anon y m o u s epic frag m en ts at the s ta rt o f this ch ap ter th a t literary anteced en ts co u ld be cited in a no n -allu siv e m anner. T h e language w as fo r the m ost p a rt fam iliar, th e actions ty p i­ cal, lim ited attem p t w as m ade to evoke id en tifiab le events, p erso n ag es o r tu rn s o f phrase. It is well to stress, how ever, th a t non -allu siv e cita ­ tio n could equally draw on p o etic rarities; th a t is, it co u ld use precisely 35 This “katabasis” was first proposed by A.Meineke, Philologicarum Exercitationum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas (1843) 6-7, and has since been generally accepted. It is based 1) on the report in Diog. Laert.IX 111 (quoted below) that Timon held a conversation with Xenophanes in this work and 2) on the evidence of repeated formulae, such as olov and verbs of seeing and recognition, recalling the first Nekyia of the Odyssey (cf. the prefa­ tory comments of Lloyd-Jones and Parsons on SH 775-840). While I subscribe to the communis opinio, it is prudent to recall that Timon’s colloquy with Xenophanes, and his viewing of the dead philosophers, are equally conceivable when set in a dream of a kata­ basis, or even simply in a dream. For the parallel with the format of the first two books of Callimachus’ Aetia cf. below. 36 Proc. Cambr. Philol. Soc. 204 (1978) 78. 37 According to Diog. Laert. IX 110, Timon knew and wrote of Ptolemy Philadelphus. His verses on the disputatious grammarians in the Alexandrian Museum (SH 786) are perennial favorites in the scholarly literature on the period. Cf. also the anecdotes con­ cerning his acquaintance with Aratus (Pfeiffer, Hist. p.98).

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

73

th e hapax legomena o r d isp u ted w ords w hich w ere th e m eat o f A lexan­ d rian allusive p la y - w ith o u t in ten d in g allusion. T h is is b ro u g h t hom e to us in the g ro tesq u e, b u t am using sto ry o f h o w A lexarchos, b ro th e r o f C assan d e r (one o f A lex an d er’s successors), in ten d ed to fo u n d the city o f O u ra n o p o h s on the A th o s peninsula, desiring to in tro d u ce th ere a new language com posed entirely o f glosses, i.e. p o etic rarities (A then. I l l 98 c, cf. S chm id-S taehlin II 1 p. 116 w ith n .3 and 4). As soon as such glosses becom e everyday speech, how ever, th ey relinquish eo ipso all allusive p o te n tia l fo r th e ir speakers and, by consequence, fo r th o se w ho h e a r them (representing, fo r the less learn ed am ong the latter, an en tirely new language). T h e w ords becom e m erely a new set o f signs w hich, as in any o th e r language, have n o m eaning ap art fro m th a t assigned to them by usage in a given culture, being th o u g h t rare, u n in ­ telligible o r (as w o uld now be the case in O u ran o p o lis) com m on because o f th a t usage. T h e self-conscious literary allusion o f the H ellen istic poets was o f an a lto g e th e r d iffe re n t o rd e r. Specific scenes, characters, details o f n a rra ­ tive, d iction and style w ere evoked w ith u n rem ittin g p re c is io n -th e fru it o f th e m ost intim ate know ledge o f an teced en t texts. A nd th o u g h such a tech n iq u e was n o th in g new ,38 the au th o rs o f this tim e p ushed it fu rth e r th a n ever b e fo re and assigned to it a positio n o f unexam pled p re-em i­ nence. T h is learn ed pred ilectio n has long been s e e n -a n d , fo r th e m ost p art, c e n s u re d -b y C lassical scholars. “It is th e ir im itativeness and th eir allusiveness w hich m ore th a n anything else have ten d ed to discredit H ellen istic p o e ts”, said P feiffe r in “T h e F u tu re o f Studies in th e Field o f H ellen istic P o e try ” (JH S 75 [1955] 71 = Ausg. Sehr. [M u n ich 1960] 154). T o be sure, the critical clim ate, since P feiffe r w ro te these w ords, has changed: it is now w idely acknow ledged th a t allusion was n o m ere stylistic device know n fro m occasional use in earlier verse and now ju st g ro w n m ore p ro m in en t, b u t ra th e r th a t it was cen tral and form ative, a g enerative nucleus, fo r th e p o e try o f the A ge.39 Y et fo r all th e ing en u ity

38 Cf. for instance L. Rissman’s book on Homeric allusion in Sappho, Love and War, Homeric Allusion in the Poetry o f Sappho, (Meisenheim 1984). Cf. also M. Kumpf, The Homeric Hapax Legomena and their Literary Use by Later Authors, Especially Euripides and Apollonius o f Rhodes, (Diss. Ohio State Univ. 1974). On archaic use of allusion generally cf. J. A. Davison, “Quotations and allusions in Early Greek Literature”, Eranos 53 (1955) 125-140 = From Archilochus to Pindar (New York 1968) 70-85, and A.E.Harvey, CQ 7 (1957) 207. 39 A forerunner in this regard was Wilamowitz (cf. e. g. H D I 181-182: “Wir merken hier, daß die Hörer für gelehrte Dichtung Verständnis mitbringen. Nicht nur homerische und hesiodische Verse müssen ihnen gegenwärtig sein... Überhaupt lebt der Dichter von fremden G ed ank en ...”), but-a s E. R. Schwinge has shown in “Wilamowitz’ Verständnis der hellenistischen Poesie” ( Wilamowitz nach SO Jahren, Darmstadt 1985, 151-177, esp.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

and e ffo rt th a t recent scholars have exp en d ed o n u n e a rth in g allusions, they have largely ig n o red the q u estio n o f w hy allusion becam e so essen ­ tial, so indispensible a featu re o f H ellen istic verse. N o one explanation, o f course, could a cco u n t fo r a p h e n o m en o n o f such variety. N evertheless I w ould like to suggest one fa c to r w hich m ay have m oved the poets to fav o r this m ode o f expression. I m ean th e ir sense o f rift. T h e irs was a passionate, relentless e n d e a v o r - a n obsessive e n d e a v o r-to perm eate th e ir w orks w ith the lite ra tu re o f th e past, to acquire and exhibit encyclopaedic grasp, as th o u g h to insist th a t th ey knew it a fte r all, th a t despite histo rical-g eo g rap h ical im pedim ents and isolation they w ere as fam iliar now w ith the cu ltu ral h eritag e as a c u lti­ vated person m ight have been in the tim e w hen it was being p ro d u c e d 167-171)-for all his efforts to judge Hellenistic poetry on its own terms, Wilamowitz remained bound to the “klassizistische Perspektive” (167). The decisive contribution towards understanding the central role of allusion in Helle­ nistic poetry was made by Hans Herter in his essay “Kallimachos und Homer” (Xenia Bonnensia. Festschrift zum 75jährigen Bestehen des Philologischen Vereins und Bonner Kreises [Bonn 1929] 50-105 = Kleine Schriften [Munich 1975] 371-416), where Callima­ chus’ Hymn to Artemis was subjected to a sensitive and penetrating interpretation in light of the Homeric tradition. It was here that Herter formulated the memorable statement that it was the goal of the Hellenistic poets “in den Bahnen Homers so unhomerisch zu sein wie möglich” (p.50 = 371). A whole school of Classicists has since proclaimed Hellenistic poetry to be “arte allu­ siva” (though the term was coined by G. Pasquali in his 1942 essay “Arte allusiva”, Italia che scrive 25 [1942] 185f. = Stravaganze quarte e supreme [Venice 1951] 11-20 = Pagine stravaganti voi.2 [Florence 1968] 275-283, I refer here to G.Giangrande [cf. CQ 17, 1967, 85f. = Scripta Minora Alexandrina I, Amsterdam 1980, 11 f.] and his circle at the Classics Research Center of Birkbeck College, London.). Unfortunately, this school has also magnified the importance which Herter attached to discovering the Homeric back­ drop of a given poem, making this the single guiding principal of their work: “the ortho­ dox framework of interpretation as practised by specialists in Hellenistic poetry”, as Giangrande declares on page 1 of an essay which stands programmatically at the start of his Scripta Minora Alexandrina I (Amsterdam 1980 = Q U C C 15, 1973, 73ff.). Worse still, with few exceptions the work of this school does not equal that of Herter, its avowed master (cf. CQ op. cit. p. 85 = p. 11 with n.2; and Giangrande’s suggestion that one vilified Classicist go “to Bonn to study under Herter for a while”, Scripta Minora op. cit. p.5). The result has been a new cottage-industry, devoted to discovering allusionsone-sidedly Homeric-wherever they exist and occasionally (as some might admonish) where they do not. We must credit this school with recognizing the fundamental role of allusion for Hellenistic poets, and with placing it in the limelight as never before. Yet its application of that “orthodox framework” is often almost mechanical-perhaps made the more grimly determined because of the particularly belligerent reaction of this school to criticism (cf. the pages of their journal, Museum Philologum Londoniense) - ; its scholarly output accordingly suffers from those defects that usually appear when a method is pushed to extremes. With regard to allusion in Latin poetry, important contributions have been made by G.B. Conte, The Rhetoric o f Imitation (Ithaca 1986), and R. Thomas, “Virgil’s Georgies and the Art of Reference”, HSCP 90 (1986) 171-198.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

75

p erh ap s even m ore so! T h e allusiveness o f these poets was, I subm it, n o t m erely fash io n ab le eru d itio n . R a th e r it reflects the p ro fo u n d desire to co m p ensate fo r a perceived ep ig o n ah ty and artistic disjunction. Social and g eo g rap h ical iso lation in A lexdandria could only have intensified this desire, fo r the b u rd e n o f asserting o n e ’s cu ltu ral id en tity in such an old and alien civilization w o u ld have been especially o n e ro u s.40 In part, th en , th e avid, at tim es ex trav ag an t cultivation and preserv atio n o f the h eritag e is like th a t fam iliar to us fro m im m ig ran t com m unities th ro u g h o u t the ages: a desire to be m ore G reek th a n the G reek s.41 P u t so m ew h at differen tly , the u n d erly in g hope o f these p o ets’ allusiveness is m ean in g fu l co ntinuity. A nd a read ersh ip th a t desired to appreciate th e allusions, th a t fo u n d them pleasurable, w o u ld n atu rally have had to sh are this obsessive b e n t and the deep-seated need fro m w hich it arose. C o n se q u e n tly th e very m astery th a t the H ellen istic poets are so zealous to establish an d display is itself a sign o f ru p tu re. T h e distance o f w hich this im passioned allusiveness is b o th a sym p­ to m and a redress determ ines th e n a tu re o f th e H ellenistic relatio n sh ip to th e literary past. T o be sure, the assertion o f th a t relatio n sh ip could som etim es tu rn fanatical and end in b arren p ed an try , in a p o e try o v er­ w h elm ed by the past. M o re frequently, how ever, th e search fo r m e an ­ in g fu l c o n tin u ity was tem p ered by the very sense o f rift from w hich it h ad itself arisen. T h a t is, w hile an aw areness o f the g u lf m ig h t o n the one h a n d be a cause fo r lam en tatio n , it could at the sam e tim e en g en d er th e sense o f freed o m evident in the u n fe tte re d and inventive use to w hich th e H ellen istic poets p u t the past. P erh ap s we ow e th e last g reat flo w ering o f G reek culture at A lexandria to this fructifying ru p tu re.

40 In a similar vein, though not explicitly with regard to allusion, cf. A. W. Bulloch, Cambr. Hist, o f Class. Lit. I (Cambridge 1985) 543: “the enormous political upheavals and subsequent reshaping and expansion of the Hellenic world in the 4th century gave many Greeks a sense of separation from their roots and their past, and a weakening of their identity as Greeks: their reaction was often to intensify and reaffirm traditional values, both social and cultural-and for the Alexandrian writers, of course, this coincided with their immediate scholarly concerns, to acquire and put on a sound basis the texts of the great writers of the past.” 41 The assertion of Greek identity is particularly evident in the great social importance which the gymnasium acquired in the Hellenistic era. The significance of this institution has been impressively described by Μ. P. Nilsson, Die Hellenistische Schule (Munich 1955), who calls it “der Herd und die Hochburg der griechischen Kultur, das Wahr­ zeichen des Griechentums, das die Griechen von den Eingeborenen unterschied” (p. 84), “dort fühlten sie ihr Griechentum” (p.92); cf. also L. Koenen, Eine agonistische Inschrift aus Ägypten und frühptolemäische Königsfeste (Meisenheim 1977) 1, 17. On the purposeful preservation and cultivation of Greek institutions (such as the pan-hellenic agon, theatri­ cal performances, visual arts, etc.) cf. C .Préaux, Le Monde Hellenistique II (Paris 1978) 550-565 and N . Lewis, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt (Oxford 1986) 26-27.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

T h e strange case o f O u ra n o p o lis show ed us th a t non-allusive citatio n could extend even to the ra re st p o etic glosses. C o rresp o n d in g ly , d elib ­ erate, p o in ted reference to the literary past, b o rn o f th e certain ty th a t one was irrevocably fixed on the fu rth e r side o f a divide, is ev id en t even dow n to the m ost elem entary and obvious use o f a fam o u s q u o ta tio n . By “q u o ta tio n ” I m ean a syntactically self-co n tain ed u tte ra n ce w hich, w ithin the w o rk o f a given poet, preserves in ta c t th e w o rd s o f a n o th er. Such a q u o ta tio n provides th e sim plest m eans fo r b rid g in g the g u lf w ith the past since it creates a ju n ctu re, a visible seam betw een p re se n t and p a st on the scroll. Y et w hile im bedded in new su rro u n d in g s, th e q u o ta ­ tion rem ains fu n d am en tally alien, perceived as a fo reig n b o d y w ith in its adoptive text, set o ff as it w ere by q u o ta tio n m arks (alth o u g h , o f course, these did n o t exist in the an cien t w o rld ). A p articularly fam ous q u o ta tio n in C allim ach u s’ Hymn to Zeus m ay help to show w h a t role this device could play in co n n ectio n w ith ru p ­ tu re and revival.42 L et us call to m ind th e co n tex t in th e hym n: A fte r 42 Actually, we encounter two such quotations in Callimachus’ Hymn to Zens. The first (v.8) has lost its original context, however, so that we cannot say what Callimachus did with his source. Nevertheless, its setting in the Hymn to Zeus suggests an amusing play between ostensible adherence to traditional authority and witty irreverence toward the same: The poet, after an opening invocation, raises the vexed question of where the father of gods and men was born: some say Crete, others Arcadia (v. 4-7). To find an answer Calli­ machus avails himself of a waggish stroke. He turns with his query to the very subject of the poem, that is to Zeus himself: “which of these, father, lied?” (πότεροι, πάτερ, έφεύσαντο; v. 7). The god’s reply (I take it to be such, though there are no introductory or closing formulae. Cf. McLennan ad v.7; N.Hopkinson, CQ 34 [1984] 140; S.Goldhill, Proc. Cambr. Philol. Soc. 212 [1986] 27-28; and the Muses “reply”, H. 4.84-85, ch. 1 p. 42 above) is as radical as it is humorous, for he responds with a quotation, a verse from the 6th/5th century poet Epimenides of Crete: “Κρήτες άεί ψεΰσται”, “Cretans are always liars” (for conjecture as to the original context, cf. E.Maass, Aratea [Berlin 1892] 343-346 and M.West, The Orphic Poems [Oxford 1983] 47). To our astonishment, the ruler of the universe is depicted as a man (?!) of letters citing literary antecedents to adju­ dicate a scholarly dispute-a cosmic model for standard Alexandrian practice. A literary quotation such as this must be distinguished from a proverb, παροιμία, which characteristically becomes detached from its inventor and assumes a life of its own within the popular oral tradition. While “Cretans are always liars” has a certain proverb­ ial quality, it is unattested before Callimachus (thereafter cf. Paul’s Letter to Titus 1.12; Clem. Strom. I 59), never entered the paroemiographic tradition and, as we shall see, acquires its full force not as a bit of folk wisdom, but only in connection with its author, the Cretan Epimenides. For while the quotation Κρήτες άεί ψεΰσται permits Callimachus to proceed as though sanctioned by the heritage with the variant of Zeus’ birth which is nearer to his heart and poetic programme, i.e. the lesser known Arcadian version (first found here!), the edu­ cated reader would not have overlooked that the quotation itself derives from a Cretan, Epimenides, and that by its own standards it is thus fundamentally untrustworthy (thus far also Goldhill, op. cit. above). Worse still, if Zeus was born in Crete after all (as was

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

77

estab lishing th e fact o f Z eu s’ sovereignty on O lym pus, the p o et tu rn s to th e g o d ’s rela tio n sh ip w ith m en. T o start, he lists in the fo rm o f a priam el the sorts o f m en n o t chosen by Z eus fo r special p atro n ag e (v. 70 -7 1 ): “n o t th o se experienced / w ith ships, n o t the sh ield -b earin g man, n o t even the sin g er” ( ... ού σύ γε νηώ ν / έμπεράμους, ούκ ά ν δ ρ α σακέσπα λο ν, ού μεν ά ο ιδ ό ν ). W ith “n o t even” (ού μεν, cf. D enn. GP 362), the p o e t co m m unicates his p rid e in his high p o sitio n on th e list. Y et such areas o f h u m an e n d ea v o r are relegated by th e g od to o th er, lesser divin­ ities. F o r his p a rt Z eus selects “the rulers o f cities them selves” (v. 7 3 -7 4 ). A second list (v. 7 4 -75), reversing the h ierarch y o f th e first w ith care­ fu l variations, now depicts th o se w ho are u n d e r a ru le r’s way: the la n d ­ h o ld e r (γεω μόρος), th e skilled w ith the spear (ιδ ρ ις αιχμής), the o a rs­ m an (έρέτης), all things, fo r w h a t is n o t in a ru le r’s pow er? T h e rh e to ri­ cal q u estio n is, o f course, n o t m eant to be answ ered. F ar m ore, it b ru sh es any response aside. Y et we are left w o n d erin g w h e th er the absence of th e singer fro m this second list m ig h t n o t be a p o in ted , sig­ n ifican t om ission. T h is suspicion grow s w hen, in a th ird and culm inating p ream b u lar catalogue, he appears as p ro m in en tly po sitio n ed as in the first. H e re the p o e t nam es th o se “in fe rio r” divinities and th e ir h u m an charges to w h o m he alluded before: to H ep h aestu s, fo r instance, belong the sm iths, w a rrio rs to A res, h u n te rs to A rtem is o f the C h ito n , to P h o eb u s th o se well skilled in the p ath s o f the lyre, “b u t fro m Z eus com e kings”, “έκ δε Δ ιός βασ ιλήες” (v. 7 6 -79). T his, the crow ning en try in the list, is a q u o ta tio n : the celebrated hem istich fro m the section o n kings in H e sio d ’s Theogony (v. 96), and it com es like a response to the nam ing o f th e p o e t in the previous line, as th o u g h to co n firm th a t he is indeed one skilled in the ways o f song (εύ είδό τα ς ο ’ίμ ο υ ς v. 78). W h at an a lto ­ g e th e r d iffe re n t so rt o f p o etic σ ο φ ία this is fro m th a t w hich one m ight

commonly thought ever since Hesiod Th. 468 ff.), the idea of this verse coming from his mouth is even more troubling: Could it be that the king of the gods himself is leading us astray? Later in the poem (v. 60 f.) Callimachus himself remarks “may I tell lies which can persuade the listener’s ears” (ψευδοίμην άίοντος α κεν πεπίθοιεν άκουήν ν. 64). Perhaps he is doing just that with his quotation, exploiting its capacity to persuade, even adding a “compelling” reason of his own: “And indeed, O lord, the Cretans forged your tomb. But you didn’t die, for you are forever” (v. 8-9). This justification notwithstanding, it is clear that Callimachus intends us to sense (and enjoy!) the underlying dubiousness of the argu­ mentation. We see then that the quotation is a device by which the poet invokes and ostensibly binds himself to a past authority, yet that authority, even as it commands respect for its own success and stature within the tradition, turns out itself to be inher­ ently open to doubt and interpretation.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

have fo u n d before: it is a H esio d ic q u o ta tio n th a t establishes an a u th o r’s credentials!43 T h e q u o ta tio n is clearly in ten d ed to m u ster th e full w eig h t o f H e sio d ic a u th o rity behind the p o e t’s cause (a com m on fu n c tio n o f q u o ­ tatio n ). A nd it is the m ore w eighty w hen one co n sid ers how ex cep tio n al such a sen tim ent as “έκ δέ Δ ιός βασιλήες”, “b u t fro m Z eus com e k in g s”, w ou ld have been w ithin a poetic tra d itio n e n g en d e re d largely u n d e r very d ifferen t conditions, nam ely th o se o f the d em o cratic o r a risto ­ cratic polis. Because the P tolem aic rulers, how ever, w ere k eenly in te r­ ested in bolsterin g th e ir p a rtic u la r conception o f ab so lu te (soon to be divine-) m o n arch y by reference to venerable H ellen ic p reced en t, th e ir poets w ere co n strain ed to re tu rn again and again to th e very beginnings o f G reek literatu re in o rd e r to fin d m aterial suitable to th e ir needs. C onsequently, the H e sio d ic vision o f ideal sim ilarity an d a special b o n d betw een earth ly and heavenly kingship w as b o u n d to strike an espe­ cially re so n an t chord. C allim achus could h a rd ly have enlisted a big g er gun in the service o f royal praise. A nd th a t he him self is en tirely devoted to the sentim ent appears to be d e m o n stra te d in his having re ­ p ro d u ced even the im m ediate H esio d ic c o n tex t w here, as in o u r hym n, the half-line follow s directly u p o n a statem en t o f th e p o e t’s ties to A pollo (v .9 4 f.). T h u s, as Z iegler has said (R hM 68, 1913, p .3 3 8 ), “m it diesem Z ita t erw eckt er den A nschein, als ob er nichts anderes gesag t habe als H e sio d .” Y et the very im pressiveness o f the q u o ta tio n d istracts fro m a su b tex t o f w hich we becom e aw are only u p o n recalling th e larg er co n tex t o f the H esio d ic line. A t v. 79 o f the Theogony H e sio d brings to a close his c a t­ alogue o f the M uses w ith K alliope w ho, he says, “is the m ost excellent o f all, fo r s h e ...” (v .79 -8 0 ή δέ π ρ ο φ ερ εσ τά τη έσ τίν ά π α σ έω ν / ή γ à ρ ...) - a n d here we expect the p o e t to tu rn to his ow n p ro fessio n and explain th a t this M use has a special ra p p o rt w ith th e singer. In stead , startlingly, we h e a r th a t she also atten d s (n .b . καί) o n kings: ή γ ά ρ κα ί βασιλεΰσιν α μ ’ α ίδ ο ίο ισ ιν όπηδεϊ. W h o m ev er o f these th e M uses h o n o r from birth, u p o n his to n g u e they p o u r sw eet dew , and fro m his m o u th flow so o th in g w ords (τφ μεν επί γλώ σση γλυκερή ν χ είο υ σ ιν έέρσην, / τοϋ δ’ έπε’ έκ σ τό μ α το ς ρ εΐ μ είλ ιχ α - ν. 83-84). H o m e r h a d described the eloquence o f king N e sto r in sim ilar term s (Iliad 1.249 τοϋ κα ί ά πό γλώ σ σ ης μέλιτος γλυκίω ν ρέεν αύδή, “fro m his 43 This is not to say that earlier authors do not avail themselves of quotations. They do. But, unlike in our example, quotations in archaic lyric are generally identified as such by the poets using them: e.g. Solon 20 W, Sim. 8 West, Sim. PMG 581, Pind. / 6.66-67, P 4.277-278, P 6.20 f., O 6.16-17, Bacch. 5.91-93, etc. Such a practice may be a response to the greater fluidity, i.e. uncertainty, of the tradition at this time; that is, to the lack of a canon as existed in Hellenistic times.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

79

to n g u e the so u n d o f his voice flow ed sw eeter th a n h o n e y ”, cf. H e sio d ’s v.9 7 ), yet fo r him th ere h ad been no h in t th a t this ability was due to the M u se .44 K ings, as M a rtin W est observes (ad v. 80 ff.) “are n o t usually re g a rd e d by th e G reeks as being d e p en d e n t on th e M u ses” . T h a t rh e ­ to ric is a g ift o f these goddesses appears to be H e sio d ’s in n o v a tio n -a s th e e x p lan a to ry κα ί in ή γ ά ρ κα ί β α σ ιλ εϋ σ ιν ... (v. 80) suggests. T h e p o e t goes on to detail h ow the divinely favored m o n arch is revered by all since he practices his a rt in th e public assem blies so as to assuage disputes and to guide the com m unity wisely, persuasively. “Such is the sacred g ift o f the M uses to m a n k in d ” (τοίη Μ ουσάω ν ιερή δ ό σ ις ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο ισ ιν ν.9 3 , i. e. all m en p ro fit fro m th a t g ift w hich a king receives fro m th e M uses since it provides them w ith the conditions necessary fo r a b e tte r life) “for. . . ’’ - a n d now com es th e in te rp re ta to ry crux, the logical “salto m o rta le ”, as K u rt von F ritz has described it:45 “fo r, yo u see (τοι D en n . GP p. 537), it is th ro u g h th e M uses and fard a rtin g A pollo th a t th ere are singers u p o n the earth and players o f lyre, b u t fro m Z eus com e kin g s” (έκ γά ρ το ι Μ ουσέω ν καί έκηβόλου ’Α π ό λλω νος / ά νδρ ες ά ο ιδ ο ί εα σ ιν έπί χ θ ό ν α κα ί κ ιθα ρισ ταί, / έκ δε Δ ιό ς βασιλήες). T h e q u estio n is w h a t does γ ά ρ το ι in έκ γά ρ το ι Μ ο υ σ έω ν... explain? It explains, in my view, th e la te n t and expected antithesis betw een sing­ ers an d kings th a t underlies the w hole passage fro m v .8 0 f. T h e singers are th e u n sp o k en foil fo r the kings in the κ αί o f v.80: th a t is, w hile it goes w ith o u t saying th a t K alliope attends th e singer, she also attends th e king. B ut o f course, as the follow ing verses show , th e M uses’ involvem ent w ith kings, significant th o u g h it is, is selective, a “W ah lv er­ w a n d tsc h a ft” o r elective affinity w ith those th a t they choose to h o n o r fro m b irth (v. 81-82). For, you see, singers are fro m the M uses (i.e. “n a tu rv e rw a n d t”), b u t kings com e from Z eu s.46 γ ά ρ το ι th u s explains th e im plied adversative phrase w hich we have m ade explicit w ith “b u t o f course ... etc.” above.47 44 In a passage from the Odyssey (8.166-177), which has striking parallels to that in Hesiod, eloquence is given by indeterminate gods (ούτως ού πάντεσσι θεοί χαρίεντα διδοϋσιν / άνδράσιν, ούτε φυήν ουτ’ αρ φρένας ουτ’ άγορητύν ν. 167-168). On the connec­ tion between the Homeric and Hesiodic passages cf. R. P.Martin, TAPhA 114 (1984) 29-48. 45 Festschr. Snell, (Munich 1956) 42 = WdF Hesiod p. 311. 46 Or, as von Fritz has put it (op. cit., n.45 above, p.313), “ihr Amt haben die Könige nicht von den Musen oder von Apollon, sondern von Zeus. Sie sind immer noch Könige ohne die Musengabe. Damit steht es anders bei den Sängern. Sie haben ihr Amt, ihr ganzes Sein als Sänger, von Apollon und den Musen. Das ist der Unterschied.” 47 For γάρ explaining what is only implicitly, and not actually, present in the context cf. Denn. GP 61 f. and Barrett ad Eur. Hipp. 181-182: “γ ά ρ ...seems to introduce an explanation not of any particular w ords... just uttered, but of the underlying idea.”

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

T h e w ords th a t follow fu rth e r d ifferen tia te the singers fro m kings: ö δ’ όλβιος, ό ν τιν α Μ οϋσ αι / φίλω νται· γλυκερή οι ά π ό σ τό μ α το ς ρέει αύδή (“b u t blessed is he, w ho m ev er th e M uses love as th e ir ow n: the voice pours sw eet from his m o u th ” v. 9 6 -9 7 ). T h o u g h generally c o n ­ stru ed as re fe rrin g to the kings, the lines th e re b y yield a to rtu re d tra in of th o u g h t, fo r the su b seq u en t verses (98 f.) exem plify th e “voice” th a t “pours sw eet” by reference to the singer, n o t th e k in g (cf. W est ad v. 94-97). I w o u ld argue, th e re fo re , th a t w e m u st tak e ö δ’ όλβιος, ό ν τιν α Μ οΰσαι / φ ίλ ω ν τα ι- etc. as already re fe rrin g to the singer,48 an d th a t this is ap p aren t in the c o n tra st w ith th e c o rre sp o n d in g lines a b o u t th e king in v .8 If.: ό ντιν α τιμ ή σ ο υσ ι Διάς κ ο ϋ ρ α ι . . . / (83) τω μεν έπί γλώ σση γλυκερήν χείο υ σ ιν έέρσην, / τοϋ δ’ έπ ε’ έκ σ τό μ α το ς ρ εϊ μείλ ιχ α - (“w hom ever [scil. o f kings] th e d au g h ters o f Z eus h o n o r . . . / (83) u p o n his to n g u e they p o u r sw eet dew, and fro m his m o u th flow s o o th ­ ing w o rd s.”). F o r all the sim ilarity betw een these passages, one d iffe r­ ence at once leaps out, nam ely th a t in v. 81 th e M uses “h o n o r” (τιμ ή ­ σουσι) som eone, in v. 9 6 -9 7 th ey “love” (φ ίλω ντα ι) him . φ ιλ εϊν at this tim e retains a g o o d m easure o f its ro o t m eaning, i. e. “jem an d en als einen d er Seinen b etrach ten bzw . b e h an d e ln ” .49 H av in g ju s t h e ard th a t poets com e fro m the M use, b u t th a t kings b elo n g to Zeus, it m akes sense th a t φ ίλ ω ντα ι re fe r to the poet: the M uses m ig h t som etim es h o n o r a king, b u t the p o e t is one o f th e ir ow n.

We cannot accept von Fritz’ apparent interpretation of τοίη Μουσάων ιερή δόσις άνθρώποισιν in v. 93 as a generalizing transition from kings (via mankind) to poets, and hence as the antecedent of γάρ τοι in v. 94: “eine Musengabe, die nicht nur Königen gegeben w ird ..., sondern auch anderen Menschen. Darauf folgt endlich ‘denn von den Musen und von dem fernhintreffenden Apollon sind die Sänger...’.” (op. cit., n.45 above, p.43 = 312-313) τοίη must refer to the preceding discussion of the Muses’ gift to kings, the fruit of which mankind enjoys in the form of good government while not itself receiv­ ing a comparable gift. According to Friedlaender (Hermes 49, 1914, 10 = WdF 287)-follow ed by West (ad v. 94 -9 7 )-w e should read verses 94-96 as though they were concessive, i.e. “Denn wenn auch die Sänger von Apoll und den Musen stammen und die ‘Könige’ (nicht von ihnen, sondern) von Zeus, so verleihen doch die Musen (allen, also auch den von Zeus stam­ menden ‘Königen’) die Macht der Rede.” Yet this enfeebles the distinction between sing­ ers and kings expressed with such memorable and (surely) deliberate bluntness in v. 94-96, a distinction virtually provoked by the bold, unprecedented linking of the king with the Muse. 48 Thus already von Fritz, op. cit., and P. Pucci, Hesiod and the Language o f Poetry (Baltimore 1977) 18-19. 49 Thus Fi.B. Rosen, “Die Ausdrucksform für ‘veräußerlichen’ und ‘unveräußerlichen Besitz’ im Frühgriechischen. Das Funktionsfeld von homerischen φίλος”, Lingua 8 (1959) 291, followed by M.Landfester, Das griechische Nomen “philos” und seine Ableitungen (Hildesheim 1966) 109. Cf. generally E. Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indoeuropéennes (Paris 1969) 335-353.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

81

T h e re can, th en , o n occasion be significant co m m o n g ro u n d betw een m o n arch and b ard . Indeed, it is H e sio d ’s ev id en t and em phatic in terest m elab o ratin g th e advantages o f this p o ten tial p articip atio n in th e M use o n th e p a rt o f the r u l e r - t o w it, th a t the la tte r can fully realize his civic fu n c tio n on ly w ith h e r h e lp - th a t (at first sight) ren d ers h arsh his e q u al­ ly em phatic insistence on the fu n d am en tal d istin ctio n betw een p o et and king. Y et th a t d istin ctio n is prim ary. T h e p o ten tial co n ju n ctio n is co lo red a limine by a stro n g aw areness o f its lim itation: poets and kings rem ain in th e ir essence a p a rt.50 R e tu rn in g to C allim achus’ hym n, we fin d the co n ju n ctio n o f singer and sovereign is gone; o nly the difference rem ains: “From P h o eb u s com e th o se w ell-versed in the w ays o f the lyre; ‘b u t fro m Z eus com e k in g s’” (“έκ δέ Δ ιός βασ ιλήες” ν. 7 7-78). T h o u g h keeping th e half-line w hole, C allim achus a lte r s - o r sim ply d is c a rd s -its original co n tex t and th e re b y exposes the gu lf betw een the H esio d ic poem and his own, b etw een th e w o rld of the early archaic state and th e realities o f the P to lem aic co u rt. F or in his Hymn to Zeus th e king is p o in ted ly a lo o f fro m an active use o f the M u se .51 In fact, the public aren a fo r such use - t h e political in stitu tio n s o f the city-state - had becom e obsolete. T h e m o n arch n ow reigned o m n ip o ten t, as sublim e and d istan t fro m his su b ­ jects as w as his p a tro n deity Z eus.52 W e need o n ly th in k o f the hum ble settin g o f the hym n as a sym posium (v. 1, cf. M cL en n an ad v. 1), i.e. a festive g ath erin g o f friends, to sense th e rem o ten ess fro m Z eus’ kings - “th a n w hich th e re is n o th in g m ore g o d -lik e ” u p o n the earth (Δ ιός ο ύδέν ά νά κ τω ν / θειότερον, v. 79-80) and am ong w hom C allim achus’ sovereign is suprem e (περιπρό γ ά ρ εύρύ βέβηκεν v. 86):

50 Thus also von Fritz {op. cit. p. 313): “Von einem Anspruch, daß der Sänger mit dem König gehen solle, ist hier schlechterdings nichts zu finden. Könige und Sänger werden im Gegenteil deutlich voneinander abgesetzt”. 51 This is also the case in a passage of Theocritus’ Encomium to Ptolemy (17.73-75): Att Κρονίωνι μελοντι / αιδοϊοι βασιλήες, δ δ’ έξοχος ον κε φιλήση / γεινόμενον τα πρώτα. Here Theocritus combines an allusion to Theogony 96 (έκ δέ Διός βασιλήες) with one to another passage from the same section on kings (v. 80-82): ή (scil. the Muse) γάρ καί βασιλεϋσιν αμ’ αίδοίοιοιν όπηδεΓ / οντινα τιμήσουσι Διός κοΰραι μεγάλοιο / γεινόμενον τ’ έσίδωσι διοτρεφέων βασιλήων, / τφ μεν έπι γλώσση γλυκερήν χείουσιν έέρσην. The Hellenistic poet lets Zeus assume the function which the Muses perform in Hesiod: Zeus, not the Muse, looks upon the king at birth and subsequently cares for him. The king may support his poets (v. 112-116), but he himself has no active part in the Muse. 52 Thus also Ziegler, op. cit. p.338: “König und Untertanen sind auf Erden getrennte Welten”. And correspondingly, p. 337: “Erst an den hellenistischen Höfen konnte Zeus nicht nur zum besonderen Gott und Schützer der Könige werden, sondern sogar, wie es im kallimacheischen Hymnus geschieht, gleichsam dem Volk entzogen und für den H of reserviert werden”.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

έσπεριος κείνος γε τελεί τά κεν ήρι νόηση' έσπεριος τα μέγιστα, τα μείονα δ’, εύτε νοήση. by evening he achieves those things that he thought of that morning; by evening the greatest, the lesser the moment he thinks them. (v. 87-88) R uling was no lo n g e r even the p artial d o m ain o f th e M use. B ut n e ith e r did the p o et sw ay large audiences in a public fo ru m any m ore th ro u g h the skillful use o f w ords: p erfom an ce, as m en tio n ed above (p. 16-17, 61), had given w ay to the private act o f reading. T h a t k in sh ip in th e M use, to w hich H esio d could still appeal, and w hich h a d played o u t its role on the civic stage, was thus a th in g o f the past. F o r b o th g o v ern m en t and literatu re had u n d e rg o n e a process o f progessive is o la tio n -fr o m th e populace and from each o th er. P o e t and sovereign had w ith d ra w n into separate spheres. In the gap betw een p o etic and political spheres, the p o e t acq u ired the freedom o f a m arginal fig u re.53 H e could a ffo rd an occasio n ally iro n ic o r w itty stance tow ards m atters o f royal in te re st because his d o m ain was so circum scribed.54 H e could exem pt h im s e lf-in a very gentle g es­ tu re o f in d e p e n d e n c e -fro m the list (v. 74 -7 5 ) o f th o se explicitly u n d e r the king’s c o n tro l (cf. above). A nd I w o u ld suggest th a t we see a q u iet assertiveness even in his choice o f a lo catio n previously u n a tte ste d as the birthplace o f his ru le r’s p a tro n god, th a t is P arrh asia: “freed o m o f speech” (v. 10). W e have seen, then, th a t even as he affects c o n tin u ity by q u o tin g H e sio d ’s έκ δ ε Atòg βασιλήες, even as he aligns him self w ith th e tra d i­ tio n so as to enlist its a u th o rity in su p p o rt o f his encom iastic in ten t, C allim achus obliquely b u t unm istak ab ly asserts th a t th a t alig n m en t is conditional, th a t the co n tin u ity conceals a break . H e sio d speaks; his w ords rem ain his ow n (set firm ly ap art w ith in the hym n by o u r m ental q u o ta tio n m arks). Y et w hile accurately resu scitated into the c o n te m p o ­ ra ry poem , these w ords acquire th ere a d ifferen t sh ad e o f m eaning, tinged by the perso n ality o f th e H ellen istic a u th o r w h o invoked them and by the alien en v ironm ent created fo r th em in w hich to ap p ear. T h e q u o ta tio n thus does n o t d iffer substantially in fu n c tio n fro m th e device o f resu rrectin g an archaic a u th o r such as H ip p o n a x in to 3rd cent. B. C. A lexandria. B oth respond to th a t a fo re m e n tio n ed need fo r m ean in g fu l 53 A phenomenon productively analyzed by N.Austin, TAPhA 98 (1967) If. esp. 18-21 with reference to Theocritus 16, and more generally by F.T. Griffiths, op. cit. ch. 1 n.76 above, p.42-43, 50. 54 He had the licence, for instance, to link royal praise in an epinician (the Victoria Berenices) with a myth about the invention of the mousetrap! or to eulogize his queen through the persona of a lock of her hair (the Coma Berenices).

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

83

c o n tin u ity (cf. p .7 5 above), establishing a brid g e to the past and allow ­ ing th a t past to speak in the here and n o w -a lb e it w ith a voice tra n s ­ fo rm ed by the filter o f its new su rro u n d in g s. Indeed, after the n e cro ­ m an tic fiction o f raising the p o etic dead, a q u o ta tio n is th e closest we com e to h earin g the voice o f an ancestral b ard as “p a rticip an t” in the literary present. Such fam ous q u o ta tio n s are rare in H ellen istic verse, how ever. Far m o re typical, indeed all-pervasive, are com plex and subtle form s o f allu­ sion w here th e poets a tte m p t w ith obsessive persistence to p en etrate the m o st m inute p articulars o f the tra d itio n . T h e u n h e a rd -o f lengths to w h ich they w en t in this attem p t is itself, as m en tio n ed before, an e lo ­ q u e n t sign o f th e ir sense o f rift. C onversely, it m ay (as in th e case o f the q u o ta tio n ) also reflect th e n ecro m an tic urge, th a t desire to reanim ate th e p ast so as to establish a s ig n ific a n t-a lb e it c o n d itio n a l-c o llo q u y w ith it. I say c o n d itio n al since, in the resu ltan t dialogue w ith th e dead, th e living in te rlo c u to r characteristically reasserts th e distance betw een him self and his an teced en t text. A t least th a t is w h at usually happens am o n g the H ellen istic avant-garde. A n in tricate, m u lti-layered allusion in C allim achus’ Hymn to Artemis, w hich plays sim ultaneously u p o n tw o, p erh ap s three, passages from o th e r poem s, exhibits these o p posing tendencies w ith a special and p ro ­ vocative tw ist: the p o e t establishes his link w ith th e p ast n o t ju st in m a t­ ters o f detail; ra th e r in a sw eeping, p ro g ram m atic sense he appears to p ro claim allegiance to, and to espouse the style of, a specific an teced en t p o et. Y et even th en , as we shall see, the p re c u rso r’s a u th o rity is revealed to be fa r fro m absolute. “A d ia ch ro n ic g u lf”, as G .W . M o st has p u t it (Hermes 109 [1981] 1 8 8 ),"- t h e centuries sep aratin g the various tra d i­ tio n s o f archaic and classical G reece from th e O ik o u m en e o f A lexander and his successors - is rein scrib ed ” on the text. T h e passage fro m the hym n runs as follow s:55 ήνίκα δ’ αί νύμφαι σε χορω ενι κυκλώσονται άγχόθι πηγάων Αιγυπτίου Ίνωποϊο ή Πιτάνη (καί γάρ Πιτάνη σεθεν) ή évi Λίμναις, ή ϊνα, δαϊμον, Άλας Άραφηνίδας οίκήσουσα ήλθες άπό Σκυθίης, άπό δ’ ε’ίπαο τεθμια Ταύρων, μή νειάν τημοΰτος έμαί βόες εϊνεκα μισθού τετράγυον τεμνοιεν ύπ’ άλλοτρίω άροτήρυ ή γάρ κεν γυιαί τε καί αύχενα κεκμηυϊαι κάπρον επι προγενοιντο, καί εί Στυμφαιίδες ειεν

170

174

178

1-8 and 56 55 For a somewhat fuller discussion of these verses cf. ZPE 54 (1984) (1984) 16.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

είναετιζόμεναι κεραελκέες, αϊ μέγ’ άρισται τέμνειν ώλκα βαθεΐαν έπεί θεός ουποτ’ εκείνον ήλθε παρ’ Ήέλιος καλόν χορόν, άλλα θεήται, δίφρον έπιστήσας, τά δε φάεα μηκύνονται.

182

But when your nymphs encircle you (sc. Artemis) in the dance near the springs of Egyptian Inopos, or at Pitane (for Pitane is yours as well), or at Limnai, or Halai Araphenides, deity, where you came to live from Scythia, and renounced the customs of the Taurians, then may my cows not plow a field for a wage, a field of four γύαι under another’s plowman, for surely lame and with their necks worn out would they return to the dung, even if they were Stymphaian, nine years old, and drawing by the horns, which are far the best cows for plowing the deep furrow; since the god Helios never passes by that lovely dance, but he gazes at it, his chariot stopped, and the lights of day stretch on. T h is passage has long d raw n critical com m ent. F o r a lth o u g h it begins uneventfully en o u g h w ith a learned catalo g u e o f the places w here A rte ­ m is’ nym phs encircle h e r in the dance, verses 175f. seem d elib erately confusing. W h en those nym phs are dancing, says C allim achus, “m ay m y cows n o t plow a fie ld ,o f fo u r γ ύ α ι..., fo r th ey w o u ld surely re tu rn to the d u n g lam e and w ith th e ir necks w o rn o u t (1 7 5 -1 7 8 ).” T o find the sophisticated u rb an p o e t p osin g as a calculating fa rm e r is u n e x ­ pected, to say the least.56 T h e re a d e r’s p u z zle m e n t is c o m p o u n d ed , m oreover, by the p o e t’s fe a r fo r his cows if A rtem is’ ch o ru s w ere d a n c ­ ing. W h at link could th ere be betw een these ostensibly u n c o n n ec te d o c ­ currences? T h a t is, w h a t is th e re a b o u t this dance th a t could w a rra n t such rustic anxiety? T h e answ er is w ith h eld u n til th e second h a lf o f v. 180 and follow ing: “the god H elio s never passes th a t lovely ch o ru s by, b u t ra th e r haltin g his ch ario t he gazes at it, and the days grow lo n g .” Y et w hile these verses explain the fa rm e r’s cares, th e y in no w ay explain w hy th e p o et w o uld care to assum e this guise in th e first place. In this reg ard , the p ro m in en t allusions c o n tain ed in this passage m ay help us fu rth e r. T h e first, as has long been reco g n ized , refers to a fam ous scene in the Odyssey (1 8 .3 5 6 ff.).57 H e re , the su ito r E u ry m ach u s

56 One initially feels that the βόες of v. 175 may be motivated by nothing more than the Ταύρων of v. 174. 57 For this allusion cf. K. Kuiper, Studia Callimachea I (Leiden 1896) 91-92; H.Herter, “Kallimachos und Homer”, Kleine Schriften (Munich 1975) 415 and n. 173; E.Cahen, Les Hymnes de Callimaque (Paris 1930) 129; F. Bornmann, Callimachi Hymnus in Dianam (Florence 1968) ad v. 176.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

85

o ffers O dysseus a m enial job on his land fo r pay so as to ta u n t him, μισθός δέ t o i ά ρ κ ιο ς έσ τα ι, “ and the w age will indeed be su fficien t” (v. 358, to w hich C allim achus a p p aren tly refers w ith ει'νεκα μισθού, “fo r a w ag e” v. 175). B ut O dysseus, he says, will never d o an h o n e st d ay ’s w o rk so long as he can beg. O dysseus replies in kind, challenging E u ry m ach u s to a co n test o f m ow ing w hen th e days are long, o r plow ing o n a large field, o r even d o in g battle (v. 366 ff.): Εύρύμαχ’, εί γάρ νώιν ερις εργοιο γένοιτο ώρτ| έν είαρινή, οτε τ’ ήματα μακρά πέλονται, έν ποίη, δρέπανον μεν έγών εύκαμπές εχοιμι, καί δέ σύ τοΐον έχοις, ινα πειρησαίμεθα έργου νήστιες άχρι μάλα κνέφαος, ποίη δέ παρείη. εί δ’ αυ καί βόες ειεν έλαυνέμεν, οϊ περ αριστοι, αϊθωνες μεγάλοι, άμφω κεκορηότε ποίης, ήλικες ίσοφόροι, τών τε σθένος ούκ άλαπαδνόν, τετράγυον δ’ εϊη, εϊκοι δ’ ύπό βώλος άροτρα»· τφ κέ μ’ ΐδοις, εί ώλκα διηνεκέα προταμοίμην.

370

375

Eurymachus, might there be a contest of farm work between us in the Springtime, when the days are long, in the grass, and that I might have a well-curved scythe, and you one like it, so that we might make trial of our work, fasting till it becomes quite dark, and the grass would be abundant. O r would that there were oxen to drive, the best there are, tawny and big, both well glutted with grass, equal in age and in drive at the plow, with strength not feeble, and that there were a field of four γύαι, and the earth should give way to the plow; then you would see me, whether I could cut a straight, continuous furrow. T h e echoes o f this scene in o u r passage are nu m ero u s and striking. B o th H o m e r and C allim achus m ention the len g th o f days (v. 367 οτε τ ’ ή μ α τα μακρά π έλ ο ν τα ι ~ τα δέ φ ά εα μηκύνονται, ν. 182), the best so rt o f cows (v .371 βόες ..., ο ϊ περ α ρ ισ το ι ~ Σ τυμ φ α ιίδες . . . / , α ΐ μέγ’ άρισ τα ι ν. 178-179), the size o f the field (τετρ ά γυ ο ν v. 374 ~ v. 176 sam e s e d e s ) , th e plow o r plow m an (v. 374 ύπό ... ά ρ ό τρ ω ~ ύ π ’ ... ά ρ ο τή ρ ι ν. 176) and th e so rt o f fu rro w to be cut (v. 375 ώ λκα διηνεκέα π ρ ο τα ­ μ οίμ η ν ~ τέμ νειν ώ λκα βα θεϊα ν ν. 180). B ut w hile m an y scholars have n o te d C allim ach u s’ dependence o n this episode, and even co m p ared the diction o f th e tw o in detail, none has publicly d ra w n th e obvious conclusion th a t C allim ach u s’ w ish and th a t o f O dysseus are precisely co n trary , th a t is, w hereas O dysseus at his m o st typically b o astfu l (cf. a sim ilar b o ast at 15.317 f.) is eag er to plow a field o f fo u r γ ύ α ι w hen the days are long, C allim achus rejects the

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

h e ro ’s course o f action, saying th a t even S ty m p h aian oxen w o u ld be useless if, in a single day, they had to p lo w a τε τρ ά γ υ ο ν νειόν. Even in antiquity, th e precise m eaning o f th e old epic w o rd τετρ ά γυ ο ς was in d o u b t.58 B ut C allim achus, like H o m e r app aren tly , tak es it to be an e n o rm o u s expanse: if th e sun sto o d still, i. e. w ith u n lim ited tim e, the best possible cows m ig h t plow it, b u t th e y w o u ld alm o st die o f fatigue in th e process. O n a norm al day, even th ey w o u ld never com e n e ar to accom plishing th e ir task. O n ly a h e ro like O dysseus, living in an h eroic age, could plow fo u r γ ύ α ι in a single d ay .59 By C allim ach u s’ time, th e τετρ ά γυ ο ν νειόν h ad becom e, as A. W . M a ir p u t it, “th e typical hero ic field”,60 a tra c t to o vast fo r a m o d ern , th ird cen tu ry m an to plow . F ar preferable, in C allim achus’ view, to play th e cautious, calcu latin g f a r m e r - a role entirely in keeping w ith his p o etic principles since it is essentially th a t o f H esio d , w h o se p o e try th e H ellen istic a u th o r ch am p i­ oned as a m odel fo r his ow n (cf. R ein sch -W ern er, op. cit., 4 -1 9 ). N e arly as p ro m in e n t as the allusion to H o m e r in o u r passage is o n e to th e Works and Days : to th e section th a t deals w ith plow ing and w h en it o u g h t to be d o n e (v. 414 f .). H e sio d begins w ith th e tem p o ral c o rre la ­ tives η μ ο ς ...τ ή μ ο ς ...τ ή μ ο ς (v. 414, 420, 422), C allim achus w ith ή νίκα .. .τη μ ο ΰ το ς (v. 170, 175). As one m ight expect in a w o rk th a t is p artially o rg an ized as a farm ing calendar, such co rrelatives are co m m o n ly used by H esio d as in tro d u c to ry fo rm u lae (cf. also 486, 488; 582, 585; ή μ ος ...τ ό τ ε 679, 681; ευτ’ ά ν ...δ ή τ ό τ ’ 458, 459; 564, 565; 609, 611; 619, 621; etc.). T h e ir appearance in C allim achus, sim ilarly applied, is th e first sign o f H esio d ic c o lo r in g - a n especially c lear-cu t sign, as th e w o rd τη μ οΰτος is a H e sio d ic unicum (άλλ’ ό π ό τ’. . .τη μ ο ΰ το ς 571, 576) w h ich does n o t reap p ear b efo re C allim achus.61 T h e H ellen istic p o e t know s b e tte r th a n to plow w hen th e days are longest, fo r H e sio d expressly re c ­ om m ends th e time: ήμ ος δη λ ή γει μένος οξέος ή ελ ίο ιο / κ α ύ μ α το ς ίδαλίμου, “w hen the stre n g th o f th e piercing sun leaves o ff / fro m its 58 According to a late source (Eustathius), it was the amount of land that a strong man could plow in a day. The only other pre-Callimachean instance appears to be Od. 7.113 (same sedes), where it is used adjectivally, as in our passage. In Od. 18 it is substantive. Thus, as Reinsch-Werner points out (p.91), “indem K. das Wort adjektivisch verwendet, weist er über die Szene, die er inhaltlich anklingen will, hinaus und hat damit dem Leser die beiden einzigen Fundstellen...ins Gedächtnis gerufen.” 59 Similarly Bornmann ad v. 176: “quattro γυΐαι, una misura che, in quanto allusiva alla sfida di Odisseo, ha del favoloso...È però evidente che si tratta di un’ area grande.” Cf. also Reinsch-Werner, 91. 60 Callimachus, Hymns and Epigrams (Loeb Classical Library 1955) 75 n.g. This inter­ pretation is apparently that of Apollonius of Rhodes as well, cf. ZPE 54 (1984) 7-8. 61 For this and the rest of the paragraph cf. Reinsch-Werner, 88-93. Her discussion of the interconnection between the Hesiodic and Homeric passages to which Callimachus alludes (cf. 88-89 n. 1) is interesting but not relevant to our present discussion.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

87

su ltry h e a t” (v. 414-415), th a t is N ovem ber. F u rth er, H e sio d specifies, like C allim achus, th a t the cows sh o u ld be nine years old ( WD 436 βόε δ’ έννα ετή ρ ω ~ είνα ετιζό μ ενα ι v. 179), fo r such are th e best ( IPX) 438 τώ έρ γά ζεσ θ α ι ά ρ ίσ τω ~ α ΐ μέγ’ α ρ ισ τα ι / τέμ νειν ν. 179-180). T h e fu rro w in th e Works and Days is stra ig h t (ίθείην α ΰ λ α κ ’ ν. 443), in the Hymn to Artemis, by a slight v ariation, it is deep (ώ λκα βαθεΐαν ν. 180). C allim a­ chus likew ise show s him self a fo llo w er o f H e sio d on the subject of len d in g cattle. Works and Days w . 451-454 describe th e p lig h t o f a m an w h o does n o t ow n cows: ...κραδίην δ’ εδακ’ άνδρός άβούτεωδή τότε χορτάζειν έλικας βόας ένδον έόνταςρηίδιον γάρ έπος είπεΐν “βόε δός καί άμαξαν” ρηίδιον δ’ άπανηνασθαι- “πάρα έργα βόεσσιν.” .. .but it stings the heart of a man without oxen. Then is the time to fatten the horned oxen within the stalls. For it is easy to say: “loan me a pair of oxen and a wagon;” and it is easy to refuse: “but there is work for the oxen.” C allim ach u s’ situ a tio n is ju st w h a t H e sio d recom m ends. As an o w n er o f cow s, he is in d e p e n d e n t an d can say to o th ers “π ά ρ α έρ γα βόεσ σ ιν”, “b u t th ere is w o rk fo r the o x en ”, as in effect he does in o u r passage (“m ay my cow s n o t plow a f i e l d ...f o r a w age u n d e r a n o th e r’s p lo w ­ m a n ” ν. 175-176). In sh o rt, he is his ow n m an, know s w hen to plow his field an d w h a t so rt o f oxen are best fo r th e job. H e rejects the pom p o u s p o stu re o f th e epic h ero fo r th e cautious, wise and h u m b ler style o f the H e sio d ic fa rm e r.62 I have a rg u ed elsew here (ZPE 54, 1984, 1-8) th at, in ad o p tin g this w h o lly u n ch arac te ristic ru stic pose, the u rb an p o e t is playing u p o n the tra d itio n a l m o tif o f p o e try as “plow ing”, the p o e t as “p low m an” (cf. P in d . N. 6.32; N. 10.26; P. 6.2 cf. O/. 9.27; P ratin as PMG 7 12 a; PMG 710; A non. PM G 923.4), and th a t in fav o rin g th e H esio d ic stance ra th e r th a n th a t o f H o m e r’s h ero ic epic he is m aking a p ro g ram m atic statem e n t co n cern in g his poetic, n o t his agricu ltu ral, preferences. H is g re a te r affin ity fo r the H e sio d ic p o stu re, how ever, deliberate and m a rk e d th o u g h it is, only goes so far. F o r th ere is h ard ly a w o rd in e ith e r th e H o m e ric o r H e sio d ic allusions th a t C allim achus does n o t alter. H e appears in a com ical w ay even to be practicing ag ricu ltu ral o n e -u p m a n sh ip by asserting th a t the best anim als fo r plow ing are fem ale (έμαί βόες ν. 175, α ϊ μ έγ’ α ρ ισ τα ι ν. 179) - in H o m e r and H e sio d

62 This rejection may extend to 3rd cent, epic as well if, in addition to Homer and Hesiod, Callimachus is alluding to Ap.Rh.III 1340-1344, rather than the other way around. For a discussion of this extensive contemporary allusion cf. ZPE 34 (1984) 7-8.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

th ey are m ale (β ό ε ς ..., ο ΐ περ α ρ ισ το ι Od. 18.371; β ό ε . . . / α ρ σ ε ν ε . . . / τώ έρ γά ζεσ θα ι άρ ίσ τω WD 436-438) - and by specifying th a t th ey m u st be S tym phaian (v. 178).63 B ut beyond this, C allim achus tran sfo rm s' th e c o n tex t o f b o th an teced en t p a s s a g e s -th e h e ro ’s boast, th e fa rm e r’s a lm a n a c - in to so m e­ th in g u n m istakably his ow n: a fo rm p articu larly su ited to c u rre n t tastes, the rid d le.64 T h e section was reco g n ized as “ein R ätselsp iel” by R ein sch -W ern er (op. cit. 87), and fits well th e d efin itio n o f α ίν ιγ μ α given by A ristotle (Poetics 1458 a 26 f.): α ιν ίγ μ α το ς τε γ α ρ ιδέα αΰτη έστί, το λ έγο ν τα ύ π ά ρ χ ο ν τα α δ ύ να τα σ υ νά ψ α ι, i. e. th e n a tu re o f a rid ­ dle is this: to attach im possible things to a given u tte ra n ce . It can be classed a “cosm ic rid d le ”, using th e categ o ry o f K. O h le rt (Rätsel und Rätselspiele der alten Griechen, Berlin 1912, 83-105). O f th o se cited by O h le rt, o u r riddle is closest to th e H o m e ric d escrip tio n o f the L aistryg o n ian city o f Lam os (Od. 10.82-86): .............δθι ποιμένα ποιμήν ήπύει είσελάων, ό δε τ’ έξελάων υπακούει, ένθα κ’ αυπνος άνηρ δοιούς έξήρατο μισθούς, τον μεν βουκολεων, τον δ’ αργυφα μήλα νομεύων εγγύς γαρ νυκτός τε καί ήματός εΐσι κέλευθοι ...... where herdsman calls to herdsman as he drives in his, flock, and the other answers as he drives his out. There a sleepless man could have earned a double wage, one by herding cattle, and one by putting white sheep out to graze. For the paths of night and day are near to one another. As already K rates saw (Schol. Od. 10.86), H o m e r seem s to lo cate th e L aistrygonians in the fa r n o rth , playing u p o n th e b revity o f th e ir su m ­ m er nights, w here, even w h en it is d ark , d ay lig h t is never fa r o ff (v. 86).65 It m ay be, as K uiper suspected (op. cit. p .9 1 ), th a t C allim achus h ad this very passage in m ind w h en creatin g his ow n: b o th a u th o rs deal w ith farm ing fo r a w age u n d e r circum stances w h en th e n o rm al tim e schem e is o u t o f joint. But, m ore im p o rtan tly , b o th fo llo w th e sam e form : a situ a tio n is assum ed (the dance o f A rtem is’ nym phs / th e care 63 Thus also Reinsch-Werner p.92. 64 For the Alexandrian love of riddles cf. Wilamowitz, H D II, 151-152, as also their taste for Technopaignia. Callimachus wrote a riddling work called “Athena” (Pfeiffer, Test. no. 23: καί την ’Αθήναν ύστατον μέλπω πάλιν / γρίφω βαθίστω καί δυσευρέτοις λόγοις). 65 Thus also Κ. Müllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde voi. 1 (Berlin 1870) 5 ff. and Wilamowitz, Homerische Untersuchungen voi.7, Philol. Unters. (1884) 168. The long win­ ter nights of the n o r th -“Cimmerian nights” -became a favored motif in late Greek erotic epigram, cf. AP 5.223, 283.

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

89

o f livestock am ong the L aistrygonians), w hich leads to a p u zzlin g state ­ m e n t fo r w hich th ere is no ap p aren t cause in the original situ atio n (the p o e t’s fe a r fo r his cows / th e sleepless m an ’s d o u b le w a g e )-c f. A risto ­ tle ’s ά δ ύ ν α τα σ υ ν ά ψ α ι- a n d is finally resolved in a closing ex p lan atio n (v. 180 έπει θ ε ό ς ... / εγγύς yàQ ...O d. 10.86) o f cosm ic p ro p o rtio n s. T h u s, even as he declares him self a disciple o f a p oetic p recu rso r, i. e. H e sio d , an d goes to g re a t lengths to follow in his fo o tstep s, C allim a­ chus radically alters the H e sio d ic fram ew o rk , tu rn in g the earn est te a c h ­ ings o f his chosen m aster in to an en tertain in g H ellen istic “R ätselspiel” . In so doing, he suggests th a t fo r all'his desire to co n n ect w ith the tra d i­ t i o n - t o be H e s io d ic - , a gu lf b o th in aim s and o u tlo o k persists. “H e sio d ic ” C allim achus, as he has recently been called,66 is an apt d esig n atio n only in so fa r as it em braces the possibility (o r better, p ro b a ­ bility) o f d eviation from H e sio d .67 In this passage fro m the Hymn to Artemis we en co u n te r precisely th a t s o rt o f u b iq u ito u s, obsessive allusion th a t is a h allm ark o f the H ellen is­ tic avant garde , an d w hich, in its very intricacy, bespeaks th e ep ig o n e’s desire to m ake up fo r his perceived belatedness. W e have seen this im pulse inspire a response so flam boyantly self-d ram atizin g as H ip p o ­ n a x ’ re su rre c tio n o r T im o n ’s u n d e rw o rld -jo u rn e y to consult X e n o ­ p h an es. H e re, in a less s p e c ta c u la r-th o u g h essentially equivalent -a p p ro a c h , th e p o e t fills his verse w ith his p red ecesso rs’ presence, evo­ k in g th e d isem b o d ied voices o f the h eritag e th ro u g h th e m edium of allusion. Y et the very p a s s io n - o r even v e h e m e n c e -w ith w hich these poets assert th e ir intim acy w ith th e past serves only to u n d erlin e h o w fu n d a ­ m en tally alien it rem ains. T h is is n o t th e easy fam iliarity o f peers. R ath er, by c o n sta n t reco u rse to the trad itio n , to th e ancient m odels, the p o ets effectively set th o se m odels apart, p erm an en tly , as au th o rities, suggesting th e re b y the existence o f a can o n (th o u g h none h ad as yet been fully established in C allim achus’ tim e). T h u s even as th ey engage in a process o f in sisten t rean im atio n , the A lex an d rian a u th o rs are set­ tin g m em orials as definitive as, if less o v ert th an , th e fictitious epitaphs w ith w hich o u r discussion began. Paradoxically, th e distance th a t rem ained, an d th a t in the epitaphs p ro v o k ed expressions o f m ou rn in g , serves n ow to liberate th e poets fro m any slavish ad herence to the past, p ro v id in g them ra th e r w ith the necessary latitu d e fo r creativity and in n o v atio n . A nd it is precisely against the b ack d ro p o f an u n p rece66 Cf. the title of the book “Callimachus Hesiodicus” by Reinsch-Werner. 67 We recall the ambiguous reaction of the Alexandrian literati toward Hipponax in Callimachus’ 1st Iambos (cf. p.66 below), with its mixture of intense interest and skepti­ cism.

90

Rupture and Revival. The Poet’s Link to the Literary Past

d en ted aw areness o f th e tra d itio n , th a t th e o rig in al H ellen istic genius com es to th e fore. *

In c h ap ter o n e w e saw h ow th e co n tem p o rary H ellen istic w o rld , w ith its new aw areness o f w ritin g and th e b o o k , w as b ro u g h t to b e a r u p o n age-old n o tio n s o f in sp iratio n and th e p o e t’s self im age. In c h ap te r tw o w e reversed th e process, track in g attem pts to revive th e p a st and to m ake it fu n ctio n in th e lite ra tu re o f th e presen t. In e ith e r case, th o u g h w ith d ifferin g em phases, o u r concern was w ith the relatio n o f p re sen t and past, o f in n o v atio n and tra d itio n , and w ith th e ir p ecu liar ad m ix tu re in th e H ellenistic Age. In th e final ch ap ter w e w ill e n d ea v o r to sy n th e ­ size the critical perspectives o f the previous tw o by exam ining in d etail a single exem plary poem : C allim ach u s’ Hymn to Delos. T h is is a w o rk th a t lends itself to such an analysis fo r a variety o f reaso n s. F irst o f all, it is the lo ngest surviving poem (326 verses) by th e m o st p ro m in e n t lit­ erary rep resentative o f th e day. Secondly, it deals w ith a tra d itio n a l them e par excellence- t h a t is, w ith th e b irth o f th e so n g -g o d , A pollo. M o re im p ortantly, how ever, w e are in th e u n iq u e p o sitio n o f n o t o n ly know ing of, b u t actually possessing th e C lassical w o rk s th a t serve as C allim achus’ m o d e ls -w o rk s th a t are ack n o w led g ed to be o f th e h ig h ­ est quality. T h e hym n m ay serve, th e re fo re , as a k in d o f la b o ra to ry in w hich w e can observe h ow th e p o e t receives, and resp o n d s to, his m o d ­ els over th e course o f a len g th y sustained n arrativ e. A t th e sam e tim e, how ever, this hym n contains extensive and p ro m in e n t referen ce to im p o rtan t c o n tem p o rary events, to w it th e invasion o f th e C elts ag ain st D elphi in 279/8 B. C. and th e su b seq u en t m u tin y o f C eltic m ercenaries against P tolem y P h iladelphus in E gypt. It even bears m any specifically E gyptian traits. T h e rem o te literary p ast th u s shares th e stage w ith th e preo ccu p atio n s, b o th poetic and political, o f m o d e rn -d a y A lex an d ria. T h e d ram a o f this association and in te rp e n e tra tio n w ill be o u r m ain concern in w h a t follow s.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos It is strik in g th a t this poem , w hich takes as its “co n stan t source o f in sp ira tio n ” th e Homeric Hymn to Apollo,1 sh o u ld be called a hym n to Delos. A nd it is o f fu n d a m e n tal im portance th a t an in te rp re ta tio n o f the po em try to explain w h a t so conspicuous a reallig n m en t in to p ic m ight m ean. W e have o fte n seen b efo re th a t it is precisely th ere w here the H ellen istic p o e t deviates fro m his chosen an teced en t th a t one m ay grasp his in ten t: the m eaning lies in the difference. W h at, then, did C al­ lim achus find so appealing a b o u t D elos? W hy, in c o n trad istin ctio n to his archaic m odel, did he m ake it his cen tral them e? T h ese questions p ro v id e o u r p o in t o f d e p a rtu re and fo rm th e c o n sta n t b ack d ro p fo r o u r reflections on th e poem . W e m ay explain an in terest in D elos in various w ays. B ut fo r o u r p u r­ poses, a glance at 1) the h istorical cirum stances and 2) C allim achus’ p ro g ra m m a tic interests w ill prove m ost helpful.

Chronology T h e Hymn to Delos is the only C allim achean hym n th a t can be lo cated w ith in a certain tim e-sp an in the p o e t’s life. A nd, as w e shall see, th e h isto rical circum stances o f this p a rtic u la r p erio d suggest a m otive fo r th e sh ift to Delos. T h e terminus post quern is supplied by references in A p ollo’s second p ro p h ecy (v. 162-195) to th e m utiny o f th e fo u r th o u sa n d C eltic m ercenaries hired by P h ilad elp h u s to com bat his halfb ro th e r M agas. T h is m utiny to o k place n o t lo n g a fte r the C eltic attack o n D elp h i (279/8 B .C .),12 w hich is likew ise re fe rre d to in th e prophecy. T h e m ost p ro b ab le date fo r th e uprisin g seems to be ca. 275 B .C .3

1 Thus Mineur p. 4, and virtually all critics before him: Kuiper, op. cit. (ch.2 n.57 above) 111; Herter, op. cit. (ch.2 n.39 above) 379; Wilam. H D II 63; E. Howald and E. Staiger, Die Dichtungen des Kallimachos: Griechisch und Deutsch (Zürich 1955) 99-101; Reinsch-Werner, op. cit. p.292. 2 The attack is dated on the basis of Polyb. II 20.6, Paus. X 23.9 and the Coan inscription, Syll.3 398, cf. G. Nachtergael, Les Galates en Grece et les Sóteria de Delphe, Academie Royale de Belgique, Memoires de la classe des Lettres, Collection in 2nd serie, T.LXIII, Fascicule I, 1977, 172-175. 3 Cf. Nachtergael op. cit. 170-171 with n.204; E. Will, Histoire Politique du Monde Hellénistique2 (Nancy 1979) 145-146. Besides our hymn, there are only two other sources

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

A terminus ante quem has generally been seen in the d e fe a t o f th e P tolem aic fleet in the battle o f C os (262/1) a t the end o f the C h re m o n idean w a r (ca. 266-261), a fte r w hich tim e P to lem aic p o w er in th e C y ­ clades declined sharply.4 But, as recen t scholars have p o in te d o u t, th a t does n o t in itself preclude a la te r date f o r o u r po em (as W ilam o w itz believed, H D II 62), since the P tolem ies co n tin u ed to com pete fo r influence on D elos dow n th ro u g h th e reign o f P to lem y III E uerg etes (i.e. 246-222 B .C .).5 T h e island was to o im p o rta n t to be ig n o re d by a for this mutiny: the scholia ad v. 175-187 and Paus.I 7.2, quoted in Pfeiffer’s apparatus to the scholia. Some scholars (e.g. Wilamowitz, H D II 62; P.M . Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria [Oxford 1972] 657-658 and n.337) have thought that the reference to Ptolemy as θεός (v. 165) presupposes the existence of the cult of the Theoi Adelphoi, first attested in P. Hibeh 199: 11-17 which is probably datable to 272/1 (cf. L.Koenen, Eine agonistische Inschrift aus Ägypten und frühptolemaische Königsfeste [Meisenheim 1977] 45 n.92, though cf. also Wörrle’s doubts, Chiron 8 [1978] 215 n.67). Some even assume that because there is no mention o f his queen Arsinoe, the hymn must have been composed after her death on July ninth, 270 (cf. F.T. Griffiths, Maia 29-30 [1977-1978] 95 n.3. For the date see W. H. Mineur, Callimachus Hymn to Delos, Introduction and Commentary [Leiden 1984] 16-18, Pfeiffer’s Kallimachos Studien [Munich 1922] 8 and his prolegomena to voi. II of the Callimachus edition, p .XXXIX.). As to the first supposition, the fact that someone is called “god” in a poem does not imply the existence of a dynastic cult (cf. Demetrius Poliorcetes in Hermocles 1.13 ff., Powell p. 174; or, much earlier, Rhesus in Euripides’ tragedy of that name, whom the cho­ rus addresses: σύ μοι Ζευς ό φαναϊος ν.355). Moreover, it should be recalled that Phila­ delphus received divine honors from the Egyptians upon acceding to the throne (cf. J. Quaegebeur, “Reines Ptolémaiques et Traditions Egyptiennes” in Das Ptolemdische Ägypten, ed. H.Maehler and V. M. Strocka [Mainz 1978] 246) and that, in marrying his sister Arsinoe sometime between 279 and 274, he took a significant and very public step towards adopting Egyptian kingship practices (cf. Fraser op. cit. p. 217; on the date cf. K.J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte IV 2 [Berlin 1927] 182; H. Volkmann, “Ptolemaios” RE XXIII 2, 1658). What is more, he was revered as a god on a local basis by Greeks as early as 280 in Byzantium (cf. C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und die griechischen Städte, Zetemata 14 [1956] 116-121) and, more importantly, in Delos probably by 274 (cf. IG XI 4, 1038 = Durrbach, Choix # 2 1 , p .30-31, v .23-27 όπως δε καί τών ιερών ών θύουσιν οί νησιώται εν Δήλωι τοϊς τε αλλοις θεοϊς καί Σωτήρι Πτολεμαίωι καί βασιλεΐ Πτολεμαίωι.. . , cf. Ρ. Roussel, B C H 31 [1970] 342-343; Ρ. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos a l ’époque hellénistique et a l ’époque imperiale [Paris 1970] 532). Thus, inasmuch as Ptolemy’s divinity is here simply prophesied within a mythological framework, a definite link to the cult of the Theoi Adelphoi need not be assumed. Further, Arsinoe’s absence tells us no more than does the absence of the king in the Adonis song of Theocritus 15 (v. 100-144), where both Berenice and Arsinoe appear. The poem’s theme, not its political context, determines its cast of players. 4 Thus Herter, RE Suppi. XIII 238, Griffiths, op. cit. (n.3 above) 95. 5 Thus R. Bagnali, The Administration o f the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt (Leiden 1976) 156, cf. also Will, op. cit. (n.3 above) 231-233. The beginning of Ptolemaic dominance in the Aegean is dated to 286. An inscription of Ios (without date, IG XII 5, 1004 = OGIS 773) honors Zenon, a commander of αφρακτα πλοία, undecked ships, under the nesiarch Bacchon (Prosop. Ptol. VI # 15038),

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

93

k in g d o m w ith p reten sio n s to pow er. A n o th e r d a tin g criterio n w hich u n til now has been o v erlo o k ed m ay m erit co n sid eratio n , nam ely the re f e r e n c e - in a section d ealing w ith the p re sen t-d ay s itu a tio n - to Φοίν ισ σ α Κ ύρνος (v. 19): C orsica could p ro b ab ly n o t have been called “C a rth a g in ia n ” a fte r being c o n q u ered by C n. C ornelius Scipio in 259. T h a t C allim ach u s’ reference is inform ed is suggested by the general in te re st in th e W est d u rin g his era, e.g. in th e h isto rian T im aeus, w hose influence on C allim achus is w ell know n (cf. P feiffe r’s index s.v. T im a e ­ us), and in L y c o p h ro n .*6 A terminus ante quem o f 259 w ould essentially co n firm th e d rift o f prev io us scholarly consensus, fo r the years 2 75-259 co rresp o n d to th o se in w hich P to lem aic influence in the A egean and especially on D elo s was at its h e ig h t (cf. T h e o c ritu s 17.90 w here P to lem y rules καί Κ υκλά δεσσ ιν, έπεί ο ί νά ες α ρ ισ τα ι / π ό ν το ν έπ ιπ λώ ο ντι).7 Since D elos w as th e adm inistrative, econom ic and cultic hub o f the C yclades, and fu rth e r, one o f th e fo re m o st religious sites in all o f G reece, the P to le ­ m ies did th e ir u tm o st to cultivate close ties to the island. T h e re was co n sid erable prestige at stake in such a co n n ectio n . Indeed, a trib u te to th e islan d ’s cen trality to H ellen ic culture w o u ld effectively p u t Ptolem y o n th e m ap fo r possessing it. A hym n to D elos at this tim e w o u ld thus be a shrew dly chosen them e fo r a p o e t at the c o u rt in A lexandria.8 who was appointed by Ptolemy (Bagnali, op. cit., 137). This same Zenon is honored in an Athenian decree of 286/5 (SyltP 367) in which he is likewise commander of undecked ships. Together, the inscriptions show that by 286/5, Ptolemy could appoint whom he wished as nesiarch to the κοινόν των νησιωτών. From 285 to 260, the Ptolemies held a vir­ tual monopoly on benefactions for, and honors from, Delos (Bagnali, op. cit., 154 n. 139). 6 For this interest generally, cf. A. Momigliano, Terzo Contributo alla Storia Degli Studi Classici e dell Mondo Antico (Rome 1966) 35-51. On pre-Roman Corsica, cf. J. and L. Jehasse, La Nécropole Préromain d ’Aléria, Gallia Suppi. 25 (Paris 1973) 16-23. 7 Critics have tried to narrow the date down further by establishing a relative chrono­ logy between our hymn and Theocritus 17, the Encomium to Ptolemy (written before Arsinoe’s death in 270, cf. Gow’s preface). Unfortunately, no convincing argument as to pri­ ority has yet appeared, though the two poems exhibit many noteworthy parallels (cf. F.T. Griffiths, op. cit. [n.3 above] 9 7 ff.; cf. also W. Meincke, Untersuchungen zu den enkomiastischen Gedichten Theokrits [Diss. Kiel 1965] 116-124 and G.Schlatter, Theokrit und Kallimachos [Diss. Zürich 1941]). 8 There have been many attempts to link the hymn to a specific occasion. A.Reinach, REA 13 (1911) 46 n. 1 suggested the Nesiotic Ptolemaia of 276/5 and is followed most recently by C. Meillier, Callimaque et son Temps (Lille 1979) 180-191. Both see the poem as commissioned by the islanders for performance during cult ceremonies. Less extreme is Cahen’s view ( Callimaque, 281-283) that the poem was recited at Delos, but separate from the actual ceremony, as a kind of primer for the subsequent ritual, or as reinforce­ ment thereafter. It is unlikely, however, that a poem deriving much of its impact from recondite traditions and literary allusion, most of it unrelated to Delos, should be intended for an audience in a local festival (cf. H.Herter, Gnomon 12 [1936] 456-457). Rather, the address to Ptolemy at the very heart of the poem makes Alexandria with its

94

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

Callimachus’ Programme B ut w hile political co n sid eratio n s certain ly m ade D elo s an attractive them e, C allim achus also saw in it a p o te n tia l vehicle fo r a p ro g ra m ­ m atic statem ent. As is well know n, C allim achus rejected th e stale tra d itio n o f c o n tin ­ uous poem s o n a g ran d scale, like th o se o f the Epic Cycle ( Ep. 28), th a t dealt w ith heroes and kings (fr. 1.3). “F at” (fr. 1.23-24; cf. fr. 398), and “b om bastic” (fr. 1.19 μέγα ψ ο φ έο υ σ α ν άοιδήν) are the w o rd s he selects to describe them . “T h u n d e r is n o t fo r m e”, he says, “b u t fo r Z e u s” (fr. 1.20 βροντάν ούκ έμόν, ά λλα Διός). H is p referen ce is ra th e r th e “sm all” poetic form , and he choses to u n ro ll his verse o n ly a little w ays, like a child (fr. 1.5 έπος δ’ έπί τυτθόν έλ[ίσσω / π α ϊς ά τε an d cf. the ο λίγη λιβάς άκρον ά ω το ν , Η. 2.112). T h e critics sh o u ld ju d g e his poem s by th e ir “a rt” (τέχνη, fr. 1.17), n o t by th e ir size. F o r A pollo bid him c u lti­ vate a “slen d er” M use, and follow th e n arro w , u n tro d d e n p a th (fr. 1.25-28). C onsequently, his p o e try stands ap art fro m all th a t is v u lg ar {Ep. 28), and “p u rity ” is one o f its d istin g u ish in g traits (H. 2.11 0 -1 1 2 ). In w hat follow s, I shall suggest th a t D elo s’ ch aracteristics (h er d im in ­ utive size and slender, delicate statu re; h e r p u rity an d love o f song; h er freedom fro m violence and w ar) allow ed C allim achus to see in h e r n o t only an island b u t a m e ta p h o r fo r those p o etic principles. T h e se c h a ra c ­ teristics are conspicuous here precisely because o f th e ir absence fro m the Homeric Hymn. F o r such distin g u ish in g m om ents reg u larly acquire a significance as m arkers o f the p o e t’s design. It is here, as we saw in th e previous chapter, th a t w e grasp n o t ju st the re la tio n sh ip th a t an *I highly sophisticated audience, both in the Museum and at the court, a far more likely location. Tarn’s suggestion that Arsinoe commissioned the hymn as a gift for Philadel­ phus is mere speculation (Antigonos Gonatas [Oxford 1913] 211 n.41, followed by Grif­ fiths, op. cit. [n. 3 above] 95-96), as is the view put forward by Fraser (op. cit. [n. 3 above] 657) that it “commemorates” a festival following the first Syrian War in 271/270. The same can be said of Mineur’s thesis that the Hymn was written as a birthday poem for Philadelphus and performed at a banquet in his honor on 7 March 274 (cf. my review of Mineur’s commentary AJPh forthcoming). Wilamowitz was surely correct in stressing the Hymn’s purely literary character (H D II 15) and in arguing that the opening question (Την ιερήν, ώ θυμέ, τίνα χρόνον ή πότ’ άείσεις / Δήλον ν. 1-2) and its answer (νυν ν.9) indicate an unspecified, imaginary occasion (ibid. 62, followed by Herter, Gnomon 12 (1936) 456-457 and Bursian Jahresbericht 255 (1937) 204-205). The numerous rites described in this hymn are given roughly equal emphasis: the Delphic Septerion v. 177a-b (with Pfeiffer’s n.); the yearly άπαρχαί v. 278 ff.; the marriage rites of the Deliades v.269ff.; the constant singing and dancing v. 300 ff.; the decoration of Aphrodite’s statue v. 307-9; the yearly Athenian θεωρία and the Geranos dance 310 ff.; the sailor’s dance around the altar and the biting of the olive tree v. 316 ff. These rites (cf. generally Bruneau op. cit. [n.3 above] 16-52) convey a general picture suited to Callimachus’ poetic purpose rather than to any specific event.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

95

a u th o r attem p ts to establish w ith his poetic an teced en t, b u t the distance th a t separates th em b o th in term s o f cu ltu ra l/h isto ric a l circum stances and in p o etic aim s. It will be o u r task, th e re fo re , n o t only to note the d istin ctions, b u t to explain them . F o r th o se w ho m ay q u e stio n a limine th e ap p ro p riaten ess o f thus delving b e n ea th the surface and a ttrib u tin g an ap p aren tly allegorical in te n t (ύπόνοια) to C allim achus, it will be helpful first o f all to recall th a t in the 3rd cen tu ry B. C. such an appro ach w o u ld have been n o th in g startling. As is well know n, this was the p erio d in w hich allegorical c riti­ cism experienced its g re a t blossom ing, especially th ro u g h the w o rk o f the Cynics and Stoics (cf. R. P feiffer, “T h e Im age o f the D elian A pollo an d A polline E th ics”, Journal o f the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 25 [1952] 30 = Ausg. Sehr, p.68 and J .O n ia n s, op. cit. ch .2 n .2 above, p .9 5 -1 0 5 ). In fact, th e re are som e p ro m in en t exam ples o f precisely such a p ractice in C allim achus - exam ples so fam iliar th a t we ten d to o v er­ lo o k th em :8a his A pollo, fo r instance, discusses p o etry in tran sp aren tly allegorical term s (the co n tam in ated river, th e pristine spring and bees) in th e second H y m n ; in the p ro lo g u e to th e Aetia, m alig n an t m ythical w izards, the T elchines, are m ade to stand fo r th e p o e t’s d etracto rs; o r again, allegorical techniques are used to in te rp re t a statue o f A pollo in fr. 114, as R u d o lf P feiffe r d em o n strated in th e article cited above. T h in g s b e n ea th the surface are, I shall argue, a p ro m in en t them e in the Hymn to Delos (cf. p. 141 below ). It sh ould n o t surprise us th a t th e term s o f co m p ariso n are n o t always explicit. I shall fu rth e r suggest th a t th e hym n operates o n tw o levels: the one co n cern ed v/ith th e success o f C allim achean song as em bodied in the to p ic D elos; th e o th e r w ith the w orldly success o f P to lem y P h ilad el­ phus and his co u n terp art, A pollo. In b o th cases, this success is cast as a v icto ry over b arb arism an d chaos. T h ro u g h th e b irth o f C allim achus’ p a tro n , A pollo, D elos triu m p h s over the h ackneyed h ero ic style w hich favors violence and n oise.8b In the political sphere, P h ilad elp h u s and 82 The same could be said of Theocritus. Few scholars, for instance, would interpret Simichidas’ journey in the Thalysia, and Lycidas’ gift to him of a stick after their exchange of songs, as merely a country outing in which Simichidas acquires a useful rus­ tic implement, a λαγωβόλον (v. 128). Most would see both journey and gift as connected in some way with poetic initiation-though beyond this very general consensus there is. notorious lack ot agreement. Similarly, Theocritus seems to be dealing in hidden mean­ ings when he apparently identifies Ptolemy Philadelphus with Herakles by carefully masking the king’s birthday within astronomical and chronological data about the mythi­ cal hero at the start of his Herakliskos (Idyll 24, cf. Gow ad v. 11 f.). A related phenome­ non originating in the Hellenistic Age is the use of acrostichs (such as was mentioned in ch. 1 p. 15) to add a hidden dimension to the surface meaning of a text. 8b Reinsch-Werner, p.322ff., likewise suggests a polemical stance against epic prece­ dent, but that stance is specifically directed against the Homeric Hymn to Apollo. The

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

A pollo subdue the m enace o f the G auls. T h e se victories resu lt in a h a r­ m onious w o rld w here the political o rd e r p ro tects an d fo sters D elos (both as a place and as a poem ); and D elos in. tu rn brings g lo ry to th e political o rd e r.80 From b o th the political an d p ro g ram m a tic a l p e rsp ec ­ tive, then, the them atic appeal o f D elos becom es m anifest.

The Myth o f Asteria W hile keeping the H o m e ric H y m n as his m o st obvious an d pervasive m odel, C allim achus tu rn e d to a n o th e r narrativ e, o f w hich he m akes extensive use th ro u g h o u t his poem , in o rd e r to effect his sh ift fro m Apollo to Delos. B efore tu rn in g to an analysis o f th e hym n itself, th e re ­ fore, we m ust exam ine this o th e r an teced en t. I am re fe rrin g to th e sto ry o f A steria, the nym ph w ho fled the em brace o f Z eus by leaping in to the sea, th ere to becom e the f lo a tin g - la te r im m ovable - island D elos, A pollo’s b irth p lace.*9 A lth o u g h this m yth loom s large in the hym n, c rit­ ics have displayed only passing interest. T h is is due in p a rt to th e (ju sti­ fiable) pre-em inence acco rd ed the H o m e ric H y m n an d sch o larly p re o c ­ cupation w ith epic “S p rach g eb rau ch ”;10 in p a rt also to the fra g m e n ta ry state in w hich this m yth appears in the p re-C allim ach ean tra d itio n . Hymn to Delos competes with, and actually defeats that hymn in a musical agon, she argues, and it does so (predictably enough) by programmatic recourse to Hesiod. That, according to Reinsch-Werner, is the significance of the phrase Δήλος δ’ έθέλει τά πρώτα φέρεσθαι / έκ Μουσέων (ν.4-5). But as Mineur points out ( ad v .4 f.), “if that was Calli­ machus’ intention in using the phrase, the audience certainly would not have noticed it ..., since nowhere do Delos’’ first four lines suggest any connection with h.A p.” 80 A similar line of interpretation was advanced, as I discovered after having devel­ oped my own, by L.J. Bauer in his dissertation, Callimachus, Hymn IV: An Exegesis (Brown Univ. 1970) 31-32, 66-70. Bauer saw that the erratic wanderings of Leto and Asteria aptly characterized the chaos of the world before the advent of Apollo and Ptolemy, and that harmony and order subsequently reigned. His analysis, however, is problematic in its heavy psychologizing. Thus, Leto’s and Asteria’s behavior “displayed a psychological state akin to the neurotic” (p.66, cf. p.31); in the world of Ptolemy and Apollo, by contrast, “rationality is the ruling principle” (p.70, cf. p. 83). Bauer, moreover, does not recognize the significance of Delos as an emblem for Callimachean song. 9 For this myth cf. K. Wernicke, RE II s.v. p. 1780-1782; Roscher I, 1 s.v. p .655-656; H. Papastavrou, Lex. Icon. Myth. Class. II, 1 p.903-904. 10 This preoccupation remains even more than 65 years after M .T. Smiley in “Callima­ chus’ Debt to Pindar and Others”, Hermathena 18 (1919) 46, complained that “epic remi­ niscences in Callimachus’ poems are so prominent that, in discussing his sources,... critics have turned their attention almost exclusively to ‘Homer’, leaving well-nigh unnoticed the extensive Pindaric background of his poems.” Smiley himself, however, devotes barely more than a page to the Hymn to Delos, and is content to let those echoes which he dis­ covers stand uninterpreted. A notable exception to this general trend is M. Poliakoff’s “Nectar, Springs and the Sea: Critical Terminology in Pindar and Callimachus”, ZPE 39 (1980) 41-47.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

97

A bove all, how ever, it reflects the critics’ failu re to perceive as im p o r­ ta n t th e change in them e fro m Apollo to Delos- or to perceive it at all.11 T h e earliest m en tio n o f A steria is in H e sio d ( Th. 409), w here she ap p ears as L e to ’s sister, the d a u g h te r o f K oios and P h o ib e. C allim a­ c h u s’ p rim ary source, how ever, was alm ost certainly P in d a r ( Pae. 5, Hymn 1 fr. 3 3 c -3 3 d and Pae. 7 b S nell-M aehler), and this fact suggests w hy the allusions are m ore them atic th an verbatim : the v ocabulary o f P in d a ric lyric was n o t readily com patible w ith C allim achus’ hexam eter. O n the assum ption th a t he was th o ro u g h ly fam iliar w ith these p o em s,12 we tu rn to the texts them selves in w hich A steria appears. T h e first is Pae. 5 - i n its brevity and sim ple m o n o stro p h ic stru ctu re in dacty lo -ep itrite s (w ith ritu al cry at the start o f each strophe), an unusual p o em am ong the otherw ise elab o rate aeolo -iam b ic P aean s:13 1 Τ

________

Εΰ-] βοιαν ελον καί ανασσαν

ίήιε Δάλι’ ’Ά πολλον καί σποράδας φερεμήλους έκτισαν νάσους έρικυδέα τ’ εσχον Δάλον, έπεί σφιν ’Απόλλων δώκεν ό χρυσοκόμας ’Αστερίας δέμας οίκεϊν

35

40

11 Hopkinson, for instance, seems to forget that the hymn is dedicated to Delos. In describing the hymns ( Callimachus, Hymn to Demeter [Cambridge 1984] 13) he calls “the first pair ‘masculine’, the second ‘mixed’ (twins).” In what way Artemis and Delos can be called twins, however, is not stated. 12 A virtual certainty (as pointed out already by Smiley, op. cit. n. 10 above, p.48) given the evidence of his work with the Pindaric corpus in compiling the Pinakes - the lists made for the library of Alexandria, in which the holdings were arranged both generically and by author (cf. generally Pfeiffer, Hist. p. 126-134; R. Blum, Kallimachos und die Lite­ raturverzeichnung bei den Griechen [Frankfurt 1977] 169-244). Fragment 450, for instance, tells us that he situated the 2nd Pythian among the Nemean odes, thereby implying that the order of the Epinicians was established by him according to the loca­ tion of victory. Such information, in turn, was usually derived from indications in the text itself. We may assume, therefore, that Callimachus made editorial decisions for the lists on the basis of his personal reading of the poems. First-hand knowledge is likewise attested in the scholia to Bacchylides’ dithyramb “Cassandra” (fr. 23 Snell-Maehler). According to this source, Callimachus classified the poem as a paean because it included the ritual cry “Ie”, which is especially-though not exclusively-characteristic of that genre (έν τοϊς π]αιάσι Καλλίμαχον / διά τό ίή,] ού συνέντα οτι / τό έπίφθ]εγ(γ}μα κοινόν έ/στι καί διθυράμβου: 16-19). The 2nd cent. B.C. grammarian Aristarchus criticised the decision, arguing rather that it was a dithyramb, and it was his opinion which carried the day: the poem was subsequently transmitted among the dithyrambs. Again, however, we see Callimachus forming an editorial judgment by means of his own investigation of the text. His collection and classification of the Pindaric Paeans (as well as other genres) was doubtless undertaken in the same way. 13 Perhaps a sign that it was quickly composed on short notice. The only other Paean certainly in dactylo-epitrites is Pae. 13.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

98

Η'

Ιήιε Δάλι’ ’Ά πολλον Λατόος ένθα με παιδες εύμενεΐ δέξασθε νόφ θεράποντα ύμέτερον κελαδεννμ συν μελιγάρυι παιάνος άγακ'λέος όμφμ.

45

They took Euboea and inhabited it; Ie-ie Delian Apollo; and they peopled the scattered islands rich in flocks, and they held glorious Delos, for Apollo of the golden hair gave them the outward form of Asteria to inhabit. Ie-ie Delian Apollo; there, O children of Leto, receive me with kindly disposition as your servant to the melodious, sweet-voiced strain of the far-famed Paean. As we see, th e reference to A steria is very com pressed, o ccu rrin g en pas­ sant w ithin a d escription o f the D ark -A g e m ig ratio n o f th e Io n ian s from A thens to the A egean isles14-a m o n g w hich D elos, th e p e rfo rm ­ ance site o f the poem (v. 44), was especially p ro m in en t. T h e d a tin g p r o ­ posed by Snell, “(post annum 478?)”, ap p aren tly refers to th e situ a tio n o f grow ing A thenian influence on D elos and in th e A egean a fte r the P ersian W ars w ith the establishm en t o f th e D elian League in 478/7 B. C. If this is correct, the acco u n t o f th e Io n ia n m ig ratio n fro m A thens w o uld have p rovided historical legitim acy fo r th a t co n fe d era tio n . M o re broadly, the poem so u g h t to affirm the special b o n d betw een A thens and D elos: fo r it seems plausible th a t th e sp eak er o f th e final stro p h e is the A thenian chorus, and th a t the w ish fo r th e g o o d will o f A pollo and A rtem is is expressed n o t only on its ow n behalf, b u t fo r A thens itself, o f w hich it was the representative. A nd A steria? T h e referen ce to the nym ph was app aren tly o rn am en tal. Y et in th e p h rase Α σ τ ε ρ ία ς δέμας, “the o u tw ard form o f A steria”, the p o e t is n o t ju st usin g p erip h rasis (cf. LSJ s.v. δέμας). R ath er, he succinctly suggests th e w hole m yth: th e

14 Thus the scholion ad v. 35: οί άπ’ ’Αθηνών ’Ίωνες, supported by the mention of “Pandoros, son of Erechtheus” in a marginal note at v. 45. On this basis, Snell suggested the superscription: “For the Athenians (?) to Delos”. The migration is described by Hdt. I 143, 146; cf. also J. Boardman, C A H III 1 (Cambridge 1984) 770.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

99

“o u tw a rd fo rm ” is th a t w hich the nym ph assum ed as an island - D elos a fte r elu d in g Z eus w ith a plunge in to the w aves. P in d ar, it seems, could assum e th a t th e sto ry w as know n. A nd indeed, he relates it twice h im ­ self in detail. T h e first o f these m ore extended accounts occurs in the Hymn to Zeus (fr. 33 c-3 3 d ).15 H e re, as p a rt o f a w ed d in g song fo r C adm us and H a rm o n ia , the M uses sing a T h e o g o n y in w hich th e b irth o f th eir leader, A pollo, on the island A steria/D elo s is one o f the them es: χαΐρ’, ώ θεοδ'μάτα, λιπαροπ'λοκάμου παίδεσσι Λατοΰς ίμεροέστατον έρνος, πόντου θύγατερ, χθονός εύρείας άκίνητον τέρας, αν τε βροτοί Δάλον κικλήσκοισιν, μάκαρες δ’ εν ’Ολύμπιο τηλέφαντον κυανέας χθονός άστρον.

5

*** ήν γάρ το πάροιθε φορητά κυμάτεσσιν παντοδαπών άνεμων ριπαΐσιν άλλ’ ά Κοιογενης όπότ’ ωδί­ νεσαι θυίοισ’ άγχιτόκοις έπέβα νιν, δή τότε τέσσαρες όρθαί πρέμνων άπώρουσαν χθονίων, πέτ'ραν άδαμαντοπέδιλοι κίονες, ένθα τεκοισ’ εύδαίμον’ έπόψατο γένναν. .].. ισ[

5

10

*** Hail, Ο god-built, sprout most desirable to the children of Leto with the shining locks, daughter of the sea, the broad earth’s immovable wonder, whom mortals call Delos, but the blessed ones on Olympos the far-seen star of the dark earth. *** for previously she was carried on the waves by the gusts of every kind of wind. But when the child of Koios (i. e. Leto), frantic with the pangs of imminent birth, set foot on her, then four straight pillars 15 A very conspicuous setting and doubtless well-known to Callimachus, for it was the opening poem in the first book of the ancient edition of Pindar, cf. Snell’s discussion of the hymn in Die Entdeckung des Geistesi (Göttingen 1975) eh. 5.

100

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

with adamantine bases shot up from the roots of the earth, and on their capitals they supported the rock. There she gave birth and gazed on her blessed children. In the first o f the tw o frag m en ts (w hich, to ju d g e fro m the m eter and basic co n tin u ity o f th o u g h t, belonged to stro p h e and a n tistro p h e respectively) w e e n co u n te r a series o f p arad o x ical ju x tap o sitio n s: T h e island is initially hailed as “g o d -b u ilt”, θεο δμ ά τα , a w o rd used o f tow ers (//. 8.519), halls (Alcm. PM G 2 iv. 5, cf. PMG 12.8), streets (Bacch. 11.58) and o th e r massive c o n stru c tio n s;16 im m ed iately th e re a fte r, h o w ­ ever, she is a “sp ro u t”, an entity grow ing in n a tu re . T h e su b se q u e n t invocations invert this o rd er: she is now a “d a u g h te r” o f the sea, th a t is an anim ate being (w hich, as we learn in th e a n tistro p h e, at one tim e flo ated freely am ong the w aves); then, how ever, the e a rth ’s “im m ovable w o n d e r”, a τέρ α ς am ong islands because, acco rd in g to th e tra d itio n (H d t. V I 98; T h u c II 8.3), she was so firm ly fixed in th e e a rth th a t no e arth q u ak e ever sh o o k her. E ach o f these c o n tra stin g pairs h in ts at th e p eculiar d ouble life o f this island w ith o u t explaining it: th a t w ill be the fu n ctio n o f the an tistro p h e. B efore th at, how ever, P in d a r in tro d u ces a fu rth e r c o n tra stin g pair, the island’s m ortal and im m ortal nam es.17 T h is is o f p a rtic u la r in te re st fo r the C allim achean m yth o f A steria in th e Hymn to Delos, since the H ellenistic poet, like his archaic co u n terp art, subjects th e nam e to an etym ological in te rp re ta tio n .18 T h ese d iffe r considerably, how ever, according to the p o e t’s given needs. W h at m atters fo r P in d a r is th e sp e­ cial quality o f this “star-lik e ” isle fro m an O ly m p ian perspective (μάκαρες δ ’ εν Ό λ ύ μ π ω ν. 5). It is, a fte r all, “g o d -b u ilt” an d fo r this re a ­ son (as the an tistro p h e show s) an “im m ovable w o n d e r” . As s u c h - i.e . as a divine creation, n o t as th e w ind-sw ep t d r i f t e r - i t shines fo r th e gods like a “far-seen sta r” am idst the earth ly d ark n ess. C allim achus’ in te rp re ta tio n reveals a m ark ed ly d ifferen t co n cep tio n (v. 36-38): 16 A favorite word of both Pindar and Bacchylides, it was also employed metaphori­ cally by the former, e.g. of άρετή /.6.11, έλευθερία P. 1.61. The usage in our hymn, how­ ever, is evidently quite literal, as is shown by fr. 33 d.5 f. Was Pindar thinking of the four adamantine columns when he called Delos θεοδμάτη at O/. 6.59? 17 On this custom cf. West ad Hesiod 7h. 831. 18 The hesitation of some critics to see it as such (“perhaps a play on the earlier name of Delos”, Slater s.v. αστρον c; “a possible allusion”, Mineur ad v.37) is unjustified. To be sure, Pindar describes Aegina, too, as a star (Διός Έλλανίου φαεννόν αστρον Pae. 6.126). Yet the crucial difference in our case is that he explicitly calls attention to the “far -seen star” as a name (κικλήσκοισιν v. 5).

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

101

... ουνομα δ’ ήν τοι Άστερίη το παλαιόν, έπει βαθύν ήλαο τάφρον ούρανόθεν φεύγουσα Διός γάμον άστέρι ϊση. ...and your name was Asteria of old, since you leaped into the deep pit (of the sea) from the heavens, fleeing the lust of Zeus like a shooting star. First, th e H ellen istic a u th o r derives A steria’s nam e n o t from άσ τρ ο ν, as b efo re, b u t άσ τή ρ . T h is is an eye-catching change, ά σ τή ρ n o d o u b t m o re satisfacto rily approxim ates the form o f the nam e (especially, as here, in the dative), and C allim achus accentuates the resem blence by settin g th a t nam e and its etym ological ex p lan atio n as a conspicuous fram e a ro u n d th e verses 36-37: Ά σ τ ε ρ ίη . . . / . . . ά σ τέρ ι ίση. Is the A lex­ an d ria n sc h o la r/p o e t co rrectin g his archaic m odel? M o re im p o rtan t, how ever, th an the change in suffix is the sem antic d istin ctio n betw een ά σ τρ ο ν an d άστήρ. B oth m ay d en o te a star th a t is fixed. T h e fo rm er, how ever, can have only this m eaning; th e la tte r is u sed o f a sh o o tin g star as w ell.19 F o r P in d ar, o f course, th e fixity o f D elos, α κ ίν η το ν τέρ α ς th a t it is, is o f p rim ary im portance: ά σ τρ ο ν is th u s th e a p p ro p ria te w ord. C allim achus, by co n trast, catches precisely th a t ex u b eran t m obility th a t he w ishes to h ig h lig h t by using the w o rd άσ τή ρ. F o r him , fa r m ore th an fo r P indar, this is one o f A steria’s crucial traits. F o r in fleeing fro m Z eus (de facto a κινη τό ν τέρας, o r “m obile” w o n d e r, now sighted by sailors, n ow o u t o f th e ir sight v. 4 1 -4 4 ) she keeps h e rself chaste and p u r e - a n d th at, in C allim achus’ view, appeals to A pollo: “being p u re m yself, m ay I be a care to th e p u re ”, th e g od declares (v. 98 εύα γέω ν δε κ α ί εύα γέεσ σ ι μελοίμην). O n ly such a place co u ld be A p o llo ’s birthplace. B ut as we shall see in th e next section (p. 120), it is n o t ju st h e r on e-tim e leap th a t m akes h e r appealing, b u t h er co n tin u in g m obility as well. F o r A pollo’s choice is due at least in p a rt to a perceived com p atibility betw een his ow n p re -n a ta l jo u rn ey s in the w om b o f his m o th e r L eto and the u n fe tte re d roam ings o f his sacred island. T h is b ro a d e r significance o f the deriv atio n fro m άσ τήρ is fully revealed th ro u g h a fu rth e r difference betw een the H ellenistic p o e t and his source. In P in d a r, A steria an d D elos are c o n tem p o ran eo u s nam es, th e one im m ortal, the o th e r m ortal. Indeed , if τη λ έφ α ντο ν (“fa r-se en ” fr. 33 c.5) plays on δήλος (“consp icu o u s”), th e divine and h um an nam es are v irtually glosses. C allim achus tu rn s them in to a sequence, reflecting an ev olution fro m one fo rm o f existence to a n o th e r.20 T h e island was 19 Thus already L.J. Bauer, op. cit. n. 8 c above, p.62. 20 This is thus an example of the “changing of names”, or μετονομασία, with respect to islands, in which we know Callimachus took a scholarly interest. Cf. his work entitled κτίσεις νήσων καί πόλεων καί μετονομασίαι and Pfeiffer ad fr. 601.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

called A steria as long as it flo a te d freely, th a t is u n til A pollo w as b o rn ; th èreafter, the sailors ren am ed it D elos, since it n o lo n g e r flo a te d ά δ η ­ λ ος (“obscurely”) am ong the waves (v. 51-53). In m aking this change, C allim achus endow s the p e rio d b efo re A p o llo ’s b irth w ith a c o n to u r and defin itio n n o t p resen t in P in d ar. F o r the nam e A steria d e n o tes an entire era in the island’s existence, th e ch ief ch aracteristic o f w hich is m obility. T h is era, in tu rn , is balan ced ag ain st a n o th er, each th ereb y th ro w n into y et h ig h e r relief. F o r C allim achus creates a co m p lem en tary etym ology w herein the second p e rio d in th e islan d ’s existence finds adequate expression, nam ely th a t o f m otionless stability. E ach p h ase receives its p ro p e r w eight, since the islan d ’s m obility is, acco rd in g to C allim achus’ conception, the sine qua non fo r its later fixity.21 Follow ing a gap o f several lines, the P in d a ric hym n starts up again in the th ird verse o f the a n tistro p h e w ith a γ ά ρ -clause. W e in fe r th a t som ething said in the m issing lines was h ere explained w ith th e w o rd s ήν γά ρ το π ά ρ ο ιθ ε φ ορ η τά κ υμ άτεσ σ ιν κ. τ .λ . (“fo r previously she was carried on the w aves”), and, as το π ά ρ ο ιθ ε (“p rev io u sly ”) in dicates, it p ro b ab ly h ad to do w ith the island ’s p re sen t co n d itio n as o p p o sed to its free-flo atin g status in th e past: D elo s/A steria w as n o t alw ays th e “g o d b u ilt. .. im m ovable w o n d e r” th a t she is now , b u t only becam e so a fte r a certain point, “fo r previously she was carried . . . ” - o r so m eth in g to th a t effect. B ut as soon as L eto alighted on her, she w as fixed to th e sp o t fo rev er22 unshakable as no o th e r island: fo u r m ighty pillars, sp ru n g fro m the ro o ts o f the earth, h o ld h er fa st o n th e ir capitals like the p e d i­ m ent o f a tem ple. W ith the sto ry o f this d riftin g “d a u g h te r o f th e sea” conjoined to the earth in so u n p reced en ted a w ay, P in d a r evidently w ished to o ffe r an aition, an explanation o f the τέρ α ς th a t D elos alone o f all the islands in the sea was never sh ak en by an e arth q u ak e. In his Hymn to Delos, C allim achus does n o t m en tio n this alleged im perviousness to earth q u ak es. H e does, how ever, insist o n D e lo s’ stead fast character. She is the “h e arth o f th e islan d s” (ίστίη ώ νή σω ν v. 325), an im age w hich p o w erfully evokes h e r fixity since, as P la to m entions ( Phdr. 247 a), a h e arth is im m ovable, its g o d d ess H e stia never a p articip an t in the procession o f th e gods. A nd at the p o em ’s s ta rt she 21 From these considerations it will be dear why Callimachus ignores Delos’ other early name, Ortygia, although Pindar uses it in Pae. 7 b, one of the sources of the Hymn to Delos (cf. below). It simply provides none of the rich and very relevant etymological possibilities to be found in Asteria and Delos. That this is a functional omission is further suggested by the fact that Callimachus elsewhere identifies Ortygia with Delos, cf. H. 2.59 (with Williams’ n.). 22 We are, however, apparently meant to imagine that she was already a rock when she was blown this way and that by the winds, since in Pae. 7 b.47 she is similarly described as a εύαγέα πέτραν while clearly still floating (cf. v.49).

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

103

is “firm ly fixed in the sea” (πόντω ένεσ τή ρ ικ τα ι v. 13) -σ τ η ρ ίζ ε ιν being, as W illiam s has show n (ad H. 2.23), the “mot juste fo r a g od fixing.an o b ject p e rm a n en tly and im m ovably” . “By w h o m ” C allim achus’ island w as fixed, how ever, i. e. the iden tity o f the ag en t im plicit in the passive verb ένεσ τή ρ ικ τα ι, is disclosed only som ew h at later, in verses 51-54: “b u t w hen y o u [5cz7. A steria] held o u t y o u r soil as a birthplace fo r A p o llo ,...n o lo n g e r did you flo a t obscurely (άδηλος), b u t am idst th e w aves o f the A egean sea yo u plan ted the ro o ts o f y o u r fe e t” (ήνίκα δ ’ Ά π ό λ λ ω ν ι γενέθ λ ιο ν ου δ α ς ύπέσχες, / . . . ούκέτ’ άδη λο ς έπέπλεες, άλλ’ ένί π ό ντο υ / κύμ α σ ιν Α ιγα ίο ιο ποδώ ν ένεθήκαο ρίζας). W hereas P in ­ d ar, th en , h ad fo u r m ajestic colum ns rise up fro m the ocean flo o r at the m o m en t o f L e to ’s landing, C a llim a c h u s -in a stu n n in g inversion o f his p re d e ce sso r’s stately im a g e -h a s A steria send dow n th e (appealingly hum ble) ro o ts o f h er fe e t in to the sea.23 M o reo v er, w hereas P in d a r’s island is exclusively on the receiving end, a divine fo u n d a tio n , θεοδμ ά τα and hence ακ ίνη τον, C allim achus’ A steria gives h erself to Leto o f h er ow n free will, in trep id ly stan d in g h er g ro u n d even in the face o f grave th re a ts fro m H e ra and h e r m inions, w ho w ish at all costs to prevent A p o llo ’s b irth. T h e fixing o f the island thus assum es an u tte rly d ifferen t hue, especially as all the o th e r islands h ad been forcibly im planted in the sea by P o se id o n (v. 3 0-35). D elos is “firm ly fixed in the sea” (πόντω ένεσ τή ρ ικ τα ι) as a resu lt o f A steria’s d e term in a tio n alone (hence the

passivum resultativum). P in d a r explained the “im m ovable w o n d e r” o f D elos by reference to its u n iq u e genesis: the u n p aralleled m o o rin g o f th e d rifter, A steria, in th e brace o f fo u r m iraculous pillars. Y et th e idea o f a free-flo atin g island itself re q u ire d an explanation, and this fo rm ed th e them e o f a n o th e r poem “to D e lo s” : P in d a r’s Paean 7 b = fr. 52 h (S nell-M aehler). T h e poem consists o f one eno rm o u s triad , w ith a stro p h e o f 20 verses (m atched only by fr. 140 b),24 and an ep o d e o f 17 (the longest in P in d a r).25 T h e first nine verses are so frag m e n ta ry th a t we can say only th a t they c o n tain ed an invocation o f A pollo, and m en tio n ed a “m o th e r” -m a y b e Leto o r M nem osyne, m o th e r o f the M uses. Begin-

23 Thus also Most, op. cit. p.190. 24 Among the epinicians, only four have strophes of more than 10 verses: O/. 1; 14; P. 5; I. 8 .-n on e of more than 12. The paeans and dithyrambs, by contrast, so far as we can tell given their fragmentary condition, were more frequently longer and more elabo­ rate (n.b. the preponderance of iambo-aeolic rhythms among the paeans). Perhaps this difference reflects the weightier demands of writing for religious festivals. 25 Among the epinicians, not one has even 10 verses. The epode of closest comparable length is that of Pae. 6 with 13, cf. however also fr. 169.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

104

ning w ith verse 10, how ever, w e are b e tte r in fo rm ed . H e re, P in d a r m akes a p ro g ram m atic statem en t co n cern in g his so n g :26 κελαδήσαθ’ υμνους 'Ομήρου [δέ μή τρι]πτόν κατ’ αμαξιτόν ίόντες, μ[ήδ’ άλ]λοτρίαις άν’ 'ίππους, έπεί αυ[τοι ές π]τανόν αρμα Μοισα[ϊον άνέβα]μεν. έπεύχο[μαι] δ’ Ούρανοϋ τ’ εύπέπλω θυγατρί Μναμ[ο]σύ[ν]μ κόραισί τ’ εύμαχανίαν διδόμεν. τ]υφλα[ι γα]ρ άνδρων φρένες, ο]στις ανευθ’ Έλικωνιάδων βαθεΐαν ε ω ν έρευνςί σοφίας οδόν.

10

15

20

έμρί δέ τοϋτο[ν δ]ιέδωκ . ν] άθάνατ[ο]ν πόνον

[ [

’

ίδέλτουϋ

I

]

24

let hymns resound, but not going in the well-worn wagon-tracks of Homer, nor with others’ horses, for [we ourselves have mounted] the winged chariot of the Muses. But I pray to the beautifully robed daughter of Ouranos, Mnemosyne, and to her daughters, to grant me skill. For blind are the wits of men who, without the Heliconian maidens, explore the lofty road of wisdom. But to me they have given this immortal labor [ .. ] [ of the writing tablet (?)] It is to the in sight o f M ax T r e u 27 th a t we ow e th e elu cid atio n o f this e x tra o rd in a rily em phatic assertio n o f o rig in ality and in d ep en d en ce from H o m e r. T re u saw th a t in a song sung on D elo s a b o u t th e b irth o f A pollo, an injun ctio n to avoid “th e w ell-w o rn w a g o n -tra ck s o f H o m e r” could h ard ly be p ro m p ted by th e one m en tio n o f D elo s in th e H o m e ric epics (the praise o f N a u sik a a at Od. 6 .1 6 2 f.). P in d a r’s polem ical stance *17

26 For the sake of clarity, I include Snell’s exempli graiw-supplements except in v. 12 where I adopt Koenen’s μ[ήδ’ άλ]λοτριαις cf. ZPE 54 (1984) 2 n.5, cf. below. 17 In his review of Bowra’s Pindar, Gymn. 74 (1967) 151 and n. 11.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

105

m u st ra th e r re fe r to a poem in w hich b o th D elos and A pollo’s b irth receive extensive tre atm en t. V iew ed thus, his critique can only be aim ed at th e Hymn to Apollo, w h ere precisely these them es ap p ear and w hich T h u c y d id e s (III 102) still held to be a genuine H o m e ric com position. H o m e r” is th u s the a u th o r o f th a t hym n.28 B ut P in d a r rejects n o t only th e w a g o n -tra c k s o f the epic b ard . H e also ren o u n ces “the horses of o th e rs ”, i.e. he distinguishes him self fro m o th e r poets as w ell.29 H is d e claratio n o f o riginality is thus a very b ro a d one, indeed it is absolute. T h e sto ry w hich he is a b o u t to tell, and fo r w hich he prays fo r the spe­ cial assistance o f the M uses, is one th a t has never been to ld b e f o r e - it is P in d a r’s ow n: th e sto ry o f A steria.30 N early h alf the poem is d evoted to laying th e p o eto lo g ical g ro u n d w o rk fo r this innovative m yth,31 an elo­ q u e n t sign o f its im p o rtan ce to the poet. Follow ing a gap o f 7 verses, th e tex t resum es in an extrem ely fra g ­ m en tary state. [ [

^λεχος,

1

‘‘

[

]....[ .].. xo' ]π... έσθα[ι]

1 πατΊρφαν Έκαέρ-

1γ εδο[ξ α[ δ[

32

35

1 ] ]νους ]ρ εσσατο

40

28 Treu proposed, moreover, that Pindar’s subsequent statement, “blind are the wits of men who, without the Heliconian maidens, explore the lofty road of wisdom” (τυφλαί γάρ άνδρών φρένες κ.τ.λ.), contains an attack against the τυφλός άνήρ, the blind singer of Chios, as the author of that Homeric Hymn describes himself (H. H. Ap. 172): “ein Über­ trumpfen der Selbstaussage des Rhapsoden”. 29 Snell’s supplement for v. 12, ά[λλ’ άλ]λοτρίαις, must be rejected. He translates, “don’t go in the beaten tracks of Homer, but with new horses. . . ” (Poetry and Society, Bloomington 1961, p.57). άλλότριος, however, does not have this meaning. Lobei (ad P. Oxy. 2442 v. 10 f.) saw the correct sense: “Here I should guess he promises a ‘new’ and ‘original’ song, ‘off the beaten track’, ‘not riding in another’s car’, ‘for I myself can drive the Muses’ winged chariot’ or the like”. I therefore adopt the supplement proposed by Koenen, cf. n. 26 above. 30 This sweeping claim to originality is an argument against Bowra’s otherwise appeal­ ing suggestion (Pindar p. 33-4) that, in such proximity to a rejection of the Homeric path, the Έλικωνιάδες of v. 19 might not be just synonymous with Πιερίδες (as in /. 2.34; 8.57, cf. Bacch. fr. 65.14), but could refer to the Muses of Hesiod. We should note in Bowra’s defense that Pindar subsequently calls Asteria Κοίου θυγάτηρ (v. 44), thus apparently fol­ lowing the Hesiodic genealogy (Th. 404 f.). 31 I propose that v.24 was still part of the introduction to the myth, since the “writing tablet” (δέλτου) of that verse (gleaned from the Σ) is most plausibly explained as belong­ ing to the common 5th cent, metaphor for poetic recollection, the tablets of memory (cf. ch. 1 n. 5). If this is the case, the poet will have depicted his inner evocation of the myth as a preamble to telling it. The preamble may, of course, have extended beyond v.24.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

106

[...... M . ]υνας· τι πείσομα[ι ή Διάς ούκ έθέλο[ισα Κοιου θυγάτηρ π[ άπιστά μ[ο]ι δέδο[ι]κα καμ[ δέ μιν έν πέλ[α]γ[ο]ς ριφθεΐσαν εύαγέα πέτραν φανήναι[ καλεοντι μιν Όρτυγίαν ναϋται πάλαι, πεφόρητο δ’ έπ’ Αίγαϊον θαμάτάς ό κράτιστος έράσσατο μιχθείς τοξοφόρον τελέσαι γόνον natal bed

[ter [ seemed[ [ [

45

50

] .] hereditary to the Far-dar] ] ] clothed him/herself (sat down?)

[

. . i ] What will happen to me?” She spoke. Not wishing [to mount the bed, of Zeus, the daughter of Koios [fled'into the sea. That which is unbelievable to me I shrink [from telling. But the story runs that she, having hurled herself into the sea, appeared as an undefiled rock. The sailors of old called her Ortygia. And frequently she was carried about upon the Aegean, till the almighty (Zeus) desired, after having coupled (with Leto), to achieve the goal (of birth) for his bow-wielding son. W e can tell fro m the w o rd λέχος, “n atal b e d ” in v. 33 (supplied by Snell from Σ: λ έχο ς έπί την λ ο χεία ν) th a t the m yth o f A p o llo ’s b irth had begun, and this is confirm ed by the app earan ce o f his ep ith et, “fa r-d a rte r”, in v. 35. A ccording to the scholia to v. 38, so m eb o d y says th a t h e / she is in a g re a t q u a n d ary (Σ ]ov λ έγει άπ[ο]ρία[ν έχειν πολ]λήν). T h is could be the p o e t faced w ith an em b arrassin g m yth to tell (thus W ilam ow itz, Pindaros 328 cf. v. 45), b u t it seem s to me m ore likely th a t this refers already to th a t innovative m yth th a t P in d a r h ad p ro m ised in th e first h a lf o f his poem , i.e. the sto ry o f A steria. A cco rd in g ly it w o u ld be th a t nym ph w ho com plains o f having n o w ay o f escape (α π ο ρ ία )

C a llim a ch u s’ H y m n to D e lo s

107

fro m th e advances o f Z e u s - b e f o r e fin d in g th e one rem aining p ath to safety: a leap in to the sea (v. 47). W ith v.42, we have A steria’s ow n w o r d s - w h a t w ill h ap p en to m e?” - a t th e m o m en t b efo re h er flight. In con seq u en ce o f h e r leap, A steria is able to m aintain h e r purity, b eco m ing a εύ α γέα π έτραν, “an undefiled ro c k ” (cf. th e simple π έτρ α ν o f fr. 33 d .8, w h ere h e r flig h t fro m Z eus is n o t m e n tio n e d )-a m o tif w hich, as we saw above, will be crucial fo r C allim achus. H e r c o u ra ­ geo u s dive, m oreover, provides the ex plan atio n fo r h er sin g u lar freeflo a tin g status. Y et fo r P in d a r, h e r indepen d en ce only goes so far. She d rifts u n til (τάς = τέως, cf. V. Schm idt, Gioita 53, 1975, 39) Z eus a p p ar­ en tly m akes h e r com e to a h a lt (v. 50 f .). In ju st this way, the fo u r pillars o f fr. 33 d sp ran g up w ith o u t A steria’s p a rticip atio n in o rd e r to fix h er to th e spot. T h e island is tied in a n o th e r sense as well, how ever, fo r P in ­ d a r calls h e r th e “d a u g h te r o f K oio s” (v. 44), i.e. he presents h e r as L e to ’s “H e sio d ic ” sister.323 By playing u p o n this sibling b ond, he explains the choice o f A steria as A pollo’s birthplace: she is his aunt; the delivery is accom plished en fam illeP C allim achus evidently m ined this n arrativ e fo r his Hymn to Delos. C h ie f am ong the them es he a d o p ted are 1) A steria’s p u rity (Pae. 7 b.47), m a in tain ed th ro u g h 2) h e r co u rag eo u s in d ep en d en ce in refu sin g Zeus (ibid. v .4 3 f.), w hich results in 3) h e r leap in to the waves (ibid. v .4 6 f.) an d 4) h er su b se q u e n t fre e -flo a tin g status u n til A p o llo ’s b irth (ibid. v. 4 9 f.; cf. also H. 1 f r .3 3 d .l f . and p ro b ab ly Pae., 5.41). C allim achus p o in te d ly d ro p s the H e sio d ic /P in d a ric idea th a t L eto and A steria are sisters,34 and can th ereb y elab o rate the islan d ’s in d e p en d e n t tem p er by m ak in g A p o llo ’s b irth d ep en d n o t on any fam ilial b o n d , b u t on A steria’s free choice alone (v. 195 κείνην γ α ρ έλεύσ εαι είς έθέλουσαν); n o ex ter­ nal pow ers fix h e r to the spot: she w illingly brings h erself to a h alt (v. 200 f. ώς δ ’ ίδες, [ώς] έστης) an d sends dow n h e r ro o ts as an a n ch o r (v. 5 3 -5 4 ).35 32 We deduce-contra Wilamowitz, Pindaros p.328 n. 1 - that the poet means Asteria, not Leto, because she is described as “noi wishing [something] of Zeus” (v.43), and because the personal pronoun μιν in v. 46, referring to Κοίου θυγάτηρ, does not suit Leto in this context. The designation “daughter of Koios” makes it certain that Pindar, although not using the name Asteria in what survives of the text, was nonetheless think­ ing of that name as in Hesiod, rather than of some other from an alternate tradition. 33 Is Zeus satisfying his grudge against the daughter of Koios who rejected him, by making her the place where his son is to be born by her sister? 34 Indeed, while Leto is called Κοιηίς at v. 150, Apollo’s detailed description of the island for his mother’s benefit (v. 191-195) suggests that, patronymic notwithstanding, she did not even known who Asteria was (cf. Mineur ad v.37)1 35 As a complement to this very active Asteria, Callimachus added a correspondingly active Apollo. For this motif he could turn to another Pindaric source: the myth of the island Rhodes in Olympian 7. This island, like Callimachus’ Asteria, had not always been

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

Y et the decisive fa c to r in C allim ach u s’ use o f these individual m otifs m ust be seen in the sw eeping claim w hich colors th em all: nam ely, in th a t radical o riginality (especially w ith re g a rd to th e H o m e ric H y m n ) w hich P in d a r so fo rcefu lly asserts fo r the sto ry o f A steria. F o r C allim a­ chus, too, as o u r analysis o f the Hymn to Delos in the fo llo w in g section will show , th e figure o f A steria em b o d ied so m eth in g new , an d this *7 clearly visible in the sea-not, as in Callimachus, because it drifted this way and that, but because it was still submerged beneath the waves (v. 54-57): φαντϊ δ’ ανθρώπων παλαιαί ρήσιες, οϋπω, δτε χθόνα δατέοντο Ζεύς τε καί αθάνατοι, φανεράν έν πελάγει 'Ρόδον έμμεν ποντίω, άλμυροΐς δ’ έν βένθεσιν νάσον κεκρύφθαι. Ancient stories of men report that when Zeus and the immortal gods were alloting the earth Rhodes was not yet visible on the ocean main, but lay hidden, an island in the briny depths. One god, however, was not present during the allotment, namely Helios, who was there­ fore left without a place to call his own (v. 58-59 άπεόντος δ’ ούτις ένδειξεν λάχος Άελίου-/ καί ρά νιν χώρας άκλάρωτον λίπον). The situation is parallel, then, with that of Apollo in Callimachus’ hymn, since he too is absent (he has yet to be born) and has no place allotted to him as a birthplace. We should note, moreover, that Callimachus else­ where seems to have identified Apollo with Helios (cf. Williams ad H. 2.9, 52, 93) - a fact which would have made it particularly appealing and easy for him to draw on Olympian 7. The parallels do not stop here, however. In response to Helios’ complaint, Zeus decided to recast the votes. The sun-god, however, had something else in mind (v. 61 f.): ... αλλά νιν ούκ εΐασεν έπεί πολιάς ειπέ τιν’ αύτός όράν έν­ δον θαλάσσας αύξομέναν πεδόθεν πολύβοσκον γαΐαν άνθρώποισι καί ευφρονα μήλοις. ...B u t he would not permit him. For he said that he himself had seen within the grey waters, growing from the bed of the sea, a land that would be fruitful for men and kindly to their flocks. Helios chooses Rhodes (which is still submerged), just as Callimachus’ Apollo chooses Delos (which is still adrift); and as Helios stops Zeus from granting him someplace else, so the unborn Apollo stops his mother from choosing Kos (v. 162 άλλά έ παιδός έρυκεν έπος τόδε). Both gods, moreover, form their choice by seeing the place which they want (O/. 7.62 είπε τιν’ αύτός όράν; Η. 4.191 έστι διειδομένη τις έν ίίδατι νήσος άραιή). Finally, in either case the choice results in the creation of a proper island, whose name is sug­ gested by its peculiar genesis: Rhodos, “the rose”, “blossomed forth from the watery sea” (v. 69-70 βλάστε μέν έξ άλός ύγράς / νάσος); Asteria became Delos because she no longer floated obscurely (άδηλος v. 53) among the waves. It is worth noting here that Callimachus may have drawn on further Paians by Pindar in composing the Hymn to Delos. In particular, Paian 12 contains a description of

C a llim a ch u s’ H y m n to D e lo s

109

w o u ld likew ise set him a p a rt fro m his H o m e ric an teced en t. T h e P in ­ d a ric novum rem ained the C allim achean novum. Y et the co n tin u ity w ith his an cien t m odel, th e ostensible allegiance w hich C allim achus th e re b y established, was n o t absolute. R ath er, as we shall see, by the A p o l l o ’s b i r t h o n D e l o s d u r i n g w h i c h Z e u s s i t s a t o p M t . K y n t h o s i n o r d e r t o g u a r d L e t o a g a i n s t H e r a ’s w r a t h :

...ένθα [ κελαινεφέ’ άργιβρένταν λεγο[ντι Ζήνα καθεζόμενον κορυφαΐσιν υπερθε φυλάξαι π[ρ]ονοί[μ, άνίκ’ άγανόφρων Κοίου θυγάτηρ λύετο τερπνός ώδίνος-

10

.. .where they say that shrouded in clouds, thunder-flashing Zeus, sitting upon the peaks, kept prescient watch, when the gentle d a u g h te r o f K o io s r elea sed h erself o f jo y fu l la b o r; C a l l i m a c h u s e v i d e n t l y in v e r ts th is s i t u a t io n , h a v i n g H e r a s e t A r e s a n d Iris a t o p M t s . H a i ­ m o s a n d M i m a s r e s p e c t iv e ly in o r d e r t o p r e v e n t L e t o f r o m g iv in g b ir th t o A p o llo :

... ειργε δε Λητώ τειρομενην ώδΐσι- δύω δε οί ε'ίατο φρουροί γαΐαν έποπτεύοντες, ό μεν πέδον ήπείροιο ήμενος ύψηλής κορυφής επι Θρήικος Αίμου θοϋρος ’Άρης έφύλασσε... ή δ’ έπί νησάων έτέρη σκοπός αίπειάων ηστο κόρη Θαύμαντος έπαίξασα Μίμαντι. ...and she (scil. Hera) prevented Leto afflicted with birth-pangs; and she had two lookouts set to watch the earth, the one guarded the soil of the mainland sitting atop the high peak of Thracian Haimos, furious Ares ... the other set over the steep islands as watchman

60

66

sat, th e d a u g h t e r o f T h a u m a s , h a v in g r u s h e d a to p M im a s .

A faint echo of Zeus’ active role in protecting Leto at the moment of her birth-a motif not present in the Homeric Hymn to A pollo-m ay be present in Callimachus’ hymn in the very compressed statement (v. 259) that “Hera did not begrudge it, since Zeus took away her anger”. Finally we note that, unlike in the account from the Homeric Hymn, Callima­ chus has the Delian maidens sing at Apollo’s birth. To my knowledge, the only precedent for this role is Paian 12.19 where, immediately following the birth, “the native woman (i.e. Delian maidens) sang” (έφθέγξαντο δ’ έγχώριαι). A further Paian to keep in m ind-should new fragments ever come to light-is the 10th ( = fr. 521 Snell-Maehler), since this contains our earliest reference to the Delphic Septerion festival (cf. Snell, Hermes 73 [1938] 439), which plays an important part in the Hymn to Delos (cf. p. 130 f. below) as well as in other poems by Callimachus (cf. Iambos 4.34 f. with Pfeiffer’s n. and Aetia IV fr. 86-89 with the Diegesis ad fr. 86 and Pfeiffer’s n.).

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

very insistence w ith w hich he refers to his venerable an teced en ts (the Homeric Hymn to Apollo and th e P in d aric poem s discussed above), the H ellenistic p o e t calls a tte n tio n to th e altered circum stances o f his Age. His D elos is set in a P to lem aic sea and linked directly to E g y p t u n d e r­ g ro u n d . In deed, as will be arg u ed presently, it becom es the e m b o d im e n t o f C allim achean verse itself.

The Hymn to Delos: Delos and Callimachean Poetry In the h y m n ’s p ro o im io n (v. 1-10), the islan d ’s chief characteristics are already plain to see. T h e p o e t asks him self w h en he will sing o f sacred D elos. H e calls h e r ’Α πόλλω νος κ ο υ ρ ο τρ ό φ ο ς (v. 2), th e re b y explaining the d esignation “sacred ” . Κ ο υ ρ ο τρ ό φ ο ς, how ever, as y et conceals the com ing play w ith p erso n ificatio n , w hich w ill be o f g re a t im portance in this hym n. F o r th e w o rd is rarely used literally o f so m e­ one rearing a child; ra th e r, it o ften appears m etap h o rically o f places (thus, fo r instance, Ith a k a is αγαθή κ ο υ ρ ο τρ ό φ ο ς at Od. 9.27 cf. LSJ s.v.). All the C yclades are sacred, says th e poet, b u t D elos shall tak e the M uses’ prize: Δ ήλος δ’ έθέλει τα π ρ ώ τα φ έρ εσ θα ι / έκ Μ ουσέω ν (ν. 4-5 ). W e n ote th a t the p o e t again m akes use o f a w o rd (έθέλει) th a t does n o t dem and perso n ificatio n (cf. LSJ II 1), b u t can in re tro sp e c t be so construed (i.e. “w ants to ta k e ” the M uses’ p rize). W h a t gives D elos h er preem inence? It was she w ho first cared fo r A pollo and p raised him as a god. H ere, in v. 6, the islan d ’s p erso n ificatio n is m ade explicit. W ith the w ords λοΰσέ τε κα ί σπείρω σε, D elos assum es th e role o f nurse, w hich in the p o em ’s m odel, th e Homeric Hymn to Apollo, h ad been the fun ctio n o f several goddesses (cf. th e sim ilar w o rd in g : λ ό ο ν ... σ π ά ρ ξα ν δ’ v. 120-121). H aving established h e r credentials, th e p o e t an n o u n ces th a t he will sing o f D elos n ow (νΰν v. 9), and by im plication ensures the success o f his poem . F o r as D elos praised A pollo, thus earn in g his love (ήνεσε v. 6), A pollo will praise the p o e t (αίνηση v. 10) fo r celeb ratin g D elos. T h a t is, if anyone scorns this poem , he acts in defiance o f the god him self. T h e im pression w ith w hich the p ro o im io n leaves us is o n e o f p e rfe ct reciprocity betw een the god and his island. B oth are m en tio n ed fo u r times in the first ten lines (D elos, m oreover, in all fo u r case-endings; cf. also the vocative in v. 27), always in recip ro cal relationships: D elos receives h e r e p ith et (’Α πόλλω νος κ ο υ ρ ο τρ ό φ ο ς) fro m A pollo; she w ashes, sw athes and praises the god. A pollo hates th e sin g er w h o neglects to celebrate D elos; the god receives his e p ith et (Κ ύνθιος) fro m the island. T his atta ch m e n t culm inates in th e a rtfu l stru c tu rin g o f verses 9 and 10: the fo rm e r fram ed by D elos and A pollo, the la tte r

C a llim a ch u s’ H y m n to D e lo s

111

inversely by A pollo (Κ ύνθιος) and D elos (τιθήνης). L ater in the poem , th e recip ro city w ill be equally in evidence. A t the crucial m o m en t o f self-c h ara c te riz atio n (v .2 6 6 ff.), the island never proclaim s itself Δήλος; ra th e r it states sim ply ά λ λ ’ α π ’ έμεΐο / Δ ή λιος Α π ό λ λω ν κεκλήσεται. C allim achus n o w sets fo rth (v. 11-27) the basic p a ra d o x o f D elos, nam ely th a t in spite o f its w retched physical state it is p reem in en t am o n g islands because o f A p o llo ’s favor. T h e section is divided into th re e carefully balanced p arts o f five, seven and five lines each (cf. d ia ­ gram p. 146). T h e first (11-15) deals w ith D elo s’ purely physical circum ­ stances: an uninv itin g island set in a storm y sea; the second (16-22) w ith D elos leading the g re a t isles to th e hom e o f O k ean o s and T e th y s ,- h e r p o sitio n in th e assem bly o f islands at th e house o f O k e a ­ nos, b efo re the poem shifts to the past w ith ή ώς (v. 30), paralleling th a t o f A pollo in th e assem bly o f the gods on O lym pus in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo befo re th a t poem likew ise tu rn s to the past w ith ή ώς in v. 25 (cf. W ilam ow itz, Die Ilias und Homer [B erlin 1916] 458); the th ird (2 3 -2 7) w ith th e statio n ary island once m ore: b u t now su rro u n d e d n o t by th e hostile sea (cf. ά μ φ ί... έλίσσω ν v. 13) b u t by th e sheltering p o w er o f A pollo (άμφιβέβηκεν v.27). H e r preem inence is thus explained by referen ce to A p o llo ’s special love fo r her. T h e first and th ird sections supplem ent, and co rre sp o n d to, each o th e r. T h e one begins w ith κείνη, th e o th e r w ith κεΐνα ι; in th e one D elos is ήνεμόεσσα, in the o th e r she is u n a ffe cted ύπό ριπής βορέαο; and as she is α τρ ο π ο ς (im m ovable) in the one, h e r p ro te c to r-g o d is u n sh ak ab le (άστυφ έλικτος) in the o th e r.36 T h e se co m p lem en tary aspects (profane and sacred) o f the statio n ary island fram e the central tableau o f the islands on th e ir journeys. T o g e th e r, they prim e the re a d e r fo r the bizarre flig h t o f the islands and o th e r localities later in the poem . T o explain h ow D elos cam e to be fo rem o st am ong islands, i.e. to pro v ide th e aition fo r w hy she enjoys A p o llo ’s special favor, C allim a­ chus tu rn s to w h a t W ilam ow itz {HD II 63) aptly called the γ ο ν α ί Δήλου (cf. d iagram p. 146). H e re he p o in ted ly rem inds us o f his d e p artu re from th e Homeric Hymn to Apollo, and o f his conspicuous reallignm ent from A pollo to D elos, by recalling the an teced en t hy m n ’s p re a m b le - n o t to Delos’ b irth as here, b u t to th a t o f Apollo (cf. W . H . Race, op. cit. ch. 1 n. 35 above, p .7 n. 8). W here, in the o ld e r hym n, A pollo’s b irth had been p reced ed by the p o e t’s u n c ertain ty a t h ow to celebrate the god, given

36 Contemporary readers could have noted the resemblance between Apollo s aid and that afforded to Delos in a very concrete sense by Ptolemy Philadelphus and his fleet, cf. Meillier, op. cit. (n. 3 above) 186. Here, as in the fight against the Gauls (v. 171 ff.), Apollo and Philadelphus share a “common labor”.

112

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

the g reat m ultitu d e o f possibilities (πως τ ’ ά ρ ’ σ’ ύμνήω π ά ντω ς εϋυμ νον έόντα; “how , then, shall I hym n you, w ho are w o rth y to be h y m n ed in all w ays?” v. 19), C allim achus coun ters w ith εί δε λίη ν πολέες σε περιτρ ο χ ό ω σ ιν ά ο ιδ α ί, / ποίη ένιπλέξω σε; (“if so m any songs encircle you, / w ith w h a t so rt shall I entw ine y o u ? ” v .2 8 -2 9 ). A nd w h ere th e earlier p o e t h ad passed to his chosen them e w ith th e w o rd s ή ώς σε π ρ ώ το ν Λητώ τέκε (“shall I sing o f h o w L eto first b o re y o u ? ” v .25), C allim a­ chus substitutes ή ώς τα π ρ ώ τισ τα μ έγας θ ε ό ς ... / νή σους είνα λ ία ς είργά ζετο (“shall I sing o f h o w the g re a t g o d f i r s t . . . / m ade the islands in the sea?” v. 30-32). T his la tte r echo is p articu larly strik in g as th e in tr o ­ d u c to ry fo rm u la ή ώς w ith som e fo rm o f π ρ ώ το ν appears in early h e x ­ am eter p o e try only in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo. T h e re it is used twice, and th a t conspicuously: once to in tro d u ce th e D elian section, once the P y th ian (v. 25; v. 214). N o t A pollo, th en , C allim achus seem s to be saying in using the very w o rd s o f th e Hymn to Apollo, b u t so m eth in g d ifferen t is to be o u r them e. L aunching us back in to tim e, he shifts th e scene to a p rim o rd ia l age befo re islands existed, and we learn o f th e ir v io len t origins (a νη σ ο γο νία) at the h ands o f P o seid o n , w h o pried th em up fro m th e landscape w ith his trid e n t and rolled them in to the sea, ro o tin g th em to th e sea­ bed so th a t they w ou ld fo rg e t the m ain lan d (v. 30-3 5 ). “E in g ro tesk es B ild”, as W ilam ow itz pun g en tly described it {HD II 65). B ut this m o n ­ strous act is all the m ore sinister fo r the d etail th a t th e trid e n t was m ade by the T elchines. T h ese m alicious w izards w ou ld later re p re se n t C allim ach u s’ literary o p p onents in th e p ro lo g u e to the Aetia, w h ere th ey are called “hostile to the M u se” (fr. 1.2). It is n o t inco n sisten t w ith th a t c h arac te riz atio n th a t they sh o u ld appear in o u r hym n as th e in stru m en ts o f ανάγκη : b ru te force (ανάγκη) and its correlate, th re a t o f force, are quite d e lib ­ erately the first im pressions we are given o f this earlier tim e. T h e y c h a r­ acterize the age before A p o llo ’s b irth and th ey are th e m eans by w hich H e ra and h er henchm en, A res an d Iris, a tte m p t to p rev en t him fro m being b o rn .37 T h e result, as will be seen, is chaos. A n an cien t tra d itio n held th a t the p resen t age was preced ed by a reign o f ’Α νάγκη, in w hich violence thrived and th ere was no place fo r the M use (cf. P la to Sympo­ sium 195 b -1 9 7 b; c o n tem p o rary w ith C allim achus cf. Sim ias’ IVings; fo r άνάγκη and p o e try cf. P lut. Mor. 745 G ά μ ο υ σ ο ν γ ά ρ ή ’Α νάγκη,

37 We note the similarity between Poseidon’s violent prying up of the islands (έκ νεάτων ώχλισσε v. 33), and Ares’ threats to drag Peneios up from the depths (βυσσόθεν έξερύσειε v. 127) and bury him with a mountain (Παγγαίου προθέλυμνα καρήατα μέλλεν άείρας ν. 134).

C a llim a ch u s’ H y m n

to

D e lo s

113

μ ουσικόν δ ή Π ειθώ). Such is the w orld b efo re th e advent o f A pollo and it is to this m useless e n v iro n m en t th a t the T elchines belong. O n ly D elos w as n o t afflicted by ανάγκη (v. 35), b u t flo ated free (αιρε­ τός) o n the sea. As we saw in discussing the P in d aric m odel fo r this m yth (p. 100 f. above), h e r nam e at this tim e was A steria because she fled th e advances o f Zeus, leaping fro m the heavens α σ τέρ ι ϊσ η (v. 38) in o rd e r to rem ain pure. T h is tra it o f purity, we sh o u ld recall, was not a fe a tu re o f the island in th e H o m e ric H y m n . Y et C allim achus adopts precisely this m o tif from P in d a r and, as we shall see, now m akes it func­ tional, activating it as th a t w hich m akes h e r a suitable birthplace fo r his p a tro n , A p ollo.38 Free fro m care, she roam s th e sea o n a zig -zag course, visiting h e r friends (v. 49-50, 197-198) o r sim ply d riftin g w ith the w aves (v. 192-194). B ut th o u g h free, h er life is aimless; she has no p ro p e r place in the w o rld . Indeed, h er ex u ltan t w ords u p o n having becom e A p o llo ’s birthplace, i.e. D elos (καί έσ σ ο μ α ι ούκέτι πλαγκτή, “and I shall no lo n g e r be a w a n d e re r” v. 273), clearly show th a t h er p re ­ vious n o m ad ic existence is n o t to be view ed in a positive light.39 O n the c o n trary , A steria’s w an d erin g s resem ble L eto ’s search fo r a place to give b irth (v. 68-204) o r the ch ao tic flight o f the localities (v .7 0 ff.). All m ir­ ro r th e age p rio r to A pollo’s b irth . T h e w an d erin g s cease and A steria finds h er niche only u p o n v o lu n teerin g h erself to L eto as A pollo’s b irth p lace. T h e n , in sta rk c o n tra st to the islands w hich w ere ro o te d in th e sea by force, she strikes h e r ow n ro o ts (v. 54). T h e sailors renam e h e r D elos, since she n o lo n g er w anders άδη λος on the sea (v. 51-53). T h e q u estio n raised by the islan d ’s p arad o x ical p re sen t-d ay status as d ep icted in w . 11-27 has thus been answ ered. W e kn o w now w hy A pollo confers u p o n D elos such e x tra o rd in a ry h o n o r t h a t - i n spite o f

38 For the importance of purity as an attribute of Callimachean poetry cf. esp. H. 2.110-112. Asteria’s purity is stressed here in the word άφετος (v. 36), which is used especially of sacred flocks allowed to roam freely without having to work, cf. Plat. Crit. 119d, Prot. 320 a, etc.; at Eur. Ion 822 it is used to describe Ion himself as dedicated to Apollo at Delphi. Cf. also Io in Aesch. P V 666. Asteria’s purity is stressed again at v. 98, cf. p. 117 f. 39 This is borne out by the larger context of the island’s words, which come immedi­ ately after her transformation from Asteria to Delos. Here, and nowhere else in the hymn, the island describes herself: “αυτή έγώ τοιήδε- δυσήροτος” (v. 268). This self-reve­ lation recalls another one in both situation and words, namely that of Odysseus when he - like Delos - , after years of wandering, attains his proper place in the world (cf. Delos’ καί έσσομαι ούκέτι πλαγκτή ν.273) and, setting aside his previous identity, can reveal him­ self for the first time to a member of his household, to Telemachus (Od. 16.205-206): άλλ’ δδ’ έγώ τοιόσδε, παθών κακά, πολλά δ’ αληθείς, / ήλυθον είκοστώ έτει ές πατρίδα γαιαν. Thus, through the parallel with Odysseus’ situation, Asteria’s many years of wan­ derings are given a negative stamp.

114

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

h e r w retch ed physical circum stances - she is p re e m in en t n o t only am ong her im m ediate n eighbors, the C yclades (v. 2 ff.), b u t am o n g even th e very g reatest islands w henever th ey go in p ro cessio n to the h o u se o f O k ean o s and T ethys: she was A p o llo ’s b irth p lace. T h e n ex t p a rt o f the poem , its n arrative core (v. 54-259), now takes us a logical step fu rth e r, explaining h o w she cam e to be so. It th ereb y provides us w ith an aition o f the previous section (v. 2 8 -54), ju st as th a t section h a d o f th e one p rio r to itself (i.e. v. 11-27). A ccordingly, th e γ ο ν α ί Δ ήλου o f th e p rev i­ ous section give w ay to the γ ο ν α ί ’Α πόλλω νος (cf. d iag ram p. 146). T h e reason fo r A pollo’s b irth on D elos w as H e ra ’s w rath , as we see in the tran sitio n al phrase, ο ύ δ ’ "Η ρην κ ο τέο υ σ α ν ύ π έτρεσ ας (“n o r did you trem ble befo re H e ra in h er a n g er” v. 55). F o r w hile it is this g o d ­ dess’ hostility w hich m otivates L eto ’s w an d erin g s an d fram es th e en tire section (cf. the co rresp o n d in g ο ύ δ’ "Η ρη νεμέσησεν, “n o r did H e ra begrudge it [scil. A pollo’s b irth ]” v. 259), yet H e ra c an n o t b rin g h erself to hate A steria (v. 244 ff.): “I am n o t at all distressed by A s te ria . . . b u t I h o n o r h er exceedingly because she did n o t tram ple my b e d ” (Ά σ τερ ίη δ’ ούδέν τι β α ρ ύ ν ο μ α ι... άλλά μιν εκ π α γλό ν τι σεβίζομαι, οΰνεκ’ έμειο / δέμνιον ούκ έπάτησε). In o th e r w ords, w hile th o se w om en w h o b e ar Z eus’ children provoke H e ra ’s w ra th (v. 55-57), A steria’s d e m o n stra te d purity pacifies the angry goddess. T h u s, n o t only does it m ake h e r su it­ able to A pollo, it is the sine qua non fo r his b irth . In C allim ach u s’ view, only the small and pure can overcom e th e m ore established pow ers th a t rely fo r th e ir effect on force. A steria’s success against the p ro p o n e n ts o f fo rce is inseparable fro m the sim ilar success rep resen ted by A p o llo ’s b irth . H e re, C allim achus deviates significantly fro m th e Homeric Hymn to Apollo. In th e o ld e r poem , H e ra tried to o b stru c t A po llo ’s b irth m ainly because she w as je a l­ ous of h e r h u sb an d ’s affair. C allim achus d elib erately sets him self o ff from th a t version by referrin g to th a t tra d itio n a l m o tiv atio n (“she \scil. H e ra ] brayed dread fu lly at all th o se lab o rin g w om en w h o gave b irth to children fo r Z eu s”, ή μεν ά π ά σ α ις / δεινό ν έπεβρω μ ά το λ εχ ω ίσ ιν α ι Δ ιί π α ΐδ α ς / έξέφερον ν. 55-57) b u t insisting th a t L eto ’s case is d ifferen t: “b u t at L eto especially, because she alone w as go in g to b e ar to Z eus a son m ore beloved than A res”, Λ ητοί δε δ ια κ ρ ιδό ν, ουνεκα μούνη / Ζ ηνί τεκειν ήμελλε φ ιλ α ίτερ ο ν ’Ά ρ ε ο ς υια. In this w ay, C allim achus m akes the ’Α πόλλω νος γ ο ν α ί into a m yth o f succession in th e style o f H e sio d . W ith the phrase τεκειν ήμελλε (v. 58), the p o e t p o in ted ly refers to several w orks: first to Homeric Hymn to Apollo (v. 99 -1 0 1 ), w h ere H e ra prevents E ileithyia from going to Leto: ή μιν ερυκε / ζηλοσύνη δ τ ’ α ρ ’ υιόν άμ ύμ ονά τε κ ρ α τερ ό ν τε / Λητώ τέξεσθαι κ α λ λιπ λό κ α μ ο ς τ ό τ ’ εμελλεν.; i. e. as m entioned above, H e ra is m ore jealo u s because o f Z e u s’ infidelity th an because o f the p a rtic u la r son to be b o rn to him . T h e

C a llim a ch u s’ H y m n to D e lo s

115

rem ain in g passages all have to do w ith m yths o f succession. T h u s in H es. Th. 4 6 8 -9 , R h ea w as a b o u t to b e ar Z eus (ΔΓ ’έ μ ελλε... / τέξεσθαί ), b u t feared fo r his life, since C ro n o s had learned th a t he was destined to be overcom e by one o f his sons, κρατερω περ έό ντι (465). H e thus kept a careful w atch (ούκ ά λ α ό ς σ κοπιήν εχεν ν. 466) and sw allow ed his chil­ d re n as th ey w ere bo rn . In o u r poem , H e ra know s th a t h er stro n g son, A res, is to be su p p lan ted by A pollo and hence keeps w atch (σκοπιήν εχεν ν. 59) in o rd e r to p rev en t his birth. A sim ilar instance m ay be seen in H es. Th. 888, w here M etis was a b o u t to b ear A thene (άλλ’ οτε δή ρ’ ήμελλε θεάν γλ α υ κ ώ π ιν Ά θ ή ν η ν / τέξεσθαί) w h en Zeus sw allow ed h er in jealo u sy because π α ίδ α θεώ ν βασιλήα κα ί ά νδρ ώ ν / ήμελλεν τέξεσθαί ύπ έρ β ιον ήχορ εχουσ α , i. e. she was goin g to b e ar Z eus’ replacem ent. C allim achus changes this to A res’ replacem ent. Y et again in the Iliad (19.98 ff.) we h e a r th a t w hen A lcm ene was a b o u t to b ear H erak les (ή μ ά τι τφ ox’ έμελλε βίην Ή ρ α κ λη είη ν / ’Αλκμήνη τέξεσθαί ), H e ra trick ed Z eus in to sw earing th a t a son b o rn on th a t day w o u ld rule over all m en, b u t th e n prevented H erak les from being b o rn until E urystheus h ad com e to th e w orld. F rom this last exam ple it becom es clear th a t H e ra is no m ean foe: she has played this gam e b efo re, and w on. C allim achus th u s sets his version o f A pollo’s b irth squarely in the tra ­ d itio n o f succession m yths, and in this w ay he shifts the focus o f the hym n: A res and the b a rb a ro u s, b ru talizin g force he represents, m ust in this poem be overcom e by th e god o f song and his allies. A pollo needs th e tiny island in o rd e r to realize his victory, and the island, in tu rn , becom es sig nificant (th a t is, becom es δήλος) because the god com es in to existence th ro u g h her. F o r C allim achus, A pollo becom es effective in th e w o rld th ro u g h th a t w hich is small and pure. In o rd e r to p ro te c t the interests o f h e r son, A res, H e ra attem pts to p rev en t A p o llo ’s birth. She stations herself in heaven, setting A res to g u a rd the m ain lan d from atop M t. H aim o s in his b arb aro u s n o rth e rn h o m elan d , w hile Iris g u ard s the islands fro m atop M t. M im as. T o g e th e r, th ey intim idate the localities in to refu sin g asylum fo r F eto. A ccordingly, w h erev er F eto appears, the localities flee. In the Homer­ ic Hymn to Apollo, F e to ’s w anderings w ere set o u t in an im pressive c ata ­ lo g u e (v. 3 0 -44), com prising the A egean islands and coasts, th e area in w hich the w o rsh ip o f D elian A pollo was o f im m ediate significance.40 T h e H ellen istic a u th o r, how ever, was n o t co n strain ed by regional b o u n d aries, and thus an u n a d o rn e d n arrativ e such as th a t in the H o m e ­ ric H y m n w o uld alm ost d em an d elab o ratio n . A p art fro m suiting his p o etic pu rp o se, this fram e w o rk w o uld appeal to C allim achus’ geo g ra40 Cf. T. Allen and E. E. Sikes, The Homeric Hymns (New York 1904) 63; G.Nagy, The Best o f the Achaeans (Baltimore 1979) 6-7.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

p h ical/eth n o lo g ical interests (he was th e a u th o r o f Π ερί τω ν έν τη οικουμένη ποταμώ ν, Κ τίσ εις νήσω ν κα ί π ό λεω ν κα ί μ ετο νο μ α σ ία ι, and Θ α υμ ά τω ν τω ν εις ά π α σ α ν την γη ν κ ατά τό π ο υ ς οντω ν, cf. P feiffer, T est. 1.18 ff.). T h u s, in o u r hym n, the sto ry o f L eto ’s jo u rn e y (v. 70-204) is m ore ecum enical and alm ost nine tim es as long as its archaic c o u n terp art. Y et in spite o f its len g th it retain s n o n e o f th e m o n u m entality (w hich, as we saw in ch. 1, w as o n e o f th e h allm ark s o f the oral heritage) fo u n d in th e catalo g u e in th e H o m e ric H y m n . R a th e r it becom es a subtly variegated account, w ith shifting dynam ics, w h ere learned en u m eratio n alternates w ith co lo rfu l n arrativ e dig ressio n - in short, a characteristic exam ple o f H ellen istic “p o ik ilia” . F u rth erm o re, w hereas in th e Homeric Hymn to Apollo L eto follow s (w ith som e deviation) a re g u la r p ath aro u n d th e A e g e a n -fr o m C rete to A thens; along the W estern and N o rth e rn sh o re to A sia M in o r; s o u th ­ w ard dow n th e coast to th e island K arp ath o s; th en w estw ard again to the C yclades and D e lo s - , in C allim achus she p ro ceed s by fits and starts: first (briefly v. 70-74) to A rcadia, th en (in an ex ten d ed n arrativ e v. 75-99) n o rth to B oeotia, then (briefly v. 100-102) d o u b lin g b ack to A chaia, and finally (in a len g th y section v. 103-152) tu rn in g n o rth again to T hessaly (cf. diagram p. 146). In o ne respect, to be sure, th e g o d d e ss’ itin erary is m ore reg u lar th a n it had been in th e H o m e ric H y m n . T h e re , she had leaped indiscrim inately betw een m ain lan d and islands; here, she strictly adheres to the sch o larly /g eo g rap h ical d istin ctio n betw een th e tw o r e a lm s - a distinction (set up th ro u g h th e sep arate do m ain s o f A res and Iris) w hich, th o u g h it m ig h t be n a tu ra l fo r m o rtal jo u rn ey s, is strikingly artificial fo r divine ones. T h e catalogue o f places in th e H o m e ric H y m n p ro v id ed C allim achus fu rth e r w ith th e germ o f a th o u g h t w hich he n o w m akes cen tral to his poem . A t v. 47-48 o f th e Homeric Hymn to Apollo w e h e a r th a t th e localities “trem bled and feared, and n o n e d ared to receive P h o e b u s” (a i δε μάλ’ έτρόμ εον καί έδείδισ αν, ούδέ τις έτλη / Φ οίβ ον δέξασ θα ι). Τ ο C allim achus, th e a u th o r o f Π ερί Ν υμφώ ν, this b rie f d escrip tio n was an invitation to play w ith the tra d itio n th a t all places have th e ir e p o n y ­ m ous gods fro m w hom th e y are virtually in d is tin g u is h a b le -a n d play he did! F o r C allim achus m ischievously presses this co n cep tio n to its h u m o ro u s extrem e, th ereb y show ing th a t it is p roblem atical: w h at, asks the poet, if an entire landscape su d d en ly to o k to its heels and n o place was left fo r A p ollo’s b irth ? 41 41 Cf. E.Howald and E.Staiger, Die Dichtungen des Kallimachos (Zürich 1955) 100; B. Snell, Die Entdeckung des Geistes4 (Göttingen 1975) 249. Callimachus similarly drama­ tizes a religious-historical problem in H .3, namely that of Artemis’ ambivalence as hunt­ ress and city goddess, setting it in the form of a dialogue between Artemis παΐς and father Zeus, cf. Wilamowitz, Glaube der Hellenen II (Nachdr. Darmstadt 1959) 146 n. 1.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

117

T h e g ro u n d w o rk fo r this am using, yet unsettling, experim ent was alread y laid (as we saw, p. 110 f .) in the opening sections o f the poem . N ow , as L eto tu rn s this w ay and that, C allim achus toys w ith his re a d e r’s phantasy, leaving him delightfully u n certain w hether, fo r instance, M t. H e lik o n itself is ru n n in g away, o r ju st its divinity. In this w ay he g enerates a sense o f u tte r chaos (typical o f a tim e in w hich A pollo has n o t y et com e in to the w orld, and H e ra, Ares and Iris are still in co n tro l), b rin g in g the u n c ertain ty he has caused w ith this fleeing landscape to a climax w h en the nym ph M elie is sen t reeling fro m the d an ce u p o n seeing h e r tree e n d an g ered by the flig h t o f M t. H elik o n (v. 7 9 -82). H e re, in u n p re c ed e n te d fashion, as th o u g h no lo n g er able to b e ar th e u n certain ty , the p o e t breaks into th e n arrativ e and dem ands th a t his M uses set him straight: “did trees really com e into being at the sam e tim e as nym phs?”, i.e. is the life o f a place and its g od really one? W h e th e r o r n o t the su b seq u en t couplet (v. 84-85) is the M uses’ reply (cf. c h a p te r 1, p. 41 f .), it only com pounds th e u ncertainty. In the m id st o f such d o ubts, an u n am big u o u s voice suddenly m akes itself heard: th a t o f A pollo from his m o th e r’s w om b (v. 86-98). A lready in full com m and o f his m antic pow ers, and hence co g n izan t o f his m o th e r’s plight, he lashes o u t against th e fleeing T hebe, prophesying th a t she will soon feel the effects o f his arrow s; fo r she is to be the b irth p lace o f th e ill-fated N io b id s - b u t n o t o f him. F o r C allim achus, the N io b e m yth has a special point, since it c o n tra ­ poses q u a n tity (N io b e ’s m any children) to q uality (L eto’s tw o ).42 As the κ α κ ό γλ ω σ σ ο ς γυνή (v. 96), N io b e plays the sam e role as the slanderous T elch in es (fr. 1.11) and M o m o s in H. 2.106, b o th o f w h o m likewise c rit­ icize on the basis o f sh eer quan tity . T h e prophecy, and the w hole first stage o f L eto ’s journey, culm inate in the w ords εύαγέω ν δέ κα ί εύαγέεσ σ ι μελοίμην (“being p u re m yself, m ay I be a care to the p u re ” v. 98).

42 Theocritus too had said (17.43-44) that evil, unloving women have easy births (ρηίδιοι δέ γοναί, cf. Archilochus P.Köln II 58.27) and children who do not resemble their father (τέκνα δ’ ού ποτεοικότα πατρί). To these he opposed Ptolemy Philadelphus, who was πατρί έοικώς and παΐς αγαπητός (v. 63-64), the “beloved” or “only” true son (cf. LSJ and W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch des Neuen Testaments5 [Berlin 1958] s.v. αγαπητός) i.e. legitimate heir to the throne. Callimachus also stresses Philadelphus’ like­ ness to Soter (ό δ’ εϊσεται ήθεα πατρός ν. 170) implying, though not actually stating explicitly, as in Theocritus, that he is the product of true love and thus his father’s right­ ful successor. What is only implicit for Philadelphus is, however, present in the case of his counterpart, Apollo, who is more beloved (φιλαίτερον v.58) to Zeus than is Ares, and whose birth is a model of δυστοκία. On the subject of the birth of the “beloved” (seti. “only”) son, cf. L.Koenen, “Die Adaption ägyptischer Königsideologie am Ptolemäer­ hof”, Egypt and the Hellenistic World, Proc. Inti. Colloq. Leuven (Leuven 1983) 161-164.

11 8

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

T h eb es and th e o th e r localities are foils fo r A steria, w h o se “p u rity ” is a m atch fo r A pollo’s.42* L eto n ow doubles back to A chaia in th e n o rth e rn P e lo p o n n e se (v. 100-102), b u t once again th e localities (H elice and B ura) flee. H e r w anderings g ro w ever m ore labyrin th in e as she heads n o rth to T h e s ­ saly, tu rn in g n ow to A naurus in th e east, n o w n o rth -w e st to Larissa; eastw ards again to the cliffs o f C h eiro n (M t. P elio n ); again n o rth -w e st to th e river Peneios. A nd ju st as th e first stage o f L eto ’s jo u rn e y h ad reached its clim ax w ith a lo n g e r episode (i. e. w ith A p o llo ’s p ro p h e c y against T h eb e), so th e second culm inates in h e r ex ten d ed e n co u n te r w ith P eneios (v. 105-152, cf. diagram p. 146 b elo w ).43 T h e river at first rem ains silent, despite L eto ’s pleas. H e is o n ly able to m uster th e courage to speak once she has alread y tu rn e d again fo r help to M t. P elion. T h e opening w ords o f his speech are revealing: Α ητοί, Ά ν α γκ α ίη μεγάλη θεός ("L eto, F orce is a g re a t g o d ” v. 122). Like th e o th e r localities (except A steria v. 35), he is subject to force. In d eed , fo r him it is a “g re a t g o d ” .43a O nce again w e are m ade aw are th a t th e d o m in a n t force o f the age is άνάγκη. T o rn betw een fears th a t A res will desiccate his stream s, and th e noble im pulse to aid a needy goddess, P eneios u ltim ately collects him self and calms his w aters fo r Leto. But he m akes his decision u n d e r duress, oblivious to any h o n o r th a t he could receive as A p o llo ’s b irth p lace. H e fears th a t he will suffer fo r his action and th a t, fo rev er d rain ed o f his stream s, he will be called the m ost d ish o n o re d o f rivers: κ αί μ όνος έν π ο τα μ ο ΐσ ιν α τιμ ό τα το ς κ αλέεσ θαι (ν. 131). Finally L eto tells him n o t to su ffer on h e r account and lets him re tu rn to his flig h t (v. 150-152). Like T h eb e, at the end of th e first stage o f L eto ’s w an d erin g s, P e n ­ eios is foil fo r A steria (th o u g h the river, th ro u g h his kindness, is clearly a m ore positive foil). F o r A steria will n o t have to be begged (o r even asked). She will o ffe r herself w illingly an d fearlessly because she is φ ιλόμολπε (v. 197, th a t is, entirely aw are o f w h a t s o rt o f g o d w ill be

42a We note how Iris tries to impugn this purity by calling her πόντοιο κακόν σάρον, “the evil rubbish of the sea” v.225. 43 The scene is vividly mimetic, with pathetic speeches (cf. esp. the short, simple sen­ tences of Peneios’ inner monologue, v. 122-132) and characters reminiscent, as Cahen observed (ad v. 106-152) of New Comedy: Leto, the long-suffering mother; Peneios, the simple, unassuming man (scil. river) who displays unexpected heroism in a crisis; Ares, the thunderous, but inarticulate soldier (a character which, however, does not appear in Menander). For the scene’s ironic use of elevated diction, cf. K.J. Mckay, Erysichthon, A Callimachean Comedy, Mnemosyne Suppl.7 (1962) 178-181. 43a Cf. the-deliberately?-vague designation of Poseidon, likewise a wielder of force, as μέγας θεός v. 30.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

119

b o rn on h e r soil). H e r stream s w ill n o t dry up, b u t ra th e r overflow w ith g o ld (v .263). A nd fa r fro m becom ing α τιμ ό τα τη , she will be νη σάω ν ά γ ιω τά τη (v. 275). In the th ird stage o f h e r journey, Leto tu rn s to the islands (v. 153 f f . cf. d iag ram p. 146 below ). H e r ro u te is every b it as erratic as before. W ith Iris pressing the islands to flight, L eto m ust tu rn from th e E ch i­ nades, o ff th e w estern coast o f G reece n ear A carnania, n o rth w estw ard s to C o rcyra, and then, in an enorm ous leap, to C os in the eastern A egean. T h u s, the ch ao tic effect continues to m o u n t. A g ain st this b ack d ro p , the lucid voice o f A pollo is h eard once again fro m his m o th e r’s w om b (v. 162 f f .). H e restrain s h er from going to C os, n o t because the island is unw orthy, b u t because a n o th er g od (θεός ά λ λ ο ς v. 165), P to lem y P h iladelphus, is destin ed to be b o rn there. C os is th e th ird in th e series o f foils w hich, if we lo o k back, can be seen to g ro w ever m ore positive. C allim achus, it seems, is g radually building to w ard s the ideal birth p lace fo r A pollo. T h e so n g -g o d ends his p ro p h ecy w ith an address to P h iladelphus (v. 188-190): έσ σ όμενε Π τολεμαΐε, τά το ι μ α ντή ια Φοίβου. / αινήσ εις μ έγα δή τι το ν είσ έτι γ α σ τέ ρ ι μ ά ντιν / ύσ τερ ο ν ή μ α τα π ά ν τα (“Ο fu tu re P tolem y, these are P h o e b u s’ prophecies to you. / A nd you will greatly p raise the p ro p h e t still in the belly / all th e days to com e”). W ith α ινή ­ σεις κ .τ .λ . w e recall the p ro o im io n . T h e re , D elos was th e first to praise A pollo ‘as a g o d ’ (v. 6 κα ί ώς θεόν fjveos πρώ τη) and th e g od w ould p raise C allim achus fo r celebrating D elos (v. 9 -1 0 ώς αν ’Α πόλλω ν / Κ ύνθιος αίνήστ] με φίλης ά λ εγ ο ντα τιθήνης). T h e im plication, as we recall, w as th a t anyone disp arag in g the hym n w ould be acting in d e fi­ ance o f the god; the hym n itself thus ensured its ow n reception. H ere, it is A pollo w ho first praises P to lem y “as a g o d ”, th ereb y im plying th a t th e k ing will com m end n o t ju st “the p ro p h e t still in the belly” b u t the p o e t as well: fo r it is his poem th a t preserves (sic) and publishes the p ro p h ecy. As in the case o f the p ro o im io n th en (cf. p. 110 above), the p o e m ’s recep tio n w ith in the poem is the m odel fo r its actual recep tio n by th e read er. As soon as he has finished his prophecy a b o u t Philadelphus, A pollo finally p o in ts his m o th e r to w a rd s th a t birth p lace th a t truly suits him . It is, o f course, A steria. T h e god describes A steria to his m o th er, and his d escrip tio n reveals w hy th e island appeals to him . It is “slen d er” (άραιη v. 191). T h e scholia say λεπτή. “S lendern ess” is, fo r C allim achus, a p re g n a n t concept, as we k n o w fro m the Aetia p ro lo g u e (fr. 1.24, 11). It is only n a tu ra l th a t the C allim achean god o f song sh o u ld be attracted to such an island and n o t to those th a t w ere once m ountains, ripped o u t o f th e e arth by th e μέγας θεός, P o seidon, w ith a w eap o n m ade by the T elch in es. T h e m o n stro u s im age o f eno rm o u s earth-m asses pried up

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

and rolled in to the sea, stands in sh arp est c o n tra st to A steria, w h o is so slen d er and delicate th a t the god com pares h e r t ° an asp h o d el blow n this w ay and th a t over the waves: ά λλα π α λ ιρ ρ ο ίη έπ ινή χ ετα ι άνθέρικ ο ς ως, / ένθα νότος, ενθ’ εύρος, δπη φ ο ρ έη σ ι θά λ α σ σ α (“b u t she swims in the c u rre n t like an asphodel, w h ith e r the S o u th W ind, w h ith e r th e E ast W ind, w h ith e r the sea m ig h t carry h e r” v. 193-194). In th e Homeric Hymn to Apollo, D elos is b a rre n and p o o r (cf. v. 54-55, 72), b u t now here delicate and slender. It is precisely these characteristics th a t C allim achus ad d s.44 W ith the striking rep etitio n , δπη φ ο ρ έη σ ι θά λ α σ σ α / τη με φ έρ ο ις (“w h ith e r the sea m ight carry her, carry me th e re ”), C allim achus su g ­ gests the sim ilarity th a t attracts A pollo to A steria: a tin y g od and a tin y island, b o th b o rn e this w ay and th a t th ro u g h th e w o rld . H e th e re b y fo l­ lows the principle o f δ μ ο ιο ν όμοίω , w hich was likew ise o p erativ e in th e pro g ram m atic verse: εύα γέω ν δε κα ί εύα γέεσ σ ι μελοίμην ν .9 8 . F o llo w ­ ing this request, the god explains his choice: κείνην γ ά ρ έλεύσ εα ι εις έθέλουσαν (“fo r w hen you shall com e to her, she will be w illin g ” v. 195). T h u s, ju st as the w o rld w illingly accepts P to lem aic rule (v. 167), so A steria, u n affected by άνάγκη, will accept L eto and A pollo. A t these w ords, the rem aining islands flee, and C allim achus n o w addresses h im ­ self directly to A steria: T h e c o n tra st to the o th e r islands is all th e m o re glaring th ro u g h the asy n d eto n w hich th e p o sitio n o f th e vocative, Ά σ τερ ίη φιλόμολπε, befo re σύ δ’, brings ab o u t. T h e p o e t calls h e r φ ιλόμολπε as th o u g h to explain h e r w illingness to receive Leto. She is able to o ffe r the go d o f song a birthplace because she is graced w ith th e decisive characteristic: she loves song. In c o n tra st to th e Homeric Hymn to Apollo, th e re is never a m o m en t’s d o u b t as to h e r ap p ro p riaten ess to A pollo. T h e go d chooses h e r him self (cf. n .3 5 above). W ith the m o st affecting hu m o r, C allim achus describes h o w A steria swims dow n fro m E uboea, trailing G eraistian sea-w eed, and, u p o n see­ ing the laboring goddess, com es to a h a lt (v.200). In defiance o f H e ra ’s threats, she co u rag eo u sly offers h erself to Leto. T h ro u g h this crucial act, C allim achus creates th e central p a ra d o x o f his poem : all places (islands, rivers, m ountains, etc.), w hich by n a tu re o u g h t to be fixed, are on the ru n ; o nly A steria, the one w ho, by n atu re, is free to roam , com es to a halt. T h e god o f song selects his c o n d u it in to the w o rld as a p o e t m ig h t the p a rticu lar m etrical shape o r genre m o st suited to his c o n ten t. In C allim achus’ view, he m ust com e in to th e w o rld o n ly th ro u g h this d eli­ cate, song-loving m edium and, co rresp o n d in g ly , o n ly the slen d er island, 44 The description is actually taken not from the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, but from Od. 4.845 ff .; εστι δέ τις νήσος μέσση άλί πετρήεσσα.-.Άστερίς, ού μεγάλη.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

121

u n d efiled by force, will suit the god. T h is relatio n sh ip is alm ost like th a t betw een in sp iratio n and form . T h e p o w er o f A p o llo -a n d this m eans here the p ow er o f his m u sic -b e c o m e s active th ro u g h th a t w hich is sm all and pure. By m eans o f th a t po w er A steria is tran sfo rm ed , filled w ith p oetic life, m ade Δ ήλος, the subject o f s o n g - h e r e specifically the subject o f this hym n. T his is the b irth o f th e p o e t’s them e, the b irth o f D elos. In the m eeting o f these two, then, C allim achus describes n o th in g less th an the creatio n o f his poem . M o reo v er, inasm uch as D elos em bodies C allim achean ideals m ore generally, this description extends to th e re st o f his w orks as well. T h e birth o f D elos m ay thus be viewed as d epicting the re a liza tio n o f C allim achean song. A closer lo o k at the com parison o f A steria w ith th e asphodel (άνθέρικος ώς v. 193) su pports this view. C allim achus is here clearly alluding to a u n iq u e H o m e ric simile in w hich the ra ft o f O dysseus is com pared to th istlestalks (Od. 5.327-332):45 την δ’ έφόρει μέγα κύμα κατά ρόον ένθα καί ένθα, ώς δ’ οτ’ όπωρινός βορέης φορέησιν άκάνθας αμ πεδίον, πυκιναί δε προς άλλήλησιν έχοντας ώς την άμ πέλαγος άνεμοι φέρον ένθα καί ένθα άλλοτε μεν τε Νότος Βορέη προβάλεσκε φέρεσθαι, άλλοτε δ’ αύτ’ Εύρος Ζεφύρφ εϊξασκε διώκειν. And a great wave swept it along the current here and there. And as when in late summer the north wind sweeps thistles over the plain, and they stick to one another in bunches, so the winds swept it along the sea here and there, and now the South Wind tossed it over to the North to be carried, and then again the East Wind gave way in the chase to the South. W h y did C allim achus substitute the asphodel fo r thistlestalks? Several reasons suggest them selves: 1) A ccording to P lu tarch (Sept. Sap. conv. 14), this p la n t was given as an o fferin g to A pollo on D elos: ισ τό ρ η σ ε π α ρ ’ α ύ το ΐς (scil. the D elians) εις τό ιερό ν κομιζόμενα τής π ρώ της ύ π ο μ νή μ α τα τρ ο φ ή ς κα ί δ είγμ α τα μετ’ άλλω ν εύτελώ ν καί αύτοφ υώ ν μ α λ ά χη ν κα ί άνθέρικον. T h e asphodel is thus associated w ith A pollo, and it is n o t surp risin g th a t he should com pare the island w hich is m o st pleasing to him as a birthplace to th a t plant. 2) In the Works and Days (v. 40-41), H esio d criticizes the kings fo r th e ir greed: νή πιοι, ούδέ ΐσ α σ ιν δσω πλέον ήμ ισ υ παντός, / ούδ’ ό σ ον έν μ α λά χη τε κ α ί άσ φ οδέλω μ έγ’ όνειαρ. T h e asphodel is here th e p o o r b u t w o rth y p la n t w hich illustrates the concept th a t h alf is m ore th an the w hole. Such a c o n n o ta tio n accords well w ith C allim achus’ preference

45 It is comparable only to Od. 5.368 ff.

122

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

fo r the “sm all” a rt-fo rm and his ad m iratio n fo r H e sio d (cf. esp. Ep. 27 and fr. 2). 3) C allim achus’ birthplace was C yrene, and his w ritings a b o u n d w ith C yrenaic stories and rites (cf. P feiffe r p. X X X V III; th e ex ten t o f his id en tification w ith his native land is well illu strated by H. 2.71). As W il­ liams points o u t {ad H. 2.88), C yrene was called b o th Κ υ ρ ά να and Κ ύρα, and according to V. B ertoldi (in Melanges Boisacq, voi. 1 = B ru s­ sels, U niv. Libre, Inst, de philol. et d ’hist. o rien t., an n u aire 5, 1937 cf. esp. p .5 9 -6 3 ) follow ed by F. C h am o u x ( Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades, P aris 1953, p .1 2 6 -1 2 7 ), this nam e orig in ally cam e fro m the native Libyan w o rd κύρα, w hich acco rd in g to D io sk o u rid e s (Mat. Med. II 169 RV, ed. W ellm ann I 235) m ean t “a sp h o d e l” : α σ φ ό δ ελ ο ς- ο ί δέ ναρθήκιον, 'Ρ ω μ α ίο ι άλβούκιουμ, ’Ά φ ρ ο ι κύρα. C yrene w o u ld th u s be the “city o f A sphodels”, an ap p ro p riate nam e since th e asp h o d el is p a r­ ticularly com m on to this area (cf. C ham oux, op. cit.). A lread y H e r o d o ­ tus notes th a t Libyan nom ads m ade th e ir p o rta b le huts o u t o f this p la n t (IV 190): οικ ή μ α τα δέ σύμπηκτα έξ άνθερίκω ν ένειρμ ένω ν π ερ ί σ χο ίνους έστί, κ α ί τα ΰ τα π ερ ιφ ορ η τά , and acco rd in g to D io d o ru s (20.57), these nom ads w ere called Ά σ φ οδελώ δεις, “th o se like th e a sp h o d e l” . In com paring A steria to an asphodel, C allim achus th u s lin k ed h e r w ith C yrene. If o u r suggestion is c o rre ct th a t C allim achus saw D elo s as a m e tap h o r fo r his ow n poetry, then th a t link w o u ld be q u ite n atu ral: D elos, the em b o d im en t o f C allim achean ideals, is like th a t w hich grow s in (and gives its nam e to) the p o e t’s native city.45a T h e realizatio n o f C allim achean song is p a rt o f th e new o rd e r th a t com es w ith A pollo’s birth, and it helps o v e rtu rn the old. T o C allim a­ chus, the m ost significant rep resen tativ e o f th e old o rd e r is A res. H e constructs his poem in such a w ay th a t A res is th e force th a t m ust, by various m eans, be o v erth ro w n . T h u s, ju st as A p o llo ’s b irth defeats th e w ar-g o d on a m ythic level, so on a literary one the creatio n o f D elos overcom es the old (poetic) o rd e r in w hich Ares is th e fav o rite son: i.e. th a t o rd e r w hich favors h ero ic epic. T h e su p p o rters o f th e old o rd e r

45a In this light, we might now give serious consideration after all to the suggestion that the MSS readings of καύριος, καύθιος or κάνθιος in v. 10 of the hymn are indeed cor­ ruptions from Καρνεϊ’ (C. Haeberlin, Philol. 46 [1888] 69) or Κάρνεος (C. Gallavotti, Par. Pass. 8 [1953] 467) rather than from Κύνθιος as proposed by Lascaris. Mineur’s objection {ad Κύνθιος v. 10) that “mention of ’Απόλλων Καρνεΐος is quite out of place in a hymn to Delos, which contains no further references to Callimachus’ Cyrenean origin” is evidently groundless-for Cyrene is present, albeit obliquely, at that moment when Asteria is char­ acterized by the god. The fact that that god may actually have been invoked in his Cyre­ nean aspect would give added point to his description and would continue the theme of δμοιον όμοίφ which we saw above, p. 120. Cf., however, our discussion of this passage above, p. 111.

C a llim a ch u s’

Hymn to

D e lo s

123

possess precisely those tra its th a t C allim achus assailed in his literary o p p o n en ts: they are im pure,46 and slanderous, and they value q u an tity over q u a lity ;47 they engage in m o n stro u s acts o f fo rce48 and m ake d re a d fu l n o ise.4950 C allim achus provides a clue th a t his s u b je c t- a t least in p a r t - i s p o e try by giving the w a rrio r-g o d a distinctly epic coloring. It is signifi­ c an t th at, in his first appearance in the poem , this god is referred to as θο ΰρος "Αρης (v. 64), an u n ash am ed ly stock H o m e ric epithet, and as such “quite exceptional” in C allim achus (thus M in eu r ad loc.). In a d d i­ tion, he is given tw o horses (v. 64, a rare C allim achean use o f th e dual, cf. M in e u r ad loc.) as in H o m e r (II. 5 .3 5 6 ff. in collocation w ith θοΰρος "Α ρης v. 355. O therw ise, A res usually has fo u r horses cf. “H e s.” Scut. 109, 191; P in d . P .4 .8 7 ; Η. H. 8.7-8, etc.). From th e very start, then, A res exhibits the m arks o f m artial-epic tra d itio n . B ut fu rth er, the p o et connects this g o d w ith a literary device w hich is one o f the m ost strik ­ ing featu res o f h eroic epic, the extended simile (v. 141-147 cf. H . F rankel, Dicht, u. Phil, p .4 4 “eines d e r au ffallen d sten Stilelem ente in den Epen, b eso n d ers d e r Ilias”). T h e terrib le noise th a t arises w hen A res strikes his shield w ith his spear is co m p ared to th e din o f H e p h a e stu s’ w o rk sh o p w hen B riareus, the g ian t trap p ed b en eath M t. A etna, shifts positions, causing volcanic eru p tio n s th a t m ake the fu r­ naces ro a r. A lth o u g h this im age is d e p en d e n t on P in d a r’s description o f th e serp en t T y p h o n b e n ea th M t. A etna (P. 1.15-28),50 its fo rm is tak en fro m epic. In the H o m e ric H ym ns, extend ed similes are virtually n o n ­ ex istent (the lo n g est is H .H .D em . 174-175); th ey are likewise rare in H e sio d (cf. W est ad Th. 594 ff.). In the p seu d o -H e sio d ic Shield, by c o n ­ trast, they are plentiful as so o n as the poem tu rn s to violent them es: H e ra k le s’ b a ttle w ith C ycnus (v .374-379, 386-392, 402-412, 421-423) an d his fa th e r A res (v. 426-433, 437-441). C allim achus was fo n d o f H e sio d and the H o m e ric H ym ns, b u t deeply averse to any attem p t at re p ro d u c in g the scope and m a tte r o f h ero ic epic. It is n o t surprising th e n th a t he sh o u ld use only few extended sim iles.51 T h e longest is, in 46 Cf. The discussion of εύαγέων δε καί εύαγέεσσι μελοίμην above p. 101, 113, 118. 47 Cf. Niobe p. 117 above, and also Iris’ description of Asteria v. 255. 48 Cf. Poseidon p. 112 f., particularly his connection with the Telchines; and Ares p. 118 above. Contrast Callimachus’ childlike, slender verse, p.94 above. 49 Hera “brays” like an ass at Zeus’ mistresses (v. 56), cf. also the poet with the voice of an ass, fr. 192.11; also Ares below, v. 133-147. Callimachus rejected the μέγα ψοφέουσαν άοιδήν fr. 1.19, saying βροντάν ούκ έμόν. 50 Callimachus similarly had v. 23 ff. in mind for his description of Poseidon rolling the islands into the sea, είσεκύλισε θαλάσση v. 33. 51 They are listed in Lapp, De Callimachi Cyrenaei Tropis et Figuris, (Diss. Bonn 1965) p. 88-89. On similes in Hellenistic epic, cf. H. Drögemüller, Die Gleichnisse im hellenis­ tischen Epos (Diss. Hamburg 1956).

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

fact, this one; the second-longest, also in o u r hym n, is th a t in w hich In s is com pared to a w atchful h u n tin g d og at h e r m istress’ th ro n e (v. 228 ff.).52 F u rth er, the invading G auls are co m p ared to snow flakes (v. 175, a com m on simile in th e Iliad, cf. 3.222, 12.156, 278, 19.357) and the mass o f stars in the sky (v. 176). W h at is striking is th a t in each case a m alevolent ch aracter, o r force, is characterized in a w ay th a t is u n m istak ab ly associated w ith h ero ic epic.53 Ares, i.e. w ar, is the h eroic to p ic par excellence. O n D elos, th e subject m a tte r o f such epic is excluded: th e w ar-cry , d e ath and the horses o f w a r (ουδέ σ ’ Έ νυώ / ο ύ δ’ Ά ίδ η ς ο ύ δ ’ ίπ π ο ι έπ ισ τείβ ο υ σ ιν ’Ά ρ η ο ς ν. 276-277). N o r does the island even possess th o se a c c o u te r­ m ents th a t evoke w arfare: she is fo rtified n e ith e r by ram p arts (π ύ ρ γο ισ ι περισ κεπέεσ ι v. 23) o r w alls (τείχεα v .25). T h u s, if C allim achus saw in D elos a m e ta p h o r fo r his ow n poetry, th en p erh ap s A res an d his a sso ­ ciates em body th e h ackneyed h ero ic style th a t he re je cte d .54 T his is n o t to say th a t C allim achus rep u d iates Homer, o r th a t he fails to give his due to earlier poetry. T h e fact th a t C allim ach u s’ po em is un th in k ab le w ith o u t the m odel o f the Homeric Hymn to Apollo show s the dep th o f his respect and ven eratio n fo r th o se g re a t an teced en ts. E ach generation, how ever, m ust bring A pollo into th e w o rld in its ow n way, tra n sfo rm in g and m aking pro d u ctiv e fo r th e h ere and n o w th o se paradigm s th a t succeeded in the past. T h is is w h a t P in d a r h ad d o n e in 52 Cf. Drögemüller’s excellent analysis, op. cit. (n.51 above) 41-43: “Der Leser ...entsinnt sich, daß in dem w . 59-66 der Dichter in einem eigens neu und gut erfund­ enen Bild Ares und Iris als Wächter der Hera auf den Thrakischen Haimos und den kleinasiatischen Mimas gesetzt hat, und daß entsprechend dem schrecklichen Toben des Kriegsgottes (133-147) nun ja auch Iris in Aktion treten mußte. Und wie dort das unge­ heure Getöse im Gleichnis - auch akustisch-...verdeutlicht wird, so wird hier die Szene im Gleichnis visuell verdeutlicht.” 53 A similar line of interpretation has been pursued by N.H opkinson in his commen­ tary, Callimachus: Hymn to Demeter (Cambridge 1984) 6-7, where Iliadic features are seen to put a character in a negative light: “She (scil. the priestess) warns (scii. Erysich­ thon) against incurring the goddess’s anger and finishes with the resounding Iliadic έκκεραίζεις (49) to stress the unnatural violence of desecration. The narrative continues on an Iliadic plane, rising to match Erysichthon’s ferocity in reply with an epic simile of the type usually associated with hand-to-hand combat (50-2). With a look more fearsome than that of a Tmarian lioness Erysichthon rejects ‘Nicippe’ with a cento of Homeric verbal violence”. 54 For the advent of a new sort of poetry seen in terms of the overthrow of an old divine order for a new one cf. Timotheos PMG 796. Callimachus’ poetry is emphatically not of the sort that Aristophanes calls ’Άρεως μεσ­ τόν {Ran. 1021). Rather, the Hymn to Delos falls into the traditional category of songs that renounce the themes of war for other kinds: thus, e.g. Anacr. el. 2 (West), Ibycus PMG 282, Stesich. PMG2\Q, Xenoph. fr. 1.13-24 (West), Dionysius Chalcus fr.2 (West). In general cf. W. Slater, “Peace, the Symposium and the Poet”, ICS 6.2 (1981) 207 with n. 13.

C a llim a ch u s’ H y m n

to

D e lo s

125

settin g his version o f A p o llo ’s b irth o ff from th a t o f th e H o m eric H y m n (cf. p. 104f. above). Y et he had done so w ith a polem ic th a t never so m uch as m en tio n ed w h a t th o se “w ell-w orn w ag o n -track s o f H o m e r” (Pae. 7 b .11) actually w ere. T h e Homeric Hymn to Apollo is p resen t in P in d a r’s poem in none b u t the m ost unspecific term s. C allim achus, by c o n tra st, refers to his m odels incessantly, c o m p re h e n siv e ly -a n instance o f th a t very d iffe re n t relatio n sh ip tow ards th e literary past w hich, as we saw in ch.2, the poets o f his tim e developed. T h a t is, by p erm eatin g his p o em w ith its H o m e ric an teced an t, creatin g in effect “a m o d ern c o u n ­ te rp a rt” (H e rte r, op. cit. p .5 9 = 379) to it, C allim achus dem ands o f his read ers a n o th e r kind o f activity altogether, fo r he com pels them , as P in ­ d a r h ad not, to com pare the tw o poem s in detail, to discover w h at was new by n o ticin g deviations in the specifics o f narrative and diction. P ro m in e n t am o n g these differences is th a t C allim achus in co rp o rates w ith in his a d a p ta tio n o f th e H o m e ric H y m n , his p rim ary m odel, the P in d a ric tale o f A steria. A nd this, in tu rn , co n trib u tes to th a t central tra n sfo rm a tio n , nam ely o f a Hymn to Apollo in to a Hymn to Delos, and o f giving to D elos th o se qualities th a t bespeak his p oetic program m e: th e g o d o f song will com e in to the w orld only th ro u g h th a t w hich is slender, p u re and free fro m w ar. O n ce A steria becom es fixed in one place, she is called D elos again (v. 251, th e first tim e since v. 40). W ith this m om ent, the p ow er o f Ares is b ro k en , the chaos and con fu sio n th a t had ch aracterized the previous age disappear: fo r the b irth o f m usic on D elos in th e p erso n o f A pollo tran sfo rm s and ord ers the w orld. A regular, circling m o tio n sets in, w ith D elos at its axis. T h is circling m o tif appears already at the start o f the p o e m - in th a t p o rtio n th a t deals w ith D elos to d ay (v. 11-29). T h e re , th e island is su r­ ro u n d e d by th e rushing sea (Ò, scil. the sea, δ ’ ά μ φ ί έ πουλύς έλίσσω ν v. 13) and by A p ollo’s protective m ight (v.27). T h e im age o f encircle­ m en t continues ( pace M in e u r ad v. 28) w ith the striking use o f περιτροχ ό ω σ ιν fo r songs: “b u t if so m any songs encircle y o u ” (εί δε λιην πολέες σε π ερ ιτρ ο χ ό ω σ ιν ά ο ιδ α ί ν. 28), and w ith the im age o f the w reath o f so n g fo r D elos in the n ext line: “w ith w h a t so rt shall I entw ine y o u ?” (ποιη ένιπλεξω σε; v. 29).55 T h u s, in the course o f th e first tw enty nine lines, D e lo s’ physical circum stances m erge alm ost im perceptibly w ith its p o sitio n as a focal p o in t o f veneration. T h is b len d in g o f the physical and m usical w ith in th e circling m o tif is n o w co n tin u ed , b u t w ith the ad d ed know ledge th a t it reflects th e h a r­ m o n y b ro u g h t a b o u t by A p o llo ’s birth. All things revolve a b o u t his 55 For the metaphor see Pindar’s Olympian 1 v. 100ff.: εμε δε στεφανώσαι κείνον... μολπμ χρή, cf. also P. 12.5 /. 4.44.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

birthplace: first the swans h erald in g his b irth in song (v. 250-251 έκ υ κ λ ώ σ α ν το ... έβδομάκις π ερ ί Δ ήλον); th en th e yearly pro cessio n s arrive fro m the fo u r corners o f th e e a rth (v. 278 f f .);56 next, the C yclades them selves are explained as a ch o ru s su rro u n d in g D elo s (v. 301 κύκλον έπ ο ιή σ α ντο κα ί ώς χ ο ρ ό ν ά μ φ εβ άλοντο) and th ey p ro v id e a m odel w ithin the en v iro n m en t fo r th e ch o ru s o f y o u th s an d m aidens w h o m ake D elos άμφ ιβόη τον (v. 303), fo r th e A th en ian ch o ru s led by T heseus (κύκλιον ώ ρ χή σ α ν το v. 313) and finally fo r th e sim ple m arin ers w ho circle the D elian altar (v. 321).57

56 According to Plut. de Mus. 1136 a, the procession of the άπαρχαί was musical. 57 The circling motif plays a similar role in the last part of the Hymn to Artemis. There, after Artemis has assumed her rightful place among the gods on Olympus (the equivalent of Apollo’s birth here), her nymphs dance in her cult-sites (170 αί νύμφαι σε χορω ενι κυκλώσονται). As here, the dance serves to shift the focus of the poem from the goddess herself to her companions and the cultic observance she receives. The mythical dance of the nymphs around Artemis finally becomes the cultic dance of the Amazons around her statue at Ephesus (v.240 περί, sell, βρέτας,... ώρχήσαντο and v. 241-242 κύκλψ / στησάμεναι χορόν εύρύν), and this in turn is the model for the Artemesium o f Ephesus itself (v.248-249 κείνο...περί βρέτας εύρυ θέμειλον / δωμήθη). The motif thus frames and organizes the entire last section of the poem. This resemblance between the Hymn to Artemis and the Hymn to Delos has led me to suspect that the two poems were originally companion pieces, the one perhaps written for Arsinoe, the other for Philadelphus. Other similarities: Like our hymn, the Hymn to-Artemis is closely modelled on the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (cf. Bornmann p.XVT-XVII and F. Dornseiff, Philol. Wocfienscfir. 56 [1936] 733 ff.). Both poems contain a description of Hephaestus’ work­ shop in which heavy stress is laid on the terrible noise (H. 4.141-146, H. 3.51-56). In each case, moreover, this noise is caused by terrifying mythical giants: In the fourth hymn, the movements of Briareus, pinned beneath Mt. Aetna, cause the volcanic erup­ tions that fuel the forges of Hephaestus; in H. 3, the monstrous Cyclopes, big as the crags of Ossa, make even distant places ring with their hammering (H . 3.56-61): ... αυε γάρ Αϊτνη, αύε δέ Τρινακρίη, Σικανών έδος, αύε δέ γείτων Ίταλίη, μεγάλην δέ βοήν έπί Κύρνος άύτει, ευθ’ οϊγε ραιστηρας άειράμενοι ύπέρ ώμων ή χαλκόν ζείοντο καμινόθεν ήέ σίδηρον άμβολαδίς τετύποντες έπί μέγα μυχθίσσειαν. Just so Ares, about to rip up the peaks of Pangaeum, strikes his shield on high, causing even distant places to tremble at the dreadful din (H . 4.136-140): ύψόθε έσμαράγησε καί ασπίδα τύψεν άκωκή δούρατος- ή δ’ έλέλιξεν ένόπλιον έτρεμε δ’ Ό σσης ουρεα καί πεδίον Κραννώνιον αϊ τε δυσαεΐς έσχατιαί Πίνδοιο, φόβψ δ’ ώρχήσατο πάσα Θεσσαλίη· τοΐος γάρ άπ’ άσπίδος έβραμεν ήχος. It is precisely the noise in Hephaestus’ workshop to which this din is compared (cf. esp. έβραμεν-βρεμουσιν v. 144). In each case, only one character is courageous enough to

C a llim a ch u s’ H y m n to D e lo s

127

T h e c h o ru s o f A thenians celebrated th e ir escape fro m the deadly lab­ y rin th and its denizen, the m in o ta u r (v. 310-311 ο ί χ α λ επ ό ν μύκημα καί ά γ ρ ιο ν υ ια φ υ γό ντες / Π ασ ιφ άης καί γ ν α μ π τό ν εδος σκολιοΰ λαβ υρ ίν­ θου). T h e ir dance, the so-called G eranos, was said to reflect the twists an d tu rn s o f th e labyrinth (cf. P lut. Thes. 21, P ollux 4.110. O n the G e r­ anos generally cf. P. B runeau, Récherches sur les Cultes de Délos [P aris 1970] 19-23, 2 9-32), the jo u rn e y th ro u g h w hich was an e n co u n ter w ith d e a th 58 an d b ru te bellow ing force. In the dance, th e victory over d eath w as affirm ed. T h is dance helps us to u n d e rsta n d the o th e r dances th a t begin w ith A p o llo ’s birth. All o f them affirm th e h arm o n y o f th e new o rd e r an d its v ictory over the violence and fear in the old. In retrospect, th e ch ao tic flig h t o f the localities and L eto ’s to rtu o u s w anderings w ere also jo u rn ey s th ro u g h a la b y rin th .59 In e ith e r case, force is supplanted by music. T h e circu lar m o tio n th a t characterizes the new o rd e r is ad ap ted from th e very ancient n o tio n o f th e circle as the m ost p erfect o f form s. T h is n o tio n w as, o f course, p re-p h ilo so p h ical,60 b u t it w as m ost system ati­ cally developed in philosophy. T h ere, because it has n eith er beginning n o r end, the circle was w idely used to describe the etern al.61 In Plato,

stand up to this noise: while all other localities flee, Peneios stands his ground; although her companions are terrified, Artemis boldly confronts the Cyclopes. Both poems describe the god’s defense of his chief shrine against barbarian attack. In the Hymn to Delos (v. 171-187), the assault of the Celtic hordes on Delphi, ισάριθμοι / τείρεσιν (v. 175-176), is thwarted by Apollo. Theirs is a κακή οδός, since it is a one-way journey to destruction; in the Hymn to Artemis (v.251-258), the Cimmerians under the command of Lygdamis attack Ephesus, ψαμάθι ίσον, but for them too there is no home­ coming, for Artemis’ bow deters them (v. 255). Just as, in our hymn, the god’s protection creates an environment in which poetry can flourish, so in the Hymn to Artemis (v. 129-137) the city favored by the goddess is the best location for the poet. T h e s e are o n ly th e m o s t strik in g c o rr e sp o n d a n ce s.

58 Cf. J.Layard, Eranos Jb. 5 (1937) 241-291; D.C.Fox, Paideuma 1 (1940) 381-394; K. Kerenyi, Labyrinthstudien2 (Ziirich 1950). 59 In the verse about the labyrinth, v.311, the lack of harmony appears even in the meter. As H. Frankel observed (“Der homerische und kallimacheische Hexameter”, in Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens [Munich 1968] 130 n.4) there is an uncharac­ teristic and unharmonious word-break after σκολιοΰ, following a hephthemimeres (this occurs elsewhere in Callimachus only at H 1.36, 94). In his words, “ein krummer Vers für das ‘krumme’ Labyrinth.” Cf. however Mineur p.40 # 4.2.2 (7). 60 Cf. W. Burkcrt, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Harvard 1972) 331-332, 168 n. 18, 169 n.23. The circle was an ordering device already in the notion of an earth bounded by the ocean stream: thus already the view of the world on the shield of Achilles (II. 18.487ff.), cf. W. Schadewaldt, Die Anfänge der Philosophie bei den Griechen (Frank­ furt 1978) 54; cf. also Herodotus’ derisive comments about the many map-makers who depict the world in this way (IV 36). 61 On this question generally, cf. R.M ondolfo, L ’Infinito nel Pensiero dell’ Antichità Classica (Florence 1956). Cf. also C.Kahn, “Anaximander and the Arguments concerning

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

w here speculation on the eternal, circu lar m o tio n reaches its peak, we find the c re a to r go d o f the Timaeus c o n fro n te d w ith an o rig in al chaos w hich he w ishes to m ake as m uch like him self as possible {Tim. 3 0 a). H e thus brings o rd e r to the d iso rd e rly an d irreg u la r m o tio n s,62 an d o u t o f the chaos creates the anim al (tò ζφ ο ν 33 b), giving it th e m o tio n m o st closely related to “m in d ” and “re a so n ”, i.e. th e circu lar m o tio n .63 By p u rsu in g philosophy, in P la to ’s view, a m an cultivates his re a so n and is thus able to rid him self o f irratio n al m o tio n s, g ro w in g ever closer to the divine m ovem ent o f th e universe.64 In C allim ach u s’ g ra n d c o n ­ ception, it is p o e tr y - n o t m in d - th a t brings this etern al m o tio n to th e w o rld and th u s tran sfo rm s it.

Apollo, Egypt and the Reign o f Ptolemy Philadelphus T h e very h e a rt o f the Hymn to Delos has ostensibly n o th in g to d o w ith the them e o f p o e try w hich has co n cern ed us th u s far. It deals w ith kingship. Y et here to o the poem describes a v ictory over the forces o f Ares: the Κ ελτόν ’Ά ρ η α (v. 173) th a t th re a te n e d D elphi in 279/8, and E gypt a few years later (cf. below ). B eginning w ith line 162, A pollo prophesies a second tim e fro m th e w om b. T his tim e, how ever, he pen etrates rig h t to th e p resen t. H e h o ld s the "Απειρον”, Festschr. E. Kapp, 19-29; M. Kaplan, “άπειρος and circularity”, GRBS 16.2 (1975) 125-140. On Alcmaion and circularity in Greek thought, cf. W. K. C. Guthrie, A History o f Greek Philosophy I (Cambridge 1967) 350-357. 62 ούτω δή παν δσον ήν ορατόν παραλαβών ούχ ησυχίαν άγον άλλα κινούμενον πλημμελώς καί άτάκτως, εις τάξιν αύτό ήγαγεν έκ τής αταξίας ( Tim. 30 a). Cf. also 52 d ff. where the chaos is compared to a winnowing fan in which all sorts of grain is jumbled about every which way. At Arist. Met. 1072 b 3 ff. the unmoved mover produces circular motion which, as the primary and most perfect (cf. Phys. 265 a 13 ff.), tries to imitate the perfection of the unmoved mover. 63 κίνησιν γάρ έπένειμεν αύτφ την τοΰ σώματος οίκείαν, τών επτά την περί νουν καί φρόνησιν μάλιστα ούσαν διό δή κατά ταύτά εν τφ αύτφ καί εν έαυτφ περιαγαγών αύτό έποίησε κύκλω κινεΐσθαι στρεφόμενον, τάς δε έξ άπάσας κινήσεις άφεϊλεν καί απλανές άπηργάσατο εκείνων. Cf. also Laws 897 d ff. 64 The same is true to a lesser extent for music ( Tim. 47 c-d) which, though belonging to the realm of the senses, and being of secondary importance compared to mind, is related to the revolutions of the soul. When properly used (which, Plato makes clear, it is not), it can promote those movements and so bring us into greater harmony with the revolutions of the universe: δσον τ’ αύ μουσικής φωνή χρήσιμον προς ακοήν ένεκα άρμονίας έστι δοθέν. ή δε αρμονία, συγγενείς έχουσα φοράς ταΐς εν ήμΐν τής ψυχής περιόδοις, τφ μετά νοϋ προσχρωμένφ Μούσαις ούκ έφ’ ήδονήν άλογον καθάπερ νυν είναι δοκεϊ χρήσιμος, άλλ’ επί τήν γεγονυϊαν εν ήμΐν άνάρμοστον ψυχής περίοδον εις κατακόσμησιν καί συμφωνίαν έαυτή σύμμαχος ύπδ Μουσών δέδοταυ καί ρυθμός αύ διά τήν άμετρον εν ήμΐν καί χαρίτων έπιδεά γιγνομένην εν τοϊς πλείστοις έξιν επίκουρος επί ταυτά ύπδ τών αύτών έδόθη (Tim. 4 7 c-d).

C a llim a ch u s’ H y m n

to

D elo s

129

his m o th e r b ack from C os because a n o th e r god (θεός άλλος v. 165) is d estin ed to be b o rn there: the suprem e son o f th e Saviours (v. 166), P to lem y P h ilad elp h u s. J u s t as C allim achus had tu rn e d from his ow n tim e to the m ythical p a st in o rd e r to show how D elos was b o rn as a fixed entity, so now A pollo reaches into the fu tu re (the p o e t’s present) to show w hy he c a n n o t be b o rn on C os, b u t on D elos. T h ese are com ­ p lem en tary acts, playing u p o n the tra d itio n th a t p ro p h etic and p oetic k n o w ledge em brace the past, p resen t and fu tu re .65 B ut m ore, they re fle c t an a tte m p t to abolish the tem poral d isju n ctio n betw een the m o d ­ ern w o rld an d its d ista n t cu ltu ral ro o ts/C a llim a c h u s bridges the gulf by con sp icuously in teg ratin g his ow n age to g e th e r w ith its cultural a ss u m p tio n s -s u c h as divinity o f k in g s - in to the vision o f the past. T h a t is, the new P to lem aic realm already belongs, in a p ro jected (em bryonic) state, to the discourse o f the tra d itio n . Such play w ith time, w h ereb y the p o e t ju xtaposes d isp arate events and has th e p a st reach into th e present, occurs in ritu al as w e ll- a fact C allim achus will p resen tly exploit. A pollo n ow p redicts his fam ous singlehan d ed victory over th e G auls w h en th ey m arch ed on D elphi in the w in ter o f 279/8.66 A lth o u g h this a tta c k w as a well d o cu m en ted event (cf. N ach terg ael, op. cit. ad n.2, p .1 5 -1 2 5 ), C allim achus includes a detail th a t appears in no o th e r source: the G auls stru ck at precisely the tim e w hen th e ritual celebra­ tio n o f A p o llo ’s m ythic victory over P y th o n - an equally b arb aro u s f o r c e - w a s being p e rfo rm e d .67

65 Cf. West ad Th. 32; E. Heitsch, Gymnasium 78 (1971) 426 ff. 66 For the date, cf. above p.91. The Gallic invasions of the Greek mainland and Asia Minor seem to have inspired a considerable body of poetry with its own conventions and stock phrases: Cf. Callimachus’ Galatea fr. 378-379 with G. Petzl, ZPE 56 (1984) 141-144; the elegy P.Hamburgensis: De Galatis (Powell p.131-132 = SH 958), cf. W. Richter, Maia 15 (1963) 93-119 and A.Barigazzi, Rh.M. 117 (1974) 221-246, who con­ siders it as Aratus’ Hymn to Pan (since the Gauls “panicked”) written for Antigonos Gonatas’ victory in 276; S H 969, an elegy on a third century Florence papyrus, first pub­ lished by N.Terzaghi, “Un Nuovo frammento di Callimaco?”, Studie in onore di A. Calderini e R. Paribeni II (Milan 1957) 127, cf. W.Peek, Maia 15 (1963) 199-210; the Delphic Paeans (Powell p. 141 and 150); an epigram by Anyte (22 Page = AP VII 492) about three girls who choose death rather than submit to the Γαλατών υβριν v.2, n.b. the phrase Κελτών. . . ’Άρης v. 4. For Gauls in the art of this time, cf. H.Kyrieleis, Antike Plastik (1974) 136 n. 11. 67 It may indeed have coincided if we assume that the Dorian procession (discussed below) was just leaving Delphi rather than returning (as Pfeiffer thought, cf. app. crit. ad v. 177b). This would fit better with the logic of the ritual since the procession followed directly on Apollo’s fight with the serpent and traced the path of the wounded monster (Plut. q.gr. 293 c). Further, the miraculous hail and snow with which the Gauls are said to have been defeated (Diod. XXII 9.3; Paus. X 23.3; Schob Callim. H. 4.175-87; lust. XXIV 8.10) suits the beginning of the procession more than its return shortly before the Pythian games, which came at the end of August (cf. W.Burkert, Homo Necans [Berkeley 1983]

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

As P feiffe r recognized in his critical ap p aratu s, th e fra g m e n ta ry verses 1 7 7 a -b alm ost certainly re fe r to the D o ria n p ro cessio n sen t to the valley o f T em pe every eight years as p a rt o f th e S ep terio n festival, in o rd e r to b rin g back laurel fo r the victors o f th e P y th ian gam es. T h is festival com m em orated A p o llo ’s victory over P y th o n *68 and, w h a tev e r its original significance m ight have been (cf. W . B u rk ert, Homo Necans [B erkeley 1983] 127-130), by the tim e o f E p h o ru s in the fo u rth c en tu ry B .C . its rites w ere seen as a re -e n ac tm e n t o f A p o llo ’s b attle w ith the serpent.69 A h u t o r ten t,70 th o u g h t to re p re se n t P y th o n ’s h o m e,71 was erected on a th resh in g flo o r; a table was set up inside it. Y o u th s o f th e L abyadae clan accom panied a y o u n g boy, carry in g lighted to rch es fo r a 130 n.77). This order of events largely removes Mineur’s chronological objections, “The Boys and the Barbarians”, Mnem. 32 (1979) 120-127. For a thoroughgoing discussion of the chronology cf. Koenen, op. cit. (n.42 above) 178 n.98. Such criteria, however, may not be decisive since 1) Callimachus had, as our discussion will show, ample reason for tampering with dates so as to make the Septerion coincide with the attack of the Celts (pace Mineur, op. cit. esp. p. 125-126) and 2) the Gallic attack, as presented by Callimachus, falls easily into a mythical pattern of barbarian invasions against Delphi. We should therefore be cautious about drawing far-reaching chronologi­ cal conclusions. For a comparable prophecy by a god concerning such an invasion, cf. Eur. Ba. 1330 ff., where Dionysus predicts the metamorphoses of Cadmus and Harmonia (a daughter of Ares!) into serpents who will lead a barbarian horde against Greece, and plunder Delphi. This attack will cause them a νόστον άθλιον, just as it causes the Gauls a κακήν οδόν in our hymn (v. 185, cf. the barbarians of H. 3.251 ff., esp. ού γάρ εμελλεν ...νοστήσειν, ν.255, 258). Likewise, that the barbarians are countless, appears traditional, cf. H. 4.175-176 ισάριθμοι τείρεσιν, Η. 3.253 ψαμάθω ίσον, Eur. Ba. 1335 άναρίθμω στρατεύματι, cf. Dodds ad v. 1330-1339. The victory over the barbarians at Delphi was thus, for Euripides, a victory over a serpent similar to Apollo’s triumph over Python. On the historical side, a prophecy predicting disaster for a planned Persian attack on Delphi is recorded in Hdt. IX 42. The miraculous deliverance of Delphi from barbarian attack is likewise a traditional motif. Herodotus (VIII 35-39) tells of how, when Xerxes attacked the shrine, the sacred arms suddenly appeared before the temple and the Per­ sians were greeted with lightning and boulders which tumbled down on them of their own accord. Upon fleeing, they were pursued by the mythical warriors, Phylacus and Antonoos. In Theognis 773-782, Apollo is called on to confound the Persian threat to the Megarid in 479 B.C.: αύτός δέ στρατόν υβριστήν Μήδων άπέρυκε (ν. 775, cf. B.A.Van Groningen, Theognis: Le premier livre [Amsterdam 1966] 301-302). Thus, such invasions were quickly transformed into mythic events. 68 The principle sources are Plut. def. orac. 417e-418d, quaest. gr. 293 c, Theopompus FGrHist. 80 = Ael, v.h. 3.1, Plut. de Mus. 1136, Ephorus FGrHist. 70 F 31b = Strabo 422. 69 This myth was clearly of current interest in Ptolemaic circles. Strabo (421 f.) records that Timosthenes, an admiral under Philadelphus, composed the “pythian nome”, whose various parts were meant to reflect the stages of Apollo’s fight with the dragon. The piece was regularly performed at the Pythian games. 70 Plut. de def. orac. 418 a calls it καλία; Ephorus, op. cit., σκηνή. 71 T h u s E p h o r u s , op. cit. P l u t a r c h , op. cit., d i s p u t e s t h i s v i e w , b u t t h i s o n l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t it w a s p r e v a le n t .

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

131

secret atta ck on the stru ctu re. T h e y u p set the table, set the h u t on fire an d fled (cf. P y th o n ’s d e ath in th e Homeric Hymn to Apollo, w here the serp en t is m ade to ro t in the searing h e a t o f the sun, v. 363-374, w hence it takes its nam e: Πυθώ). T h is act was follow ed by th e procession to the riv er P eneios in the valley o f T em pe, w here th e p articip an ts so u g h t p u rifica tio n , as A pollo h ad done a fte r slaying P y th o n . By m aking A p o llo ’s triu m p h over the G auls coincide w ith this ritual re-en actm en t o f his victory over P y th o n , C allim achus clearly identifies th e tw o. T h ey are d iffe re n t aspects o f th e sam e fight, periodically w aged by A pollo ag ain st th o se w h o th re a te n his sacred d o m a in .7172 C allim achus identifies y et a n o th e r victory w ith this one. A pollo states th a t his struggle against the Κ ελτόν ’Ά ρ η α will be a ξυνός αεθλος (v. 171) to g e th e r w ith the “o th e r g o d ”, Ptolem y P h ilad elp h u s,73 and th a t each will have his share o f tro p h ies (v. 185 f f .) : τέω ν ( scil. the enem y shields) cu μεν έμοί γέρ α ς, α ί δ’ επί Ν είλ φ / εν π υρί τούς φ ο ρ έο ντα ς ά π ο π ν εύ σ α ν τα ς ίδ ο ΰ σ α ι / κ είσ ο ντα ι βασιλήος άέθλια πολλά καμόντος. T h e event th a t C allim achus is referrin g to is re c o rd ed in only tw o o th e r sources: the scholia to o u r passage and P au san ias I 72, A ccording to these, P to lem y hired fo u r th o u sa n d G allic m ercenaries, survivors o f the invasion o f 279/8, to fig h t against his h a lf-b ro th e r M agas, king o f C yrene, w h o was a b o u t to a tta ck E gypt. P h ilad elp h u s ultim ately did n o t have to fig h t since a rebellion by Libyan tribes forced M agas to a b o rt his plans. B ut th e G auls, we are told , m utinied and Philadelphus lu red them to a d eserted island in the Sebennytic b ran ch o f th e N ile and b u rn e d th em (εν π υ ρ ί... άπ ο π νεύ σ α ντα ς v. 186; κατέκαυσ εν αύτούς έκεΐσε, schol. ad v. 175-187. A ccording to Pausanias, the m ercenaries killed one a n o th e r o r died o f starvation). A lth o u g h , ratio n ally speaking, th e value o f P h ilad e lp h u s’ victory was negligible (cf. Fraser, op. cit., 660), C allim achus casts it as the equivalent o f A p o llo ’s at D elphi. It is th u s likew ise a re p e titio n o f the prim eval victory over P y th o n . Indeed, th e fiery d e ath o f the G auls m ay recall th e b u rn in g o f th e h u t in the S ep terio n as well as P y th o n ro ttin g in the sun. It m ig h t seem th a t C allim achus has exag g erated a m in o r event o u t o f all p ro p o rtio n . B ut the equivalences are m ore easily u n d e rsto o d if we recall th a t the c o u rt-p o e t was w riting to please a king w ho, because he was obliged to rule a large native m ajority, had ad o p ted m any o f the tra d itio n a l form s o f E gyptian kingship. T h e m ythological m aterial o f o u r hym n, w hile th o ro u g h ly G reek in origin, was accordingly chosen 71 The identification of a victory over barbarians with that over a serpent is expressly made in the Euripides passage cited in n.67. 73 Cf. H. 2.27 where Callimachus says the same thing more generally: δστις έμφ βασιλήι καί Άπόλλωνι μάχοιτο.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

and tailored so as to reflect the new realities o f ro y al statec ra ft. P u t som ew hat differently, the poem attem pts to in te rp re t in G re e k term s and fo r a G re ek audience a co n cep tio n o f m o n arch y w hich, in som e o f its m ost conspicuous features, was shaped by E g y p tian cu sto m .7*74 In th a t conception, the iden tificatio n o f th e king w ith A pollo was a given. F o r as ru ler o f E gypt, P tolem y was the in c arn atio n o f H o ru s, th e g o d th at, as early as H e ro d o tu s (II 144, 156), was co n sid ered th e eq u iv alen t o f A pollo. T hus, n o t only is th ere a single foe, the “C eltic A res”, b u t th o se o pposing it, th o u g h nom inally distinct (cf. θεός άλλος v. 165), are the em bodim ents o f a single salu to ry force w hich m ig h t som etim es be called A pollo, som etim es P to lem y .75 Every E g y p tian king had to earn his rig h t to the th ro n e by re -en actin g the m ythical v ictory o f H o ru s over Seth, thus bringing o rd e r to the w o rld and freein g it fro m ch ao s.76 D u rin g his reign, the king was expected to m ain tain th a t o rd e r ag ain st renew ed opposition. Seth and his follow ers m ig h t th re a te n chaos in th e guise o f political enem ies w ith in th e state, o r as fo reig n invaders, o r sim ply in the cult-cerem onies th a t p reced ed the k in g ’s c o ro n a tio n .77 7i The fundamental discussion of this phenomenon is that of R. Merkelbach, “Das Königtum der Ptolemäer und die Hellenistischen Dichter” in Alexandria, Kulturbegeg­

nungen dreier Jahrtausende im Schmelztiegel einer mediterranen Großstadt, Aegyptiaca Treverensia: Trierer Studien z. Gr.-Röm. Ägypten I (1981) 27-35, esp. 29-30. 75 Such identification, not just similarity, is as much a part of Greek thought as of Egyptian, cf. e.g. Pind. P. 9.63 ff., where the Horae take Aristaios on their knees and feed him ambrosia: θήσονταί τέ μιν αθάνατον, / Ζήνα καί άγνόν ’Απόλλων’, άνδράσι χάρμα φίλοις, / άγχιστον όπάονα μήλων, / Άγρέα καί Νόμιον, τοίς δ’ Άρισταϊον καλεΐν, cf. Fränkel’s comments on this passage: “[Es ist] fast ein Schock für uns, daß dieser Gott auch noch zugleich ein Sohn Apollons, und (ein) Apollon, und (ein) Zeus sein soll. Die Stelle zeigt drastisch, wie wenig strikte Geltung... die Aufgliederung des Göttlichen in gesonderten Personen hatte, wenn sogar die großen Olympier ihre individuellen Namen mit dritten teilen konnten, und somit auch miteinander. So lebendig war also bei dem Dichter und seinem Publikum das Bewußtsein, daß man mit dem Namen eines Gottes nicht eine Person meinte, sondern eine wirkende Macht.” {Dicht, u. Phil. [Munich 1962] 504 n.5). Cf. Wil. op. cit. (n.41 above) 244; A. D. Nock, Essays I (Cambr. Mass. 1972) 34ff.; H.W .Pleket, Lampas 12 (1979) 126ff. and R.Merkelbach, op. cit. (n.74 above) 33: “Die mehrfachen Parallelen von Apollon und Ptolem aios.. .lassen keinen Zweifel, daß der Hörer eine Art von Identität der beiden Götter verstehen sollte, jene Identität des mythischen Denkens, welche von den ephemeren Einzelheiten absieht und auf das Gleiche achtet, welches zugrunde liegt. Der ägyptische Name des Apollon ist ja Horos, und Ptolemaios als König Ägyptens war ebenfalls Horos, wie jeder König des Nillandes.” 76 For the contendings of Horus and Seth generally cf. P. Chester Beatty I, translated in M.Lichtheim, AEL II, 214ff. For the Pharaoh as Horus, cf. e.g. E .Hornung, Ge­ schichte als Fest (Darmstadt 1966) 13, 24, 29 and H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago 1948) 37 ff. The role of Ptolemaic kingship ideology in our hymn is discussed by L.Koenen, Chr. d’Eg. 34 (1959) 110 ff. and ICS 1 (1976) 134 n.29 and “Die Adaption Ägyptischer Königsideologie” op. cit. (n.42 above). 77 On these different aspects of Seth, cf. H. Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion (Leiden 1967) and E. Hornung, “Seth, Geschichte und Bedeutung eines aegyptischen Gottes”, Symbolon NF 2 (1974) 49-64.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

133

W h a t m a tte re d w as n o t the m ag nitude o f the h isto ric event, b u t th a t th e king ap p eared in a role w hich affirm ed the legitim acy o f his reign an d its stre n g th .78 In this light, it is strik in g th a t descriptions o f the P h a ra o n ic v ictory as H o ru s over Seth in E gyptian literatu re often take th e fo rm o f post eventum prophecies such as the one in o u r hym n.79 F u rth er, th e fact th a t A pollo acts from th e w om b, som ething he does n o t do in any G reek tra d itio n , seems calculated to recall the com m on E g y p tian b elief th a t gods an d kings w ere active already b efo re they w ere b o rn .80 Finally, in b u rn in g the G auls, P h ilad elp h u s availed him self

78 Thus, according to the Rosetta stone ( OGIS 90 v. 23 ff.) Ptolemy V Epiphanes defeated rebels in Lykopolis during the Nile-flood before being crowned: καί τούς έν αύτήι άσεβεΐς πάντας διέφθειρεν καθάπερ [Έρμ]ής καί ΤΩρος ό τής Ίσιδος καί Όσίριος υιός έχειρώσαντο τούς έν τοΐς αύτοϊς τόποις άποστάντας πρότερον, cf. R. Merkelbach, Isisfeste (Meisenheim 1963) 23; or the Raphia decree (217 B.C.) in which statues of Ptolemy IV Philopator as “Πτολεμαίου "Ωρου τού έπαμύνοντος τώι πατρί καλλινίκου” are set up after he defeated Antiochus (according to the Demotic version, “just as Horus, the son of Isis, had slaughtered his enemies”, cf. H.Thissen, Studien zum Raphiadekret [Meis­ enheim 1966] 22, 55). On the continuance of these traditional kingship practices in Ptole­ maic times, cf. E. Hornung, op. cit. (n.76 above) 28-29; H.Kyrieleis, op. cit. (n.66 above) 133 ff.; L. Koenen, Eine agonistische Inschrift, op. cit. (n.3 above); and R.Merkelbach, op. cit. (n.74 above) 35: “Zwar wollten die Griechen in Alexandrien Griechen bleiben und nicht zu Ägyptern werden; aber die Verhältnisse waren derart, daß ein Ausgleich gefunden werden mußte. Die zentrale Position im Aufbau des Staates kam dem König zu, und damit war ein starker Einfluß der ägyptischen Wirklichkeit gegeben; denn Ägypten ist ein Land, in welchem Planwirtschaft-nämlich in der Bewässerung des Acker­ landes und seiner Vermessung-in beträchtlichem Maß notwendig ist. In sehr vielen Punkten blieb den Ptolemäern gar nichts anderes übrig als die traditionellen Lösungen der Ägypter zu übernehmen. So war an der einflußreichsten Stelle des gesamten Staates, im Königtum, eine Anpassung an die ägyptischen Vorstellungen ganz unumgänglich.” 79 A famous example is the prophecy of Neferti, cf. M. Lichtheim, AEL I 139-145; W. Helck, Die Prophezeiung des Nfrti, Kl. Äg. Texte (Wiesbaden 1970); and the different interpretation of H. Goedicke, The Protocol o f Neferyt (Baltimore 1977). 80 Examples in Greek myth (Dionysus in Aeschylus’ Semele, Schob in Ap.Rh. 1.636 = Aesch. p.335 Radt; Akrisios and Proitos, Apollod. 2.2), are rare in comparison with the wealth of Near Eastern and especially Egyptian material. For our purposes, the Egyptian examples are especially significant since they belonged to Callimachus’ immediate envi­ ronment: According to Plutarch {de Iside 12, 356 A), Isis and Osiris made love before they were born; and Seth is said to have “devised evil before he came forth from the womb” {Urk. VI 39, cf. J.G.Griffiths, Plutarch’s de Iside et Osiride [Univ. of Wales Press 1970] 307). Philostratus tells of Proteus, who is specifically called Αιγύπτιος δαίμων and Αιγύπτιος θεός, announcing his own birth {Vit. Apollon. Tyan. 1.4). As divine incarnations o f Horus, the Egyptian pharaohs naturally incorporated this motif into their kingship ideology, cf. the Cuban Stele (A. Hermann, Die ägyptische Königsnovelle, Leipzig, ägypt. Stud. 10 [Glückstadt-Hamburg-New York 1938] 17): “Du {seti. Ramses II) hast schöne Pläne gemacht, als du noch im Ei warst”; cf. also a papyrus (P. Beri. P3029, in Lichtheim, AEL I 116) where Sesostris the First proclaims “I conquered as a fledgling, I lorded in the egg. He fashioned me as palace-dweller, an offspring not yet issued from the thighs”; etc.

13 4

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

o f a tra d itio n a l m ethod by w hich E gyptian P h a ra o h s disposed o f th e ir enem ies.81 T h e early P tolem ies actively cultivated an d a d ap te d them selves to E gyptian religious and political in stitu tio n s, p a rtic u la rly in th e capital (cf. H . V olkm ann, X X I I I 2 “P to lem aio s” p. 1631-1632, 1658-1662), and it was im perative to them th a t th e G reek p o p u la tio n n o t be o ffen d ed by, o r reject, this policy.82 T h e problem m ay be seen from th e 81 Cf. E. Hornung, “Altägyptische Höllenvorstellungen”, Abh. d. Sachs. Akad. Leipzig, philol.-hist. K1.59 (1968) 27, who cites the following: King Merenptah (1224-1204), who burned a large number of war-captives; Prince Osorkon II, who sentenced political pris­ oners to death by burning in 829 B.C.; the pharaoh Bocchoris who, according to Manetho (fr. 66 Loeb ed.) was burned to death by Shabaka, the victorious king of Ethiopia; Cambyses, who, according to Hdt. Ill 16, removed the body of the pharaoh Amasis from its tomb and burned it; Euergetes II, who killed his enemies in 127/6 by setting a stadium on fire where they were gathered. Finally, Plutarch {de Iside 73), quoting Manetho, rec­ ords that every year two men were burned as “Typhonians”, i.e. followers of Seth, in mid-summer. Cf. also the Egyptian “island of flames”, where the dead were judged and, if guilty burned. Cf. generally Koenen, “Die Adaption ägyptischer Königsideologie”, op. cit. (n.42 above) 180-181. 82 This view has been attacked by C.Préaux {Le Monde Hellénistique [Paris 1978] esp. 545-586), who argues primarily on the basis of documentary papyri from smaller towns, that the Egyptian and Greek systems were kept entirely separate. It may be that the early Ptolemaic policy of reconciling the two cultures ultimately failed, but it is hard to deny that such a policy existed. I have already raised this possibil­ ity with regard to the organization of the Alexandrian Museum (eh. 1 n .7a above). With regard to sovereignty, the inscriptions cited in n.78 clearly attempt to communicate Egyp­ tian kingship beliefs in Greek to a Greek audience-what is more, they do so, unlike the poems we have been discussing, with an unabashedly Egyptian nomenclature. A similar attempt at reconciliation may be seen in the Ptolemaic Oinochoai described by D.BurrThompson {Ptolemaic Oinochoai and Portraits in Faience: Aspects of the Ruler Cult [Oxford 1973] 119-120). Perhaps the most impressive emblem of the royal union of the two cultures is the famous river-boat of Ptolemy IV (cf. Callixenus in Athenaeus 206 a ff.). The two principal rooms on this boat were decorated in Corinthian and Egyptian style respectively. An illu­ minating analysis of this pairing is given by J. Onians, Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age (London 1979) 71: “Another distinctive feature of Ptolemy’s boat was a dining-room, built, according to the text, entirely ‘in the Egyptian manner’, that is with black and white banded columns whose capitals were shaped like rose blossoms and decorated with lotus flowers and palm blooms. The forms thus corresponded quite closely to column types based on vegetable forms with which we are familiar from early times in Egypt. As this room together with the Corinthian oikos seems to have been the most magnificent on the boat, Ptolemy appears to have shown a considerable respect for Egyptian forms, espe­ cially since the setting here is not some ancient temple precinct where it would be neces­ sary to continue the tradition of pharaonic art, but a private environment where few con­ cessions to public demands would be necessary. Probably the existence of the two rooms on the boat is a demonstration of how far the Macedonian royal family in Egypt felt its loyalties divided between two cultures. The need to acknowledge the traditional needs of both Greek and Egyptian subjects had already induced Ptolemy I to inaugurate the wor­ ship of a new deity, Serapis, embodying features of Osiris and Apis as well as of Dionysus

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

135

case o f P h ilad e lp h u s’ m arriage to his sister A rsinoe, a m ost conspicuous concession to E gyptian kingship practices.83 W h en the p o et Sotades a ttack ed this m arriage in verse (“you th ru s t the prick into an u n holy h o le ”, εις ο ύ χ ό σ ίη ν τρ υ μ α λ ίη ν το κέντρ ον ωθείς, Pow ell p.238), he was sw iftly and cruelly p u nished (cf. Fraser, op. cit., 117-118). T h eo critu s, by co n trast, ju stified the m arriage by reference to the “sacred m a r­ ria g e ”, ιερός γά μ ος, o f Z eus and H e ra (1 7 .1 3 0 ff.). C allim achus sim ilarly chose to cast the view o f kingship, w hich the P tolem ies w ere eager to p ro m o te, in term s acceptable to G reeks, yet tru e to th e native influence th a t was now a reality o f governm ent. T h e b attle against the G auls w as thus n o t only a struggle against th e forces o f A res. It could at once be seen as the re -e n ac tm e n t o f H o ru s ’ victory over Seth, o r a re -e n ac tm e n t o f the prim eval victory o f A pollo over P y th o n . In any case, the resu lt was a h arm o n io u s w orld, ru led o f its ow n a c c o r d - w ith o u t th re a ts o r α ν ά γ κ η - b y P to lem y Philadelphus: “u n d e r w hose crow n it shall com e n o t unw illing to be ruled by a M ace­ d o n ia n ” (φ υπό μίτρην / ιξετα ι ούκ άέκουσ α Μ ακηδόνι κ οιρανέεσ θα ι V. 166 -167).84 and Pluto. The shrine of Serapis at Memphis with its mixture of Greek and Egyptian architectural and sculptural styles reveals the same artistic eclecticism as Ptolemy’s boat.” 83 For this practice cf. Lex. d. Agypt., W. Helck and W. Westendorf ed. (Wiesbaden 1975) s.v. Geschwisterehe; cf. also H .Thierfelder, Die Geschwisterehe im hellenistisch­ römischen Ägypten (Münster 1960). 84 As soon as we see the various strata within the poem, the innovations in Callima­ chus’ version of the ’Απόλλωνος γοναί fall into place. For instance, the notion that Apollo should eclipse his belligerent elder half-brother, Ares (cf. p. 114 f. above), bears a strong resemblence to the official Egyptian kingship myth: the king in his role as Horus had to defeat his elder brother Seth, the god of chaos and war, before acceding to the throne. Seth denied that Horus was the legitimate heir and threatened him even before he was born. Cf. n.76 and the sarcophagus text (Cairo # 16/17 in RU 204/5) cited by T. H opf­ ner, Plutarch über Isis und Osiris I (Prague 1940) 85-86. Seth is elsewhere seen as the uncle of Horus, but in the Chester Beatty Papyrus cited in n.76, as well as in the earliest traditions he was considered Horus’ elder brother, cf. Fichtheim, AEL II, 223 n.8. The rivalry between Ares and Apollo is also strangely analogous to the situation of Ptolemy Philadelphus with respect to his elder half-brother Keraunos (cf. Mineur p.98 ad v. 58). Fike Apollo, Philadelphus was characterized by his love for music (Theocritus calls him φιλόμουσος, 14.62, which is hardly surprising since the king was a student of Philetas of Cos), while Keraunos was headstrong and contentious, like Ares. Indeed, Ke­ raunos got his name, according to Pausanias, διά το άγαν τολμηρόν (X 19.7) and his ea­ gerness for any violent undertaking (I 16.2 cf. also H.Heinen, Untersuchungen zur helleni­ stischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v.Chr., Historia Einzelschr. 20 [Wiesbaden 1972] 7). Because of his superior talent, Philadelphus was favored by Ptolemy Soter as succes­ sor to the throne, becoming co-regent at age twenty three, while Keraunos eventually left for the north to rule Macedonia. The situation is likewise reflected in two passages from the Hymn to Zeus, v. 57-59: άλλ’ irti παιδνός έών έφράσσαο πάντα τέλεια' / τφ τοι καί γνωτοί προτερηγενέες περ έόντες / ούρανόν ούκ έμέγηραν έχειν έπιδαίσιον οίκον, and ν. 66-67: ου σε θεών εσσήνα

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

C allim achus allow s this E gyptian b ack g ro u n d to ap p ear so m ew h at m ore explicitly elsew here in the poem . Scholars, fo r instance, h a d lo n g p u zzled over A pollo’s statem e n t (v. 168) th a t P h d a d e lp h u s w o u ld rule over ά μ φ οτέρη μεσόγεια, tak in g the p h rase tt> m ean “b o th c o n ti­ n en ts” - an alleged reference to A frica and Asia, th o u g h only a tiny fra c ­ tio n o f th e la tte r co n tin e n t was p a rt o f P to lem y ’s realm (cf. M in e u r ad loc. ). R ecently, how ever, tw o scholars have suggested in d e p en d e n tly o f one a n o th e r th a t άμφ οτέρη μ εσ όγεια can m o re plausibly be in te rp re te d as “b o th inland regions” (the usual sense o f μ εσ ό γεια ), and th a t this d enotes U p p e r and L ow er E g y p t.85 In fact, “L o rd o f th e tw o (soil, u p p e r and low er) lan d s” was one o f the co n v en tio n al titles o f th e E g y p tian p h a ra o h . It appears, then, th a t th a t m o st G re ek o f gods, A pollo, a d ­ dresses P tolem y in term s suggestive o f tra d itio n a l p h a ra o n ic n o m e n cla ­ tu re .86 T h e E g yptian u n d e rc u rre n t com es to th e surface m o st explicitly, how ever, in th e details o f A pollo’s b irth .87 T h e d escrip tio n largely fo l­ lows the m odel o f the Homeric Hymn to Apollo. T h e re (v. 18-19), L eto leaned back against M t. K ynthos, n e a r th e palm tree, n ex t to th e stream s o f Inopus: κεκλιμένη προς μακράν ό ρ ο ς κ αί Κ ύνθιον ο χθο ν, / ά γ χ ο τά τω φ ο ίνικ ο ς ύπ Ί ν ω π ο ΐο ρεέθροις. H e re, she sits d o w n n ex t to the stream s o f Inopus and leans back ag ain st th e tru n k o f the palm tree (v .2 0 6 ff.): έζετο Ίν ω π ο ΐο π α ρ ά ρ ό ο ν .,.ά π ό δ ’ έκλίθη έμ π α λιν ώ μ οις / φ οίνικος π ο τί πρέμνον. B ut C allim achus m akes a sig n ifican t ad d itio n : re fe rrin g to the tra d itio n th a t m any rivers w ere co n n ected u n d e r­ g ro u n d ,88 he says th a t the In o p u s flow s d eep est w h en th e N ile com es πάλοι θέσαν, έργα δέ χειρών, / σή τε βίη τό τε κάρτος, δ καί πέλας εϊσαο δίφρου. Keraunos left Egypt (heaven) to rule Macedonia, just as Poseidon and Hades left to rule over other provinces, cf. D.W .Tandy, Callimachus Hymn to Zeus (Diss. Yale 1979) 15-16. 85 Cf. L.Koenen, op. cit. (n.42 above) 186-187 and Mineur (ad v. 168) who apparently did not yet know of Koenen’s publication. 86 Koenen, op. cit. (n.42 above) 187, suggests that the subsequent description of Ptolemy’s realm (“both inland regions and the islands which lie by the sea, as far as where the end of the earth is and from whence swift horses carry the sun” v. 168-170) likewise contains a traditional Egyptian component: “Bei dem Gegensatzpaar Festländer-Inseln möchte man aber zunächst griechische Denkweise vermuten. Jedoch spricht beispiels­ weise schon Sinuhe von den ‘Göttern Ägyptens und der Inseln des Meeres’... König Echnatons (1364-1347) Herrschaftsgebiet ist umschrieben als ‘der Süden wie der Norden, der Westen und die Inseln inmitten des Meeres’; es reicht ‘so weit die Sonne scheint’.” 87 For this section cf. also the discussion of R. Merkelbach, op. cit. (n.74 above) 32. 88 This tradition probably goes back to the idea that all rivers have their source in Oceanos (//.21.192-197, cf. Xenophanes D K fr. 30), or alternately Acheloos (cf. Schob T to II. 21.195). The first reference to such underground connections applied to a particular river is in Ibycus PMG 322, where the Asopos is said to come to Sicyon (near Corinth) from Phrygia; and PMG 323, where the poet told of a victor in the Olympics who threw a golden bowl into the Alpheios and it surfaced in the Syracusan spring Arethousa. The

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

137

d o w n w ith sw elling stream fro m A ethiopia: ον τε βάθιστον / γ α ΐα τ ό τ ’ έξανίησιν, ο τε π λ ή θο ντι ρεέθρω / Ν είλος ά π ό κ ρ η μ νοϊο κ α τέρ χετα ι Α ίθιοπήος. C allim achus thus links D elos, as A p o llo ’s birthplace, to E g y p t.8990W e saw h ow A p o llo ’s prophecy co ncerning the Celts was a temporal bridge, spanning the g u lf betw een G reek p a st and P to lem aic p resen t; this link w ith the N ile is a spadai brid g e (o r tunnel) connecting th e alien A frican land w ith a fam iliar cu ltu ral hub o f the old G reek w o rld . B ut C allim achus goes even fu rth er. F o r a t A pollo’s birth, th e Inopus flo o d s like th e N ile (v. 263): πλήμυρε βαθύς Ίνω π ό ς. T h is is clear from th e u n m istak ab le verbal echoes o f the ab o v e-m en tio n ed passage in w hich the N ile ’s sw elling stream s are explicitly m entioned, πλήμυρε v. 263 thus recalls π λ ή θο ντι v. 207, and βαθύς v. 263 recalls βάθιστον v .206.90 O u r p o e t thus d e lib e ra te ly -s ta rtlin g ly -m a k e s A pollo’s b irth coincide w ith the N ile -flo o d . T h is coincidence was clearly n o t fo rtu i­ to u s since, acco rd in g to E gyptian belief, the N ile flo o d came at the sam e tim e as th e b irth o f Fforus (i.e. A pollo), and ju st as A pollo’s b irth in o u r poem is a victory over A res, so th e flo o d in g o f th e N ile was th o u g h t to reflect the victory o f Fforus over S eth.91 F u rth er, the N ileflo o d w as a fav o red tim e fo r c o ro n a tio n s92- i . e . the m o m en t at w hich th e E gyptian king becam e Fforus and established o rd e r in the w o rld fo llo w ing a p e rio d o f ch ao s.93 T h e link to E gy p t is y et g re a te r w hen we recall th a t th ere was also an E g y p tian tra d itio n a b o u t a flo atin g island, w hich was well k now n to the connection between the Alpheios and Arethousa, which was especially renowned, appears also in Pind. N. 1.1 (with schol.), P. 2.12 (with schol.), Callimachus fr. 407.45-50, AP XI 220, Ovid Met. 5.572-641, Paus. V 7.2-3, Schol. to Od. 3.489, Serv. ad Eel. 10.4, ad Aen. 3.694, 1.445. The orator Zoilos said that the Alpheios came from Tenedos (cf. Strabo 432). According to Philostratus ( Vit. Ap. I 20.2) and Paus. (II 5.3), the Euphrates was linked to the Nile. 89 For the connection between the Nile and the Inopus, cf. also the Hymn to Artemis v. 171 Αιγυπτίου Ίνωποΐο, Lyc. 574-576 (with schob), Paus. II 5.3, Strabo 6.271, Pliny N.H. 2.229. 90 Cf. schol ad H. 3.171 Ίνωπός ποταμός Δήλου- Αιγύπτιος δέ δια τον Νείλον, ότι καί αυτός έκεΐ πλημυρει. For πλημυρέω as a term for the Nile-flood, cf. Preisigke, Wörterbuch s.v., D. Bonneau, La Crue du Nil (Paris 1964) 61 n.4, 62 n. 1, cf. also the Hymn to Zeus v. 18-41 where the flooding of Arcadia at the birth of Zeus may be meant to recall the Nile-flood, cf. esp. άβροχος v. 19, which was a technical term for land that was not reached by the Nile-flood ( Wörterbuch I and IV s.v.). Zeus was even identified with the Nile, cf. Parmenon of Byzantium (SH 604 A v. 1): Αιγύπτιε Ζεύ Νεΐλ’, and already Pindar P. 4.56: Νείλοιο... Κρονίδα. 91 Cf. R.Merkelbach, op. cit. (n.74 above) 30, 28 n.90 and 21-22; T.Hopfner, op. cit. (n. 84 above) 86. 92 E.g. the Rosettana cited in n.78 and H. Frankfort, op. cit. (n.76 above) 102-106. 93 Cf. E. Hornung, op. cit. (n.76 above) 24, 26-27; H. Frankfort, op. cit. (n.76 above)

138

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

G reeks. T h e 6th cent. B .C . h isto rian H ecataeu s ( FGrHist. F 3 0 5 ) was the first to m en tio n C hem m is, the flo atin g island sacred to A p o llo .94 In the 5th cent., H e ro d o tu s (II 156) described it in m ore detail, explaining w hy it began to float: λόγον δε τόνδε έπιλεγοντες οί Αιγύπτιοί φασι είναι αύτήν πλωτήν, ώς εν τή νήσφ ταύτη ούκ έούση πρότερον πλωτή Λητώ, έοϋσα τών οκτώ θεών τών πρώτων γενομένων, οίκέουσα δε εν Βουτοϊ πόλι, ϊνα δή οί το χρηστήριον τούτο έστί, ’Απόλλωνα παρ’ ’Ίσιος παρακαταθήκην- δεξα­ μενή διέσωσε κατακρύψασα έν τή νυν πλωτή λεγομένη νήσφ, οτε τό παν διζήμενος ό Τυφών (sci/. Seth) έπήλθε, θέλων έξευρεϊν του Όσίριος τον παΐδα...τήν δε νήσον διά τοϋτο γενέσθαι πλωτήν (cf. also Pomp. Mela I 55) The story told by the Egyptians to show why the island moves is this: when Typhon came seeking through the world for the son of Osiris, Leto, being one of the eight earliest gods, and dwelling in Buto where this oracle of hers is, received Apollo in charge from Isis and hid him for safety in this island which was before immovable but is now said to float...O n account of this the island started to float. As to the fact th a t in G reek tra d itio n D elos ceased flo a tin g w ith A pollo’s advent, w hereas in the E gyptian version it only began to flo a t at th a t time, C allim achus m ig h t h u m o ro u sly have re fe rre d th e re a d e r to H e ro d o tu s ’ statem en t th a t E gyptians sim ply d o everything b ack w ard s (II 35.2 ff.): τά πολλά π ά ν τα εμπα λιν το ϊσ ι ά λ λ ο ισ ι ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο ισ ι έστήσ αντο. In any case, C hem m is was o f e n d u rin g im p o rtan ce in E g y p ­ tian kingship ideology since the P h a ra o h was o fte n d esig n ated as “H o rus in C hem m is”95 and m a n y -in c lu d in g P to lem y X S o te r II -c la im e d to have been b ro u g h t up th ere like H o ru s .96 T h e re was even a c o ro n a ­ tion in C hem m is.97 T hus, in his sto ry o f D elos, C allim achus once again disposes his m yth in such a w ay th a t it is m eaningful b o th fro m the sta n d p o in t o f E gyptian kingship practices as well as fro m a G re ek perspective. F ro m e ith er perspective the p o e t seem s to be telling th e sam e sto ry again and again. T h e d efeat o f Ares th ro u g h A p o llo ’s b irth at the N ile -flo o d is 94 έν Βούτοις περί τό ιερόν τής Λητούς έστι νήσος Χέμβις δνομα, ΐρη του ’Απόλλωνος, έστι δε ή νήσος μεταρσίη καί περιπλεϊ καί κινέεται έπί του υδατος. 95 Cf. Urk.YV, S.239; S. 16, 15; S. 157, 12; cf. M. Münster, Untersuchungen zur Göttin Isis, Münchner Ägyptol. Stud. 11 (1968) 122 n.1345. 9(1 Cf. J. Bergman, Ich bin Isis (Uppsala 1968) 137-140; A. Wiedman, Herodots zweites Buch (Leipzig 1890) 558, who cites Thutmes III (Mar. Karnak 16.47), Thutmes IV (Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien [Berlin 1849-1858] III, 68.4), Ameneses (Lepsius, op. cit. III 201 a), Ptolemy X Soter II (Lepsius, op. cit. IV 41c). 97 Cf. Urk. IV S. 16,15 where Ahmose takes up the crowns in Chemmis, cf. J. Bergman, op. cit. (n.96 above) 138 n.3.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

139

sim ply a n o th e r aspect o f the victory over th e Κ ελτόν ’Ά ρ η α by A pollo an d P h ilad elp h u s. T h e fu n ctio n o f the king in creating and m aintaining o rd e r in th e real w o rld is the sam e as th a t o f A pollo (and H o ru s) in m yth.

Apollo, Philadelphus and Callimachean Poetry It rem ains to ask in w h a t w ay the political o rd e r o f A pollo and P h il­ ad elp h us c o rresp o n d s to th e new poetic o rd e r created by the b irth of D elo s (th a t is, C allim achean p oetry). In o th e r w ords, how does A pollo’s ro le as ally o f kings relate to his role as p a tro n o f song? W e have alread y seen in o u r discussion o f how C allim achus used the Theogony o f H e sio d fo r his Hymn to Zeus (cf. ch .2 p .7 6 f. above) th a t the M u se’s g ift can be given to singer and sovereign alike. In a developm ent o f this them e, political an d m usical h a rm o n y cam e to be view ed as m erely d if­ fe re n t aspects o f a single force. T h e tra d itio n a l unio n o f these tw o aspects w o u ld have been fam iliar to C allim achus, if fro m no o th e r source, th en th ro u g h various odes o f P in d a r. In p a rtic u la r we m ay lo o k to Pythian 5, since this is a poem fo r an ath lete fro m C allim achus’ hom e tow n, C yrene, and c o n ta in s -a s one P in d a ric sch o lar has recen tly p u t it98- ‘m ore precise reference to the custom s and g e o g ra p h y o f th e city’ celebrated th an any o th e r ex tan t po em by P in d a r. H ere, political and m usical h a rm o n y are co n co m itan t gifts o f A p o llo .99 T h is is th e god ‘w ho dispenses cures to m en and w om en fro m p ain fu l diseases, and gave them th e lyre, and bestow s the M u se on th o se he w ishes, b rin g in g love o f o rd e r w ith o u t w ar into th eir m in d s” (δ κ αί βαρειάν νόσ ω ν / ά κ έσ μ α τ’ ά ν δρ εσ σ ι κα ί γυ να ιξί νέμει, / π ό ρ εν τε κ ίθα ριν, δίδω σ ί τε Μ ο ΐσ α ν ο ις αν έθέλη, / απόλεμ ον ά γα γώ ν / ές π ρ α π ίδ α ς εύνομ ία ν ν. 63 -6 7 ). M usical and political h a rm o n y are here m ade virtu ally synonym ous th ro u g h the pun “A pollon/ά π ό λ ε μ ο ν ” (cf. Slater, op. cit. [n .5 4 above] 208). T h e situ a tio n is sim ilar in P in d a r’s Pythian 1 -w h ic h C allim achus draw s on m o re th a n once in o u r hym n (cf. th e discussion o f the A ressim ile an d n .5 0 ). T h e re , in th e w ords o f E .F ra en k e l (Horace [O x fo rd 1957] 278), “the p o w er o f m usic, this p resen t m usic and m usic in g e n ­ eral, is effective th ro u g h o u t the w orld: it puts o u t th e fire o f th a t w a r­ rio r th u n d e rb o lt, it lulls the eagle on the sceptre o f Z eus into slum ber; even the v iolent A res leaves the b attle and lets his h e a rt enjoy p ro fo u n d

98 M. Lefkowitz, “Pindar’s Pythian V ”, Pindare, Fond. Hardt XXX I (1984) 33. 99 For allusions to this poem in Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo cf. Williams ad H. 2.71, 74.

140

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

sleep” .100 T h e enem ies o f Z eus u p o n the earth, o r th e m o n ste r T y p h o s trap p ed b e n ea th M t. A etna, are stru ck w ith te rro r by the b e au tifu l sounds. F o r C allim achus too, the m usic o f A pollo brin g s peace and su b ­ dues the w ar-g o d , b u t it does m ore: it defeats th e p o w e r o f A res a lto ­ gether. A res is b a rre d fro m C allim achus’ song, th a t is, fro m D elos, and C allim achean p o e try generally shuns the them es o f w ar. T o speak here o f ‘C allim achus’ song’ o r ‘th e m usic o f A p o llo ’ is, o f course, slightly m isleading. W e recall fro m c h ap te r 1 th a t th e d issem in atio n o f verse h ad changed p ro fo u n d ly since the tim e o f P in d a r, and we know , th e re ­ fore, th a t even as o u r p o e t m ines the p a st fo r this them e, the p o w e r o f m usic has shifted its tra d itio n a l locus: fro m audible song to legible page. T his know ledge inevitably colors o u r u n d e rstan d in g . T h e g ra n ­ d e u r o f the im age n o tw ith stan d in g , fo r instance, w e m ig h t be tem p ted to see in the stable circling m otio n lau n ch ed by A p o llo ’s b irth on his sacred island a reflection o f the sc h o la r/p o e t’s o rg a n iz in g zeal, th e c a ta ­ lo g u e r’s rage fo r order. In the new o rd e r established by th e so n g -g o d ’s b irth , D elo s becom es a fixed entity and a c o n sta n t source o f song. It is exalted and, in tu rn , provides the w orld w ith a stable focal p o in t. B ut this o rd e r, once e sta b ­ lished, m ust be m aintained against th e p erio d ic en cro ach m en ts o f b a r­ barism and chaos. In d efeatin g the G auls, A pollo and P h ilad e lp h u s do ju st that. T h e y (re)create an h arm o n io u s political en v iro n m en t in w hich this Hymn to Delos (and C allim achean p o e try generally) co u ld be w rit­ ten and thrive and enjoy a p ro m in en t p o sitio n . T h e hym n th u s describes the conditions it needs to exist: a w o rld m ade safe fo r C alli­ m achean song. T h is w o rld is n o t subject to α νάγκη , b u t is ru led o f its ow n accord (ούκ άέκουσ α v. 167). In th e p o e try o f C allim achus, it finds its ap p ro p riate voice. D elos is n o t im pressed by force, b u t w illingly su b ­ m its to A pollo (έθέλουσαν v. 195). T h e very existence o f this poem te sti­ fies to the success o f P to lem aic rule. H e re too, fo r the co n n ectio n to the c o n tem p o rary political setting, C allim achus could lo o k to P in d a r’s first P y th ia n O d e as a m odel. F o r there, a fte r describing the effect o f m usic on th e gods and o n the m o n ­ sters subdued by Zeus, P in d a r prays th a t H ie ro n , having su b d u ed the b arb arian E truscans and C arth ag in ian s, be able to lead his people σ ύμφ ω νον ές ή σ υ χία ν (v.70). As F raen k el p o in ts o u t (op. cit. 280), th e m e ta p h o r o f “h a rm o n io u s” (σύμφω νος) peace, th o u g h applied to p o lit-

loo Fraenkel’s statement must be modified slightly inasmuch as it is not all music that has this effect, but specifically Apollonian. As H.Fränkel observed (Dicht, u. Phil., op. cit. [n. 75 above] 521 ff.), the harmonious picture in P. 1 has its violent counterpart in the Dithyramb (fr. 70 b v. 5 ff.) where the thunderbolt and the spear of Ares are participants in the wild dance.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

141

ical peace, “still re ta in ed its full m eaning and its close association w ith th e skill and w isdom o f A pollo and the M u s e s ... J u st as the m onsters w h o m Z eus d efeated th re a te n e d the w orld w ith chaos, so did the b a r­ b arian s w h o m H ie ro n d efeated . O u t o f such a d e fe at m ay th ere again, as in the old days, g ro w a rule of o rd e r and h a rm o n y ”. T h e “lyres b e n ea th th e ro o f” (φ ό ρ μ ιγγες ύ π ω ρ ό φ ια ι v.97) o f H ie ro n ’s house, w h ich play to celebrate his victory, confirm th a t “th e golden lyre o f A p o llo ” (χρ υ σ έα φ ό ρ μ ιγξ Α π ό λ λ ω ν ο ς v. 1) is indeed at w o rk in the realm . As in th e case o f P to lem y ’s victory o v er the G auls, “H ie ro n has him self created th e p re c o n d itio n fo r his ow n p raise” .101 C allim achus never directly links the king and D elos, eith er as a p o lit­ ical entity o r as the them e o f song. As we saw in ch ap ter tw o (p.81 f. above), th a t fo rm e r kinship o f the political and o f the poetic sphere, o f sovereign and singer, w hich had been acted o u t in th e public arenas p ro v id ed by the political in stitu tio n s o f the city-state, h a d - w ith the rise o f absolute m o n arch y and the rigidly centralized a u th o rity o f th e H e l­ lenistic k in g d o m s -b e c o m e progressively m ore ten u o u s. T h e w orlds o f g o v e rn m e n t and o f song h ad grow n apart. Y et C allim achus suggests a subtle in terd ep en d en ce b e n ea th the surface: th e In o p o s and the N ile, D elo s and E gypt, w ere a fte r all connected by a su b terran ean link. In re tro sp e c t we see th a t subm erged associations o f this kind are p a rt o f a la rg e r p a tte rn in this hym n - one o f play betw een th a t w hich is δήλον and ά δη λ ον (C allim achus’ ow n term s fo r the “now y o u see it, now you d o n ’t” q u ality o f his them e). T h u s, ju st as C allim achus was at pains to establish an inconspicous link betw een E gy p t and D elos, so he does n o t advertise his esteem fo r th e king in any open o r d irect way. H is encom i­ um em anates ra th e r from one w ho is ύποκόλπιος, b en eath the surface o f his m o th e r’s w om b, as y et u n b o rn . P erh ap s th e hym n contains in th ese exam ples a m e ta p h o r fo r its ow n allegory, th a t is o f D elos as em b o dying C allim achean principles, its b irth as th e realizatio n o f C allim ach ean song, and o f the E gyptian su b stratu m w hich inform s, as we have argued, th e hym n’s view o f kingship.

101 Thus Slater (op. cit. [n.54 above] 211). We said earlier that the regular, circling motion of the world was an emblem for the new musical order established by Apollo through Delos. This motion may also reflect the general aspects of Apollo’s power. Such an interpretation would not have surprised Callimachus’ audience. It appears to have been topical. The Egyptian priest Manetho, Callimachus’ contemporary, wrote of how the Egyptians call the magnet “the bone of Horus”, but iron “the bone of Typhon” (sell. Seth). The iron is sometimes attracted by the magnet, sometimes repelled. Manetho con­ tinues, ούτως ή σωτήριος καί αγαθή καί λόγον εχουσα του κόσμου κίνησις έπιστρέφεται τε καί προσάγεται μαλακωτέραν ποιεί, πείθουσα τήν σκληράν εκείνην καί τυφώνειαν (Man­ etho in Plut. de hide 62). The power of Horus (that is, Apollo) is equated with the “salutory, good and rational movement of the world” which mollifies Seth.

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

C allim achus ends his poem on a disarm ingly h u m o ro u s n o te w ith the strange rites o f the sailors, created as π α ίγ ν ια by A steria fo r th e baby A pollo. T his ending rem inds us th a t the very earn est them es w ith w hich w e have been concerned are also, to a sig n ifican t extent, b e n e a th the surface. T h e d o m in a n t im pression th ro u g h o u t is ra th e r th a t o f a gram­ maticus ludens w ittily and learned ly tra n sfo rm in g a tra d itio n a l them e from venerable m odels in to som eth in g b e tte r suited to the A ge, and aim ed to d elight his p e e r s - th e grammatici ludentes o f A lex an d rian M useum . It is largely in this sense th a t the H o m e ric H y m n and the Hymn to Delos a re -d e s p ite the la tte r’s co n sta n t referen ce to th e f o r ­ m e r-w o rld s apart. Y et I w o uld stress th a t th e playful and childlike are at hom e in this new w orld, n o t helpless like children, b u t stro n g in th e ir lau g h ter and w it. T h e closing invocation (v. 325) illustrates this p o in t. By using the Io n ic form ίστίη an d m odifying it w ith th e h ap ax εύέστιε, C allim achus creates an am using so u n d -p lay o n th e w o rd “h e a rth ” . O n e could be tem pted to th in k th a t this alone m ig h t have p ro m p ted th e p o e t to call D elos “the h e arth o f the islands” (ίστίη ώ νή σω ν v. 325). T h e scholia, how ever, explain the ap p ro p riaten ess o f this im age: the h e a rth is an a lta r th a t stands in th e m iddle o f every ho u se; th u s D elos stands at the center o f the C yclades like a h e arth and an altar. B ut n o t only houses h a d hearth s. A city h a d a “co m m o n h e a rth ” (A rist. Pol. 1322 b 26) and the eternal flam e at D elphi was som etim es co n sid ered the h e arth fo r all o f G reece (cf. Plut. A ristid. 20 .4 -8 ; th u s W . B urkert, Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche [S tu ttg a rt 1977] 264-265). P erhaps C allim achus w ished to m ake a sim ilar claim fo r D elos (cf. K uiper, op. cit. p. 190). A ccording to P h ilo stra tu s’ Heroicus (ed. K ayser p .235), the L em nians p u rified th e ir island every y e a r and ex tin g u ish ed all fire fo r nine days. T h e n , sending a θεω ρίς to D elos, th ey w o u ld get new fire and, u p o n retu rn in g , said th a t this m o m en t signalled fo r them the beginning o f a new life (cf. W . B urkert, Homo Necans, op. cit., 192). By calling D elos the h e arth o f all islands, C allim achus could stress its g reat prestige as a place o f pilgrim age and source o f life fo r people (and poets) th ro u g h o u t the w orld. Such a m eaning w o u ld certain ly n o t have been lost on th e Ptolem ies, w h o co n tro lled th e island at this time. T h e im age is a p p ro p riate fo r o th e r reasons as well. It u n d erlin es the p u rity and stren g th o f C allim achean song. Like D elos, the g oddess H e stia was fam ous fo r h er chastity (cf. h e r decision to rem ain a virgin forever, H. H.Aphr. 21-32). F u rth er, as P la to m en tio n s in th e Phaedrus (247 a), the h e arth is im m ovable and H e stia does n o t p articip ate in the

Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos

143

p ro cession o f th e g o d s.102 A lth o u g h at th e p o em ’s start, D elos was d ep icted leading th e procession o f islands (v. 16-22), C allim achus now lays stress on som ething else: th e slender entity th ro u g h w hich A pollo en ters th e w o rld has becom e th e recipient o f processions. It has w on a p e rm a n e n t place in th e landscape and in song, fro m w hich, like the h e arth , it c a n n o t be shaken.

102 Cf. the discussion of Hestia by J-P Vernant, “Hestia-Hermes: The religious expres­ sion of space and movement among the Greeks” Soc. Sci. Inform. 8 (1969) 131-168 = Mythe et pensée chez les Grecs: etudes de psychologie historique (Paris 1969) 97-143.

Conclusion T ra d itio n and originality, the in terp lay o f p re sen t and past, are a c o n ­ cern o f poets in any Age. “E ach w o rk o f a rt,” as G. B. C o n te has said ,1 “is the resu lt o f conflict at all levels betw een o rig in ality and co n v en tio n and betw een the new and tra d itio n a l stru ctu res th a t shape literary m em ory. T h e literary m em ory becom es active and p re sen t w hen p o ets accept and w elcom e the norm s o f tra d itio n .” It is n o surprise th en th a t m o d ern “H o m e ric ” scholarship has fo cu sed as u n e rrin g ly o n th ese questions as has the study o f H ellen istic lite ra tu re .12 Y et it has long been recognized th a t in the Age a fte r A lex an d er’s c o n q u e s ts -in large p a rt because o f A lex an d er’s conquests and th e new w o rld th a t th ey u sh ered i n - t h i s issue becam e m ore pressing th a n ever b efo re. “N o w fo r th e first tim e the G reeks w ere convinced th a t th e old o rd e r o f things in the political as well as in the intellectual field, in th e ir w hole w ay o f life indeed, was gone forever. T h e y becam e conscious o f a definitive b re a k betw een the m ighty past and a still u n certain p re sen t.” (P feiffer, Hist. p. 87). In such circum stances th ere was en o rm o u s o p p o rtu n ity fo r in n o ­ vation, yet at the sam e tim e a stro n g pull to w ard s the past. B oth te n d e n ­ cies are em bodied in the p erso n o f the w ell-read M use: if, o n th e one h and, she is a novel figure in h er em phatically literate e ru d itio n , r e tr o ­ spection is by the sam e to k en h e r central concern. In tre a tin g these them es, we are dealing o f course w ith critical c o m ­ m onplaces. Y et it has been the aim o f this stu d y to raise such c o m m o n ­ places above the level o f in tu itio n (w here scholars o f this p e rio d have generally been c o n ten t to leave them ), to give them substance, and to d em o n strate th e ir in terrelatio n sh ip . T h u s c h ap te r one a d d ressed the w ell-know n “b o o k ish n ess” o f the Age by p u r s u in g - a s h a d h ith e rto n o t been d o n e - th e b o o k itself, the activities o f rea d in g and w ritin g as lit­ erary them es, th ereb y revealing th a t the poets o f the tim e h ad devel­ oped a new and re v o lu tio n a ry self-im age. W e observed h ere an e n g a g ­ ing receptivity to the new an d a w illingness to experim ent. C h a p te r tw o dealt, on the o th e r hand, w ith the n o ted sense o f ep ig o n ality am o n g the H ellenistic au th o rs, and w ith th e ir pro v erb ial allusiveness to earlier lit­ e r a tu r e - tw o them es th a t have trad itio n a lly been tre a te d separately, b u t 1 The Rhetoric o f Imitation (Ithaca 1986) 91. 2 I need only point to the collection of essays in the Wege der Forschung volume, Homer, Tradition und Neuerung, ed. J. Latacz (Darmstadt 1979).

Conclusion

145

w h ich I arg u ed m u st be seen as fu n ctio n s o f each o th er. T h e first o f these them es w as show n to be pow erfully expressed in th e p ro liferatio n at this tim e o f poem s fo r th e dead, fictitious epitaphs fo r th e g re a t lit­ e ra ry p erso n ag es o f the past: the old poetic w o rld w as defunct, th e new g e n eratio n b o rn a fte r the fact. Y et the H ellen istic poets devised ways to overcom e the perceived rift betw een them selves and the heritage, to revive th e p a st into th e ir ow n Age: full-scale resu rrectio n w as one m eans to this end; pervasive allusion an o th er. W hile chapters one and tw o d ealt w ith the p o e t’s re la tio n to p resen t and past respectively, ch ap ­ te r th ree p resen ted a synthesis o f these them es in a new in terp re ta tio n o f th e Hymn to Delos. H e re w e saw how C allim achus co n tin u o u sly and co m prehensively evoked his chosen m odels, th e Homeric Hymn to Apollo and P in d a r’s poem s a b o u t A steria, com pelling his readers to re ­ c o n stitu te these a n tec e d en t te x ts - a n d so establish co n tin u ity w ith the p a s t- e v e n as th ey experienced his ow n. B ut this is also a poem in w hich th e c o n te m p o ra ry w o rld is stro n g ly present. F o r th e hym n reflects C al­ lim achus’ ch aracteristically A lexandrian aesth etic concerns. A nd even as th e p o e t connects his king w ith the fam iliar political w o rld o f old H e l­ las, we find traces o f th e very d ifferen t w órld w ith w hich he was in co n ­ sta n t daily contact, nam ely th a t o f Egypt. T h is should rem ind us th a t th e poets w h o cam e to A lexandria w ere essentially foreigners, and it w as to a fo reig n w ay o f life th a t they w ere co n stan tly exposed. Set thus o n an alien shore, they lo o k ed back to th e ir an cestral w orld w ith som e­ th in g m ore th a n m ere nostalgia, fo r th e ir id e n tity -a s is so o ften the case w ith im m ig ra n ts-w a s stu b b o rn ly b o u n d up w ith th e ir heritage. Y et at th e sam e tim e th e re was no escaping th e new w o rld o f w hich th ey w ere a p a rt. It is this situation, w ith its necessary and p roductive am bivalence, th a t is everyw here p resen t in th e ir w orks.

Structural Diagram of the Hymn to Delos

I - 10 Prooimion: την ιερήν Δήλοv, ’Απόλλωνος κουροτρόφον-------------------------------I I - 27: Delos today: The fundamental paradox 11-15: The wretched island πόντφ ένεστήρικται-άμφί...έλίσσω ν---------------16-22: Delos preeminent among the great islands 23-27: Apollo protects Delos: άμφιβέβηκεν-----—-------------------------------------- 2 8-54:

γόναι Δήλου 28-29: 30-35 a: 35b-40: 41-50: 51-54:

Transition: Choice of theme, πολεες σε περιτροχόωσιν άοιδαί Poseidon’s creation of islands, πρυμνόθεν έρρίζωσε the contrast of Asteria Asteria’s wanderings Asteria as Apollo’s birthplace, change of name, mooring: ποδοόν έθήκαο ρίζας

55-259: γοναί 'Απόλλωνος 55-58: Transition: Hera’s wrath: ούδ’ "Ηρην κοτέουσαν---59-69: Hera’s guards: Ares (ήπειρος), Iris (νήσοι) 70-74: Leto’s wanderings: Arcadia 75-99 a: Leto’s wanderings: Boeotia Apollo’s 1st prophecy: Thebes 99 b - 102: Leto’s wanderings: Achaea 103-152: Leto’s wanderings: Thessaly Peneios episode Ares-simile ---------------------------------------------------153-204: Leto’s wanderings: the islands Apollo’s 2nd prophecy: Cos, Ptolemy, kingdom Celts (ξυνός άεθλος), Celt-sim ile-------------------------Asteria πλαζομένη 205-214: Leto on Asteria 215-248: Hera intermezzo Iris-simile ___________________________________ 249-259: The birth: ούδ’ 'Ήρη νεμέσησεν --------------------------κύκνοι... έκυκλώσαντο... περί Δ ή λ ο ν___________

260-274: γοναί Δήλου 260-263: The island becomes golden 264-274: Delos exultant: poverty vs. Apollo Δήλιος Mooring (καί εσσομαι ουκέτι πλαγκτή) Apollo’s recognition of Delos

275-324: Delos today: νησάων άγιωτάτη. The τιμαί 275-277: 278-299: 300-315: 316-324:

Delos ’Απόλλωνος κουροτρόφος ______________________________ άπαρχαί χοροί- νήσοι κύκλον έποιήσαντο-(παίδες) κύκλιον ώρχήσαντο __ Rites: σέο β ω μ ό ν...έλ ίξα ι___________________________________

325-326: Salutation. Delos as ίστίη νήσων

Bibliography Allen,T., and Sikes, E. Ε., The Homeric Hymns (New York 1904). Austin,J.N., “Theocritus and Simonides,” TAPhA 98 (1964) 1-21. Bagnali, R., The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt (Leiden 1976). Barigazzi, A., “Un frammento dell’ inno a Pan di Arato,” RhM 117 (1974) 221-246. Barrett, W. S., Euripides Hippolytus (Oxford 1964). Bauer,L.J., Callimachus, Hymn IV: An Exegesis (Diss. Brown Univ. 1970). Bauer,W., Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch des neuen Testament (Berlin 1958). Beloch,K.J., Griechische Geschichte IV 2 (Berlin 1927). Benveniste, E., Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européenes (Paris 1969). Bergman,J., Ich bin Isis (Uppsala 1968). Bertoldi, V., in Melanges Boisacq, voi. 1 = Brussels, Univ. Libre, Inst, de philol. et d’hist. orient., annuaire 5 (1937). B ie,0., Die Musen in der antiken Kunst (Berlin 1887). Bing, P., review of Mineur AJPh (forthcoming). -, “The Alder and the Poet. Philetas 10 (p.92 Powell),” RhM 129 (1986) 222-226. -, “Kastorion of Soloi’s Hymn to Pan,” AJPh 106.4 (1985) 502-509. -, “Callimachus’ Cows. A Riddling Recusatio,” ZPE 59 (1984) 1-8. Birt,Th., Die Buchrolle in der Kunst (Leipzig 1907). Bloom, H., The Anxiety of Influence (Oxford 1973). Blum, R., Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen (Frankfurt 1977). BoardmanJ., “The Islands,” CAH III 1 (Cambridge 1984) 754-778. Bonneau,D., La crue du Nil (Paris 1964). Bornmann, F., Callimachi Hymnus in Dianam (Florence 1968). Bowman,A. K., “The Vindolanda writing tablets and the development of the Roman form” ZPE 18 (1975) 237-252. -, and Thomas,J. D., “The Vindolanda writing tablets and their significance. An interim report,” Historia 24 (1975) 463-478. Bowra, C. M., Pindar (Oxford 1964). Boyancé, P., Le culte des Muses chez les Philosophes Grecs (Paris 1937). Brink, C.O., “Ennius and the Hellenistic worship of Homer,” AJPh 93 (1972) 457-567. Bruneau,P., Recherches sur les cultes de Délos a l’époque Hellénistique et a l’époque imperiale (Paris 1970). Bulloch, A. W., “Hellenistic Poetry” in Camb. Hist, of Class. Lit. I (Cambridge 1985). -, “The Future of a Hellenistic Illusion. Some observations on Callimachus and religion,” MH 41 (1984) 209-230. Burkert,W., Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Harvard 1972). -, “Die Leistung eines Kreophylos. Kreophyleer, Homeriden und die archaische Hera­ klesepik,” ΜΗ 29 (1972) 74-85. - , Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart 1977). - , Homo Necans (Berkeley, 1983). Burr-Thomas, D., Ptolemaic Oinochoai and Portraits in Paience : Aspects of the Ruler Cult (Oxford 1973). Cahen.E., Callimaque et son CEuvre Poétique (Paris 1921). Les Hymnes de Callimaque (Pans 1930).

-,

Bibliography Calderini, A., Dizionario dei Nomi Geografici e Topografici dell’ Egitto Greco-Romano I 1 (Cairo 1935). Cazzaniga,I., “Un epigramma di Fileta,” RFIC 40 (1962) 238-248. Chamoux,F., Gyrene sous la monarchie des Battiades (Paris 1953). Christ, W., and Schmid, W., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur II 1 (Munich 1920). d aym an ,D. L., Callimachus’ Iambi (Leiden 1980). Conte,G.B., The Rhetoric of Imitation (Ithaca 1986). Couat, H., Alexandrian Poetry under the first three Ptolemies, (transi. J. Loeb, New York 1931). Cunningham,I. C., Herodas’Mimiambi (Oxford 1971). Daremberg,Ch., and Saglio, Edm., Dictionaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines IV 2 (Paris 1911). Davison,J.A., “Quotations and allusions in Early Greek Literature,” Eranos 53 (1955) 125-140 = From Archilochus to Pindar (New York 1968) 70-85. Degani, E., “Note sulla fortuna di Archiloci e di Ipponatte in epoca Ellenistica,” in Poeti greci giambici ed elegiaci, ed. Degani (Milan 1977) 106-126. Denniston,J .D., The Greek Particles1 (Oxford 1954). Diels,H., and Kranz,W., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols. (Berlin 1951). Dodds,E.R., Euripides Bacchae (Oxford 1960). Dornseiff, F., “Kallimachos’ Hymnos auf Artemis,” Philol. Wochensch. 56 (1936) 733-736. Dover,K.J., Theocritus. Select Poems (London 1971). Drögemüller, H., Die Gleichnisse im hellenistischen Epos (Diss. Hamburg 1956). Erbse,H., “Zum Apollonhymnus des Kallimachos,” Hermes 83 (1955) 411-428. Farnell, L. R., Critical Commentary to the Works of Pindar (London 1932). Fehling, D., Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias (Ber­ lin 1969). Fox,D.C., “Labyrinth und Totenreich,” Paideuma 1 (1938/40) 381-394. Frankel, H., Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens (Munich 1968). - , Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums (Munich 1976). Frankfort,H., Kingship and the Gods (Chicago 1948). Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria 3 vols. (Oxford 1972). Friedländer, P., “Das Proömium der Theogonie,” Hermes 49 (1914) 1-16 = WdF Hesiod 277-294. von Fritz, K., “Das Proömium der hesiodischen Theogonie,” Festschr. Snell (Munich 1956) 29-45 = WdF Hesiod 295-315. Gabathuler, M., Hellenistische Epigramme auf Dichter (St. Gallen 1937). Gallavotti,C., “Review of Pfeiffer voi. 2,” Par. Pass. 9 (1953) 464-472. Gentili, B., “Oralità e scrittura in Grecia,” in Oralità Scrittura Spettacolo, ed. M. Vegetti (Torino 1983) 37-43. Giangrande, G., “The Utilization of Homeric Variants by Apollonius Rhodius: A Meth­ odological Canon of Research,” QUCC NS (1973) 73-81 = Scripta Minora Alexan­ drina I (Amsterdam 1980) 1-9. -, “Arte allusiva and Alexandrian epic poetry,” CQ 17 (1967) 95-97 = Scripta Minora Alexandrina I 11 ff. -, “Sympotic Literature and the Epigram,” in L’Épigramme Grecque, Entretiens Hardt 14 (1967) 93-174. Goedicke,H., The Protocol of Neferyt (Baltimore 1977). Goldhill,S., “Framing and Polyphony: Readings in Hellenistic Poetry,” Proc. Camb. Phi­ lol. Soc. 212 (1986) 25-52. Goody,J., and Watt; I., “The Consequences of Literacy,” in Literacy in Traditional Socie­ ties, ed. J. Goody (Cambridge 1968) 27-68.

Bibliography

149

Gow,A.S.F., and Page, D.L., The Greek Anthology, Hellenistic Epigrams 2 vols. (Cam­ bridge 1965). -, The Greek Anthology. The Garland o f Philip 2 vols. (Cambridge 1968). G ow,A.S.F., Theocritus 2 vols. (Cambridge 1952). Griffiths, A. H., “Six Passages in Callimachus and the Anthology,” BICS 17 (1970) 32-43. Griffiths,F.T., “The date of Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos,” Maia 29-30 (1977/8) 95-100. -, Theocritus at Court (Leiden 1979). Griffiths,]. G., Plutarch de Iside et Osiride (Univ. of Wales Press 1970). Groeneboom,P., Aeschylus Prometheus (Groningen 1928, repr. 1966). Guthrie, W. K. C., A History o f Greek Philosophy I (Cambridge 1962). Habicht, Chr., Gottmenschentum und die griechischen Städte, Zetemata 14 (1956). Haeberlin,C., “Zu Kallimachos,” Philologus 46 (1888) 69. Harder, R., “Bemerkungen zur griechischen Schriftlichkeit,” Die Antike 19 (1943) 86-108 = Kleine Schriften (Munich 1960) 57-80. Harvey, A. E., “Homeric epithets in Greek lyric poetry,” CQ 51 (1957) 206-223. Havelock, E. A., Preface to Plato (Cambridge Mass. 1963). -, The Literate Revolution in Greece and its Cultural Consequences (Princeton 1982). -, The Muse Learns to Write (New Haven 1986). Heinen,H., Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v.Chr. H is­ toria Einzelschr. 20 (Wiesbaden 1972). Heitsch, E., Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit Abh. d. Ak. d. Wiss. in Göttingen. phil. hist. Kl., dritte Folge 49 (1961, 1). -, “Sein und Gegenwart im frühgriechischen Denken,” Gymnasium 78 (1971) 421-437. Helck,W., Die Prophezeiung des Nfrti, kl. Äg. Texte (Wiesbaden 1970). -, and Westendorf, W., Lexikon d. Ägyptologie (Wiesbaden 1975). Henrichs,A., “Thou shalt not kill a tree,” Bull. Amer. Soc. o f Papyr. 16 (1979) 35. Herington,J., Poetry into Drama (Berkeley 1985). Hermann, A., Die ägyptische Königsnovelle, Leipzig, ägypt. Stud. 10 (Glückstadt-Hamburg-New York 1938). Herter, H., “Kallimachos und Homer,” Xenia Bonnensia. Festschr. z. 75jährigen Bestehen des Philologischen Vereins und Bonner Kreises (Bonn 1929) 50-105 = Kleine Schriften (Munich 1975) 371-416. -, “Kallimachos aus Kyrene,” RE Suppl.V (1931) 386-452. -, “Review of Cahen, Callimaque and Les Hymnes de Callimaque, and Couat, Alexandrian Poetry” Gnomon 12 (1936) 449-459. -, “Kallimachos,” Bursian Jahresbericht 255 (1937). -, “Kallimachos aus Kyrene,” RE Suppl.XIII (1973) 184-266. Hiltbrunner, O., “Ovids Gedicht vom Siegelring und ein anonymes Epigramm aus Pom­ pei,” Gymn. 77 (1970) 283-299. Hopfner,T., Plutarch über Isis undOsiris I (Prague 1940). Hopkinson,N., Callimachus, Hymn to Demeter (Cambridge 1984). -, “Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus,” CQ 34 (1984) 139-148. Hornung,E., Geschichte als Fest (Darmstadt 1966). -, “Altägyptische Höllenvorstellungen,” Abh. d. Sächs. Akad. Leipzig, philol.-hist. Kl. 59 (1968) 27. -, “Seth. Geschichte und Bedeutung eines ägyptischen Gottes,” Symbolen NF 2 (1974) 49. Howald,E., and Staiger,E., Die Dichtungen des Kallimachos (Zürich 1955). Immerwahr, H. R., “Book Rolls on Attic Vases,” in Classical Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies in Honor o f Berthold Louis Ullman. le d . Ch. Henderson (Rome 1964) 17-48. -, “More Book Rolls on Attic Vases,” Ant. K. 16 (1973) 143-147. Jacobs, F., Animadversiones in epigrammata Anthologiae Graecae I 1 (Leipzig 1798).

Bibliography Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin 1923-1930, Leiden 1940-1958). Jacques,J.M., “Sur un acrostiche d’Aratos (Phen.783-787),” Rev. d. Et. Anc. 62 (1960) 48-61. Janko, R., “The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre,” Hermes 109 (1981) 9-24. Jehasse,L., La Nécropole Piéromain d’Aléria Gallia Suppi.25 (Paris 1973). Jung, F., Hipponax redivivus (Bonn 1929). Kahn,C., “Anaximander and the Arguments Concerning the Apeiron,” Festschr. E. Kapp (Hamburg 1958) 19-29. Kaplan,M., “Apeiros and Circularity,” GRBS 16.2 (1975) 125-140. Kassel,R., and Austin,C., Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Berlin 198-...). Keefe,D.E., “Gallus and Euphorion,” CQ 32 (1982) 237-238. Kerenyi, K., Labyrinthstudien (Zürich 1950). Kern, O., Die Religion der Griechen III (Berlin 1926, repr. 1963). Köhnken,A., “Envy’s Retort to Apollo,” AJPh 102 (1981) 411-422. Koenen,L., “Ein einheimischer Gegenkönig in Ägypten,” Chr. dEgypt 34 (1959) 103-119. -, “Egyptian Influence in Tibullus,” ICS 1 (1976) 127-159. - , Eine agonistische Inschrift aus Ägypten und frühptolemaische Königsfeste (Meisenheim 1977). -, “Die Adaption ägyptischer Königsideologie am Ptolemäerhof,” in Egypt and the Hell­ enistic World. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Leuven 24-26 May 1982 (Leuven 1983) 143-190. -, “A supplementary note on the date of the Oracle of the Potter,” 2.PE 54 (1984) 9-13. Körte, A., and Händel,P., Die Hellenistische Dichtung (Stuttgart 1960). Kroll,W., “Kastorion,” RE Suppi. IV (1924) 880. Kuchenmüller, G., Philetae Coi Reliquiae (Berlin 1928). Kuiper, K., Studia Callimachea I (Leiden 1896). Kumpf, M., The Homerie Hapax Legomena and their Literary Use by Later Authors, espe­ cially Euripides and Apollonius of Rhodes (Diss. Ohio State Univ. 1974). Kyrieleis,H.,“KA0AIlEP ERMHE KA1 DROI,” Antike Plastik 12 (1973) 133-147. Lachmann, K., Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften (1846) = Betrachtungen über Homer’s Ilias 3 (1874). Landfester,M., Das griechische Nomen “philos” und seine Ableitungen (Hildesheim 1966). LataczJ., Kampfparanese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirklichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios (Munich 1977). -, “Tradition und Neuerung in der Homerforschung,” in Homer, Wege der Forschung CDLXII (Darmstadt 1979). LayardJ., “Der Mythos der Totenfahrt auf Malekula,” Eranos Jb. 4 (1937) 241-291. Lefkowitz,M., “Pindar’s Pythian V,” in Pindare, Fond. Hardt XXI (1984) 33-69. LeGrand,Ph., E., Etude sur Theocrite, Bibliotheque des écoles Francaises d’Athenes et de Rome 79 (Paris 1898, repr. 1968). -, “Problèmes alexandrins: Pourquoi furent composes les hymnes de Callimaque?” REA 3 (1901) 281-312. Lehnus,L., L’Inno a Pan di Pindaro (Milano 1979). Lepsius,R., Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien (Berlin 1849-1858). Lewis, N., Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt (Oxford 1986). Lichtheim,M., Ancient Egyptian Literature 3 vols. (Berkeley 1973-1980). Livrea, E., “Der Liller Kallimachos und die Mausefallen,” ZPE 34 (1979) 37-42. -, “R.eview o f Supplementum Hellenisticum,” Gnomon 57 (1985) 592-601. Lloyd-Jones, H., “The Seal of Poseidippus,” JHS 83 (1963) 75-99. -, “A Hellenistic Miscellany,” SFIC 77 (1984) 52-72.

B ib lio g r a p h y

151

Supplementum Hellenisticum (B e r lin 1983). Long,A. A., “Timon of Phlius,” Proc. Cambr. Philol. Soc. 24 (1978) 68-91. Luppe,W., “Review of P.Oxy. voi.38-39,” Gnomon 46 (1974) 641-651. Lynch,J. P., Aristotle’s School (Berkeley 1972). Mair,A.E., Callimachus, Hymns and Epigrams (Loeb Classical Library 1955). Maas, P., Greek Metre (Oxford 1962). M a a s s ,E Aratea (Berlin 1892). - , De tribus Philetae carminibus Ind. Lect. Marp. (1895). Maehler, EL, Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum (Göttingen 1963). Mancini,A. C , Ann. d. Sc. Norm. Sup. di Pisa, Cl. di Lett, e filos., se n ili 2 (1972) 502-505. - , Pap. Lett. Greci, ed. Carlini etc. (Pisa 1978). Martin, R. P., “Hesiod, Odysseus, and the instruction of princes,” TAPhA 114 (1984) 29-48. McKay, K.J., Erysichthon, A Callimachean Comedy Mnem. Suppl.7 (Leiden 1962). McLennan, G. R., Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus, Introduction and Commentary (Rome 1977). Meiggs,R., Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford 1982). Meillier, C., Callimaque et son temps (Lille 1979). Meincke,A., Philologicarum exercitationum in Athenaei Deipnosophistae (1843). Meineke, W., Untersuchungen zu den enkomiastischen Gedichten Theokrits (Diss. Kiel 1965). Merkelbach,R., “Sappho und ihr Kreis,” Philologus 101 (1957) 1-29. - , Isisfeste (Meisenheim 1963). -, “Das Königtum der Ptolemäer und die Hellenistischen Dichter,” in Alexandria, Kultur

- , a n d P a r s o n s , P .,

im Schmelztiegel einer mediterranen Großstadt. Aegyptiaca Treverensia: Trierer Studien z. Gr. Röm. Ägypten 1 (1981) 27-35. Meyer, H., Hymnische Stilelemente in der frühgriechischen Dichtung (Würzburg 1933). Mineur,W .H., “The boys and the barbarians. Some remarks on Callimachus H .4.177,” Mnem. 32 (1979) 119-127. - , Callimachus, Hymn to Delos. Introduction and Commentary (Leiden 1984). Misgeld,W. R., Rhianos von Bene und das historische Epos im Hellenismus (Diss. Köln 1968). Momigliano, A., Terzo Contributo alla Storia Degli Studi Classici e dell Mondo Antico (Rome 1966). Mondolfo,R., L’Infinito nel Pensiero dell’ Antichità Classica (Florence 1956). M ost,G.W ., “Callimachus and Herophilus,” Hermes 109 (1981) 188-196. Müllenhoff, K., Deutsche Altertumskunde I (Berlin 1870). Münster,M., Untersuchungen zur Göttin Isis, Münchner Ägyptol. Stud. 11 (1968). Murray,O., Early Greece (Sussex 1980). Murray,P., “Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece,” JHS 101 (1981) 87-100. Nachtergael,G., Les Galates en Grece et les Soteria de Delphe, Academie Royale de Bel­ gique, Memoires de la classe des Lettres, collection in 2. serie, T. LXIII, Fascicule 1 (1977). Nagy,G., The Best of the Achaeans (Baltimore 1979). NavehJ., Early History of the Alphabet. An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Pal­ aeography (Leiden 1982). N ilsson,M. P., Die Hellenistische Schule (Munich 1955). Nock, A. D., Essays I (Cambridge Mass. 1972). Norden,E., Agnostos Theos (Leipzig 1913). OehlerJ., “Skytale,” RE III A (1927) 691-692. Ogilvie, R. M., “The Song of Thyrsis,” JHS 82 (1962) 106-110. Ohlert,K., Rätsel und Rätselspiele der alten Griechen (Berlin 1912). Ong,W.J., Literacy and Orality (New York 1982).

Bibliography Onians,J., Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age: The Greek World View 350-50 B. C. (London 1979). Page,D.L., Select Papyri 111. Literary Papyri (Poetry) (Cambridge Mass. 1942). -, “Archilochus and the Oral Tradition,” in Archiloque, Entretiens Hardt X (Geneva 1964) 117-179. - , Turther Greek Epigrams (Cambridge 1981). Papastavrou,H., “Asteria,” Lex. Icon. Myth. Class. II 1 (Zürich 1984) 903-904. Parsons, P.J., “Callimachus: Victoria Berenices,” ZPE 25 (1977) 1-50. Pasquali, G., “Arte Allusiva,” Italia che scrive 25 (1942) 185 ff. = Stravaganze quarte e supreme (Venice 1951) 11-20 = Pagine stravaganti II (Florence 1968) 275-283. Peek,W., “Papyrus-Fragmente einer alexandrinischen Elegie,” Maia 15 (1963) 199. Petzl, G., “Kein Umsturz beim Galater-Überfall auf Delphi,” ZPE 56 (1984) 141-144. Pfeiffer, R., Kallimachos Studien (Munich 1922). -, “Ein neues Altersgedicht des Kallimachos,” Hermes 63 (1928) 302-341 = Ausg. Schrif­ ten (Munich 1960) 98-132. - , Callimachus 2 vols. (Oxford 1949, 1953). -, “The Image of the Delian Apollo and Apolline Ethics,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 25 (1952) 20-32 = Ausg. Sehr. (Munich 1960) 55-71. -, “The Future of Studies in the Field of Hellenistic Poetry,” JHS 75 (1955) 69-73 = Ausg., Schriften (Munich 1960) 148-158. - , History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968). Pickard-Cambridge, A., The Dramatic Festivals of Athens2 (Oxford 1968). Platthy,J., Sources on the Earliest Greek Libraries (Amsterdam 1968). Pieket, H.W., Lampas 12 (1979) 126. Poliakoff, M., “Nectar, Springs and the Sea: Critical Terminology in Pindar and Callima­ chus,” ZPE 39 (1980) 41-47. Porson, R., Euripides Hecuba (Leipzig 1824). Préaux,C., Le monde hellénistique 2 vols. (Paris 1978). Preisigke,F., Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyruskunde (Berlin 1925-1971). Powell,J.U., Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford 1925). Pucci, P., Hesiod and the Language of Poetry (Baltimore 1977). QuaegebeurJ., “Reines Ptolémaiques et Traditions Egyptiennes,” in Das Ptolemäische Ägypten ed. H.Maehler and V.M.Strocka (Mainz 1978) 245-262. Race,W. H., “Aspects of Rhetoric and Form in Greek Hymns,” GRBS 23 (1982) 5-14. Reinach.A., “Les Galates en Egypte,” REA 13 (1911) 33-74. Reinsch-Werner, H., Callimachus Hesiodicus: die Rezeption der hesiodischen Dichtung durch Kallimachos von Kyrene (Berlin 1976). Rhodes,P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politela (Oxford 1981). Rice, E. E., The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Oxford 1983). Richter,W., “Eine Elegie des Musaios von Ephesos auf Attalos L?” Maia 15 (1963) 93-119. Riele.G.J. M.J. Te, “Deux épigrammes trouvées en Arcadie,” Chiron 14 (1984) 235-243. Rissman.L., Love and War. Homeric Allusion in the Poetry of Sappho (Meisenheim 1984). Rosier, W., “Die Entdeckung der Fiktionalität in der Antike,” Poetica 12 (1980) 283-319. -, “Schriftkultur und Fiktionalität. Zum Funktionswandel der griechischen Literatur von Homer bis Aristoteles,” in Schrift und Gedächtnis. Beiträge zur Archäologie der litera­ rischen Kommunikation eds. A. and J.Assmann, and Chr.Hardmeier (Munich 1983) 109-122. -, “Alte und neue Mündlichkeit. Über kulturellen Wandel im Antiken Griechenland und heute,” Der altsprachliche Unterricht 28 (1985) 4-26. Rosen, H.B., “Die Ausdrucksform für ‘veräußerlichen’ und ‘unveräußerlichen Besitz’ im Frühgriechischen. Das Funktionsfeld von homerischen Philos,” Lingua 8 (1959) 264-293.

Bibliography

153

Roussel,P., “Inscriptions anciennement découvertes à Délos,” BCH 31 (1907) 335-377. Russell, D. A., “De imitatione,” in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature eds. D. West and T.W oodman (Cambridge 1979). Sansone, D., Aeschylean Metaphors for Intellectual Activity, Hermes Einzelschr. 35 (1975). Schadewaldt,W., “Der Umfang des Begriffs der Literatur in der Antike,” in Literatur und Dichtung, ed. H.Rüdiger (Stuttgart 1973) 12-25. - , Die Anfänge der Philosophie bei den Griechen (Frankfurt 1978). Schlatter, G., Theokrit und Kallimachos (Diss. Zürich 1941). Schmidt,V., “Zu Pindar,” Gioita 53 (1975) 36-43. Schubart, W., “Posidippus Redivivus,” Symbolae Philologicae O.A. Danielsson octogenario dicata (Uppsala 1932) 290-298. - , Das Buch bei den Griechen und Römern3 (Heidelberg 1962). Schwinge, E.R., “Wilamowitz Verständis der hellenistischen Poesie,” in Wilamowitz nach 50 Jahren (Darmstadt 1985) 151-177. Seek,G.A., Das griechische Drama (Darmstadt 1979). Segal, C., “Greek Tragedy: Writing, Trust, and the Representation of the Self,” in Mnemai. Classical Studies in Memory of Karl K.Hulley, ed. H.D.Evjen (Chicago 1984). Sethe, K., and Helck,W., Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums IV Fase. 1-22 (Leipzig, Berlin 1906-1958). Skutsch,0., The Annals of Q . Ennius (Oxford 1985). Slater, W.J., Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin 1969). -, “Simonides’ House,” Phoenix 26 (1972) 232-240. -, “Peace, the Symposium and the Poet,” ICS 6.2 (1981) 205-214. Smiley, M .T., “Callimachus’ Debt to Pindar and Others,” Hermathena 18 (1919) 46-72. Snell,B., “Identifikationen von Pindarbruchstücken,” Hermes 73 (1938) 424-439. - , Poetry and Society (Bloomington 1961). - , Szenen aus griechischen Dramen (Berlin 1971). - , Die Entdeckung des Geistes4 (Göttingen 1975). Stephan,G.M., “The Coronis,” Scriptorium 13 (1959) 3-14. Tandy, G. M., Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus (Diss. Yale 1979). Tarn,G.M ., Antigonos Gonatas (Oxford 1913). Terzaghi,N., “Un Nuovo frammento di Callimaco?” Studie in onore di A. Calderini e R. Paribeni II (Milano 1957) 127-135. Thierfelder, H., Die Geschwisterehe im hellenistisch-römischen Ägypten (Münster 1960). Thissen, H., Studien zum Raphiadekret (Meisenheim 1966). Thomas,R., “Virgil’s Georgies and the Art of Reference,” HSCP 90 (1986) 171-198. Treu, M., “Selbstzeugnisse alexandrinischer Dichter,” Miscellanea di studi allesandrini in memoria di A. Rostagni (Torino 1963) 273-290. -, “Review of C.M .Bowra’s Pindar,” Gymn. 74 (1967) 149-153. Van Groeningen.B. A., Theognis: Le premier livre (Amsterdam 1966). Velde, H. Te, Seth. God of Confusion (Leiden 1967). Vernant,J.-P., “Hestia-Hermes: The religious expression of space and movement among the Greeks” Soc. Sci. Inform. 8 (1969) 131-168 = Mythe et pensée chez les Grecs: etudes de psychologie historique (Paris 1969) 97-143. Vogt,E., “Das Akrostichon in der griechischen Literatur,” A &A 13 (1967) 80-95. Volkmann, H„ “Ptolemaios,” RE XXIII 2 (1959) 1599 ff. Wernicke,K., “Apollon,” RE II 1 (1895) 1-111. West, M. L., Hesiod. Theogony (Oxford 1966). - , Greek Metre (Oxford 1982). - , The Orphic Poems (Oxford 1983). W hite,H., New Essays in Hellenistic Poetry (Amsterdam 1985). Wiedman,A., Herodots zweites Buch (Leipzig 1890).

154

Bibliography

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,U. von, Homerische Untersuchungen, voi. 7, Philol. Unters. (1884). - , Die Ilias und Homer (Berlin 1916). - , Griechische Verskunst (Berlin 1921). - , Pindaros (Berlin 1922). - , Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos 2 vols. (Berlin 1924). - , Der Glaube der Hellenen 2 vols. (Berlin 1931/2, repr. Darmstadt 1959). - , Kleine Schriften VI (Berlin 1971). Will,E., Histoire Politique du Monde Hellénistique (Nancy 1979). Williams,F., Callimachus. Hymn to Apollo. A Commentary (Oxford 1978). W ölke,H., Untersuchungen zur Batrachomyomachie (Meisenheim 1978). Wörrle,M., “Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens,” Chiron 8 (1978) 201-246. Xanthakis-Karamanos,G., Studies in Fourth Century Tragedy (Athens 1980). Zänker,G., “The Nature and Origin of Realism in Alexandrian Poetry,” A &A 29 (1983) 125-145. - , Realism in Alexandrian Poetry (Kent 1986). Ziegler, K., Das hellenistische Epos: ein vergessenes Kapitel der griechischen Dichtung (Leip­ zig 1934, rev. 1966). -, “Zum Zeushymnus des Kallimachos,” RhM 68 (1913) 336-354.

Index Locorum Passages treated in detail are indicated in bold print Aceratus AP VII 138.3-4 = FGE p.3: 33 Aeschylus Choe. 450: 12 n. 5 Eum. 273-275: 12 n. 5 P V 666: 133 n. 38 Semele (p.335 Radt) = Schol. in Ap. Rh. 1.636: 133 n. 80 Alcaeus, fr. 58.12 (L-P): 21 n.22 Alcaeus of Messene AP VII 536 = 13 G-P: 71 n.33 A P VII 536.6 = 13.6 G-P: 63 Aleman PMG 2iv.5: 100 PMG 12.8: 100 Anacreon El. 2 (West): 124 n.54 PMG 356b: 21 n.22 Anacreontea 1 (West): 71 n.33 22 (West): 31 n.44 AP V 83: 31 n.44 V 84: 31 n.44 V 223: 88 n .65 V 283: 88 n.65 VII 153: 25 n.33 IX 190 = Page, FGE p.345: 29 n. 40 X I 220: 137 n .88 X I V 45: 33 n. 52 X I V 60: 33 n. 52 Antipater of Sidon AP VII23 = 13 G-P: 59 A P VII 26 = 14 G-P: 59 A P VII 26.1-4 = 14.1-4 G-P: 62-63 A P VII 27 = 15 G-P: 59 AP VII 29 = 16 G-P: 59 A P VII 30 = 17 G-P: 59 Anyte A P VII 492 = 22 Page = 23 G-P: 129 n. 66 Apollodorus, 2.2: 133 n. 80 Apollonius of Rhodes 3.1340-1344: 87 n.62 4.1423-1430: 43-44

Aratus, Phaenomena 783-787: 29 n.39 Archilochus fr. 120 W = 117 Tarditi: 21 fr. 185 W = 188 Traditi: 28-29 n.39 P.Koeln 1158.27: 117 n .42 Aristides, XXXI 2 p.212 (Keil): 69 Aristophanes Eccl. 683 f.: 45 n.72 Ran. 1021: 124 n.54 Aristotle Ath. Pol 63.2-4: 45 n.72 Met. 1072b3 ff.: 128 n.62 Phys. 265a 13ff.: 128 n.62 Poet. 10, 1452 a 21: 50 Poet. 1458 a 26 f.: 88 Pol. 1322b26: 142 Asclepiades A P VII 11 = 28 G-P: 29 n.40 AP 1X63 = 32 G-P: 20, 29-30 Astydamas, Page FGE p. 33-34 = Snell TrGF 1, 60 T 2 a: 60-62 Athenaeus I 3 a-b: 47 n. 74 III 98 c: 73 (Callixenus), 206 aff.: 134-135 n. 82 X 454f. (Kastorion of Soloi): 23f. Bacchylides 5.9: 20 5.91-93: 78 n.43 11.58: 100 fr. 65.14: 105 n. 30 Scholia in fr. 23 (Cassandra), lines 16-19: 97 n. 12 Batrachomyomachia, 1-3: 19 Boi'skos of Kyzikos, 57/233: 22-23 Callimachus Aetia fr. 1.2: 112 fr. 1.5: 50,94 fr. 1.6: 46 fr. 1.11: 117,119 fr. 1.17: 46, 94 fr. 1.19: 46, 50, 123 n .49 fr. 1.20: 46,94 fr. 1.23-24: 46,94,119 fr. 1.25-28: 94

Index Locorum fr. 2: 70-71, 122 fr. 7.13-14: 18 fr. 64: 67-70 SH 254-269: 23, 47 fr. 75.64-66: 18-19 fr. 75.76-77: 27-28 fr. 86-89: 109 n. 35 fr. 92: 33 n. 52 a fr. 112.9: 1 9n .20a Iambi 1, fr. 191: 65-67, 70-71 fr. 191.26: 14-15 2, fr. 192.1 1: 123 n. 49 4, fr. 194.34 f.: 109n.35 8, fr. 198: 66 12, fr. 202: 66 13, fr. 203: 38 13, fr. 203.63-64: 66 fr. 216: 66 Galatea fr. 378-379: 129 n.66 Victory o f Sosibios fr. 384: 23 fr. 398: 46, 94 fr. 407.45-50: 137 n. 88 fr. 465: 46 fr. 612: 36 Athena, Test #23: 88 n.64 Κτίσεις νήσων ... κ. τ. λ.: 101 η. 20 Hymns 1.1: 81 1.5 f.: 44 1.7-8: 42 η.67 1.8 f.: 76-77 η. 42 1.10: 82 1.18-41: 137 η.90 1.36: 127 η .59 1.57-59: 135-136 η. 84 1.60f.: 77 η.42 1.70-75: 76-77 1.74-75: 82 1.77-78: 81 1.79: 77-78 1.79-80: 81 1.86-88: 81-82 2.27: 131 η.73 2.59: 102 η. 21 2.71: 122 2.106: 117 2.108 f.: 55 2.110-112: 113 η.38 3.51-56: 126 η.57 3.56-61: 126 η.57 3.137-140: 18-19

3.170-182: 83-89 3.170: 126 η. 57 3.171: 137 η. 89 3.171 (Scholia): 137 η.90 3.174-175: 84 η.56 3.183-186: 36-37 3.240-242: 126 η.57 3.248-249: 126 η.57 3.251-258: 127 η.57 3.251 f.: 130 η.67 4: eh. 3 passim 4.82-85: 40-44 4.84-85: 76 η .42 5.49-52: 124 η. 53 Epigr. 6 Pf. = 55 G-P: 30 27 Pf. = 56 G-P: 122 27.4 Pf. = 56.4 G-P: 36 28 Pf. = 2 G-P: 46, 94 Pseudo-Callisthenes, I 32: 45-46 Catullus 38.8: 69 50.1-6: 21-22 n.24 Chairemon, F 14b (Snell): 15 Choirilos of Samos, 57/317: 13, 60 n.17 Cicero, De Orat. 1.69: 36 Clement Alex., Strom. 1.59: 76 n.42 Cratinus, Archilochoi: 65n .23 Crinagoras A P 1X239.4 = 7.4 Garl. Phil.: 20 A P IX 513.2 = 49.2 Garl. Phil.: 20 A P I X 545 = 11 Garl. Phil.: 29 n.40 Critias D K 88 B4: 16 D K 88 B 5: 16 Democritus, D K 68 B 18: 15 n.8 Diodorus Siculus XIX3.70: 68 η .29 X X 57: 122 X X II9.3: 129 η.67 Diogenes Laertius III 5: 13 IX 110: 72 η. 37 IX 111: 72 Dionysius, de imit. p.205.7 (Usener): 69 Dionysius Chalcus, fr. 2 (West): 124 n. 54 Dioscorides APVII37 = 22 G-P: 39-40 A P VII 707 = 23 G-P: 39-40 Dioskourides, Mat. Med. II 169 RV, (ed. Wellmann, 1235): 122

157

Index Locorum Ennius, Annals fr. ii-x (Skutsch): 70 Ephorus, FGrHist 70F31b = Strabo 422·. 130 n. 68 Pseud-Epicharmea (Axiopistus?), fr. 1.1-6 (p.219 Powell): 19 n. 18a Epimenides of Crete, fr. 5 (Kin­ kel): 76-77 n. 42 Euenus, AP 1X251.1 = 1.1 Gari Phil.: 19, 44-45 Eumelos, fr. 15 (Kinkel): 43 n.68 Euphorion of Chalkis, fr. 22, 22 b (p.34 Powell): 58 n. 13 Euphron, fr. 8 (Meineke) = fr. 8 (Kock): 1 6 n .l2 Eupolis, Demoi: 65 n.23 Euripides Ale. 966 f.: 29 Ba. 1330 ff.: 130 n. 67 Hipp. 864-865: 29 Hipp. 877-881: 29 Hipp. 1253 f.: 33 Ion 822: 1 13 n .38 I. A. 39: 33 Rhes. 355: 92 n .3 fr. 60.6-7 (Austin) = 369.6-7 (Nauck2): 29 Eustathius, ad Od. 18.374: 86 n.58 Hecataeus, FGrHist F 305: 138 Hedylus, 6 G -P = Ath. 11.473: 21 Hermocles, fr. 1.13 (p. 174 Powell): 92 n. 3 Herodas 3.92: 28 8.59-60: 71 n.33 Herodotus 1 143: 98 n. 14 I 146: 98 n. 14 II 35.2: 138 II 112 f.: 14 II 144: 132 II 156: 132,138 III 16: 134 n. 81 IV 36: 127 n. 60 IV 190: 122 V I 98: 100 VII 228: 68 V ili 35-39: 130 n.67 1X 42: 130 n.67 Hesiod Th. 54: 12 Th. 79-84: 78-79 Th. 80-82: 81 n.51

Th. 81-82: 79 Th. 93 f.: 79 Th. 94 f.: 80 Th. 96: 77 Th. 96: 81 n. 51 Th. 96-98: 80 Th. 404 f.: 105 n .30 Th. 409: 97 Th. 465-469: 115 Th. 888: 115 WD 1: 24 n. 30 WD 40-41: 121-122 “Hesiod” Scut. 105: 54 Scut. 109: 123 Scut. 191: 123 Scut. 374-379: 123 Scut. 386-392: 123 Scut. 402-412: 123 Scut. 421-423: 123 Scut. 426-433: 123 Scut. 437-41: 123 fr. 304 (M-W): 43 fr. 357.2 (M-W): 22 Hipponax fr. 1 (West) = 17 (Degani): 66 fr. 12.2 (West) = 20.2 (Degani): 66 fr. 15 (West) = 1 8 (Degani): 66 fr. 20 (West) = 8 (Degani): 71 n .33 fr. 32.4 (West) = 42 ab (Degani): 66, 64 n .21 fr. 36.2 (West) = 44.2 (Degani): 66, 64 n. 21 fr. 37 (West) = 46 (Degani): 66, 64 n. 21 fr. 84.18 (West) = 86.18 (Degani): 66 fr. 95.3-4, 15 (West) = 98.3-4, 15 (De­ gani): 66 fr. 95 a (West) = 19 (Degani): 66 fr. 117.4 (West) = 196.4 (Degani): 66, 64 n. 21 fr. 120 (West) = 121 (Degani): 66, 71 n. 33 fr. 121 (West) = 122 (Degani): 71 n. 33 Homer

Iliad 1.249: 78 2.484-492: 11-12 2.594-600: 19 2.750: 24 n. 30 3 .2 2 2 :

124

158 4.98-99: 54 5.356 ff.: 123 6.168-169: 1 1 7.84-91: 71 η .34 7.371: 53 8.487-488: 53 8.512-515: 53 8.519: 100 8.529: 53 9.88: 53 10.97 f.: 54 10.180 f.: 54 10.416-417: 54 12.2-33: 71 n.34 12.156: 124 12.278: 124 13.822: 55 13.834: 55 15.393: 55 16.692 f.: 36-37 17.719-721: 54 17.723: 55 18.299: 53 18.487ff.: 127 n .60 19.9: 54 19.49: 55 19.98 ff.: 115 19.357: 124 19.421: 55 n.8 21.192-197: 136 n.88 21.195-197: 55-56 n. 11 23.245-248: 71 n.34 24.1-5: 29 n. 39 Od. 2.312: 54 3.70: 55 3.489 (Scholia): 136 η. 88 4.845 ff.: 120 η .44 5.47: 29 η. 39 5.327-332: 121-122 5.368 ff.: 121 η. 45 6.162 f.: 104 7.113: 86 η. 58 7.159: 55 7.214: 54 8.166-177: 32 η.48, 79 η .44 8.543: 55 9.27: 110 10.82-86: 88-89 10.86 (Scholia): 88 11.36-43: 66 16.205-206: 113 η.39

In d ex L ocoru m

16.260: 55 17.573: 55 η. 8 20.236: 55 24.80-84: 71 η .34 Horn. Hymn. 2.174-175: 123 3.18-19: 136 3.19: 111-112 3.25: 112 3.30-44: 115-116 3.47-48: 116 3.54-55: 120 3.72: 120 3.99-101: 114 3.120-121: 110 3.172: 105 η. 28 3.363-374: 131 4.529f.: 29 η.39 5.21-32: 142 5.166: 54-55 5.264-272: 42-43 8.7-8: 123 24.5: 55 H oraee

Car. II 1.38: 69 Ep. II 1.50: 70 Ibycus PMG 282: 124 η. 54 PMG 322: 136 η. 88 PMG 323: 136 η. 88 I o n , fr. 27.7 (W e s t): 21 lu s t ., X X I V 8.10: 129 n. 67 K a s to r io n o f S o lo i , SH 3 10: 23-26 K le a r c h o s , fr. 88 (W e h r li): 24 L e o n id a s o f T a r e n tu m

AP V I I 408.1-2 = 58.1-2 G - P : 63 A P 1X25 = 101 G - P : 29 n.40 P s e u d o - L o n g in u s

13.2: 13.4:

63 n. 19 61 n. 18 L o n g u s , 1.14: 31 n.44 L u c iliu s , fr. 1189 (M a r x ): 70 L y c o p h r o n , 574-576: 137 n.89 M a n e th o fr. 66 (L o e b e d .): (in P lu t. M a r tia l, X

134 n. 81 de hide 62): 141 n.101 1.1: 35

M e le a g e r

AP AP AP AP

IV 1.55 = 1.55 G-P: 22 V 171 = 35 G-P: 31 n.44 V 174 = 36 G-P: 31 n.44 X II52 = 81 G-P: 31 n.44

Index Locorum A P A ll 52.3 -4 = 81 G-P: 31 AP X II257 = 129 G-P: 33-34 “Moschus”

Lament for Bion 70 ff.: 57 87-92: 57-58 Nossis, AP VII 718 = 11 G-P: 39 n.60 Ophelion, 1415 (Melneke) = 11 p.294 (Kock): 16 n. 12 Ovid

Metamorphoses 5.572-641: 137 n. 88 8.738 ff.: 43 n.68 Parmenon of Byzantium, SH 604 A v. 1: 137 n. 90 Paul, Letter to Titus 1.12: 76 n.42 Pausanias 17.2: 92 n. 3 116.2: 135 n. 84 172: 131 II 5.3: 137 n. 88, 137 n. 89 IV 6.1-3: 52 IV 20.5: 53 V 7.2-3: 137 n. 88 X 19.7: 135 n. 84 X 23.3: 129 n. 67 X 23.9: 91 n.2 Pherekrates, Persai fr. 131.5 (Kock): 21 Philetas 10 (p.92 Powell): 31-33 Philikos of Corcyra, SH 677: 22 Philip, AP IV2.3 = 1.3 Garl. Phil.·. 22 Philo of Alexandria, In Flacc. 55: 45 n.71 Philodemus, AP X I 41 = 17 Garl. Phil.: 35 Philostephanus of Cyrene, FGEp.lX: 29 n. 39 Philostratus Heroicus (p.235 ed. Kayser): 142

Vit. Apoll. Tyan. 14: 133 n. 80 120.2: 137 n. 88 Phrynichus, fr. 31-35 (Meineke) = 31-35 (Kock): 16 n. 12 Pindar

Ol. 1: 103 n.24 1.100 ff.: 125 n .55 6.16-17: 78 n.43 6.59: 100 n. 16 6.154: 28-29 n. 39 7.54-70: 107-109 n.35 10.1 f.: 12 n. 5

159

10.1-3: 28 14: 103 n.24

Pyth. 1.1: 139-140 1.15-28: 123 1.23 ff.: 123 n. 50 1.61: 100 n. 16 1.70: 140 I. 97: 141 2.12: 137 n. 88 4.56: 137 n .90 4.87: 123 4.277-278: 78 n.43 5: 103 n.24 5.63-67: 139 6.20f.: 78 n.43 9.63ff.: 132 n.75 II. 63:24n.30 12.5: 125 n .55

Nem. 1.1: 137 n. 88 4.6-8: 18 8 . 20 - 21 :

9.53 f.:

22

20

Isthm. 2.34: 105 n. 30 4.44: 125 n. 55 6.11: 100 n . 16 6.66-67: 78 n.43 8: 103 n.24 8.57: 105 n.30

Hymn 1 fr. 33 c-33 d: 99-103 1 fr. 33 d: 107 Paean 5.35-47 = fr. 52 e (Snell-Maehler): 97-99 5.41: 107 6 = fr. 52f. (Snell-Maehler): 103 n.25 6.126: 100 n . 18 7b = fr. 52 h (Snell-Maehler): 103-107 7 b.l 1: 125 7 b.47: 102 n .22 10 = fr. 521 (Snell-Maehler): 109 n.35 12.8-14 = fr. 52m (Snell-Maehler): 108-109 n.35 12.19: 109 n.35 Dithyr. 2.5 f. = fr. 70 b (Snell-Maeh­ ler): 140 n. 100 fr-

160

Index Locorum

140b (Snell-Maehler): 103 150 (Snell-Maehler): 36 165 (Snell-Maehler): 43 169 (Snell-Maehler): 103 n.25 Plato Crit. 119 d: 113 n. 38 Laws 897d ff.: 128 n.63 Ph. 61a: 13 Phdr. 247 a: 102, 142 264d: 25 n .33 Prot. 320 a: 113 n. 38 Symp. 195 b- 197 b: 112 Tim. 30a: 128 33 b: 128 34a: 128 n.63 47 c-d: 128 n.64 52 d ff.: 128 n.62 Pliny, N H 2.229: 137 n. 89 Plut. Aristidi. 20.4-8: 142 de def. orac. 415 c-d: 43 417c-418d: 130 n.68 418a: 130 n .70 q. gr. 293c: 129 n .67, 130 n.68 de Iside 12, 356 A: 133 n. 80 62: 141 n. 101 73: 134 n. 81 Mor. 745 G: 112-113 deMus. 1136a: 126 n.56, 130 n.68 Sept. Sap. conv. 14: 121 Ties. 21: 127 Pollianos, AP XI 130.1-2: 50 Pollux, 4.110: 127 Polybius II 20.6: 91 n.2 III 32.1: 17 n. 14 Polyzelus, 7-10 (Meineke) = 7-10 (Kock): 1 6 n . l 2 Pomp. Mela, 155: 138 Poseidippus SH 705.1: 38 SH 705.5-6: 15 SH 705.7-8: 37-38 SH 705.16-17: 15 SH 705.18-20: 57 17.6 G-P: 33 A P X II98 = 6 G-P: 37 Quintilian, X 1.64: 69

Rhianos fr. 1 (p.9 Powell): 55 n.9 SH 946: 51-56 57/947: 52-56 A P X II142' = 10 G-P: 31n. 44 Sappho 2.5 L-P: 18 9 L-P: 18 150.1 L-P: 24 n. 30 Simias of Rhodes AP VII 21 = 4 G-P: 59-61 Wings : 112 Simonides PMG 531: 68 PMG 581: 78 n.43 8 (West): 78 n.43 Solon 20 (West): 78 n.43 20.3 (West): 16 36.18-20 (West): 16 Sophocles, Triptolemus fr. 597 (Radt): 12 n. 5 Sotades fr. 1 (p.238 Powell): 135 fr. 15.5-16 (p. 243 Powell): 58 n. 13 Stesichorus PMG 187.3: 34 PMG 210: 124 n. 54 Strabo 421 f.: 130 n.69 6.271: 137 n. 89 432: 137 n. 88 Straton, XT’ X II208: 30-31 Symphosius, XVI (Buecheler): 45 Telekleides, fr. 14-21 (Kock I p. 213-215): 6 5n . 23 Theocritus 1.140: 66 n.27 3.12-14: 31 n.44 7.47-48: 61 7.86-89: 61-62 14.62: 135 n. 84 15.100-144: 92 n.3 16.5-12: 20-21 16.20: 50 17.43-44: 117 n. 42 17.63-64: 117 n.42 17.73-75: 81 n.51 17.130 ff.: 135 22.221: 24 n.30 Epigr. XVII = A P IX 599 = 15 G-P: 56-57

Index Locorum

Epigr. XVIII = AP IX 600 = 17 G-P: 56-57 Epigr. XIX = AP XIII 3 = 13 G-P: 64 Epigr. XXI = AP VII 664 = 14 G-P: 56 Epigr. XXII = AP IX 598 = 16 G-P: 56-57 Theognis 533 (West): 2 1 n .2 2 773-782: 130 n.67 Theopompus, FGrHìst 80 = Ael. v.h. 3.1: 130 n .68 Thucydides 1 131: 28 n.39 II 8.3: 100 I I 102: 105 Timon of Phlius SH 775-840: 71-72 SH 7 86: 72 η .37 Timotheos PMG 791.202 f.: 22 PMG 796: 22, 124 n. 54 Varro, De Re Rustica 11.4-7: 19 n.20 Xenophanes fr. 1.13-24 (West): 124 n.54 fr. 30 DK: 56 η. 11, 136 n. 88 Xenophon Hellenica III3.8-9: 28 n.39 Hellenica V2.34: 28 n.39 Memorabilia IV 2.10: 17 n.14 Anon. PMG 851 b: 22 SH 979.4-5: 29 n.39

161

Carm. Conv. PMG 900: 31 PMG 901: 31 n.44 Delphic Paeans, (p. 141, 150 Powell): η. 66 GV 945 (Peek): 35

129

IG ii2 2338 = Snell, TrGF I, DID A l 201: 60 n. 15 X I 4, 1038 = Durrbach Choix # 2 1 (p. 30-31 V. 23-27): 92 n .3 X II5, 1004 = OGIS 773: 92 n.5 OGIS 90 V. 23 ff.: 133 n. 78

SylP 367: 398:

93 n.5 91 n.2

Urk. IV S. 16.15: 139 n .95, 139 n .97 IVS.239: 139 n.95 IV S. 157, 12: 139 n.95 V I39: 133 n.80 P. Alex. 547: 41 n.63 P. Beri. P3029: 133 n. 80 P. Chester Beatty I: 132 n.76 P. Hamburg. De Galatis (p. 131-132 Po­ well) = SH 958: 129 η. 66 P. Hibeh 199.11-17: 92 η. 3 PSI inv. 436 = SH 969: 129 n. 66 P. Lit. Lond. 11: 34-35

P. Oxy. 1800, fr. 1.45 f.: 68n .3 0 2211.9-10 = Callimachus fr. 64: n. 30 2225 = Callimachus H .4.84-85: n. 63

68 41

Subject Index Acrostics 15, 18, 29 n.39 Aetiology 70-71 Alexander the Great 14 Alexandria 14 division into 5 γράμματα 45-46 Library of 14-15,40,44-45 Museum of 14-15, 40 Allegory 95, 141 Allusion in Archaic and Classical poetry 73 n. 38 in Hellenistic poetry (see also Epicism) 72-90 Anacreon 56-57, 58-59, 62-63, 71 n. 33 ’Ανάγκη 112-113,118,120 Antimachus, the Lyde of 29-30 Archilochus 28-29 n.39, 57, 65 n.23 “arte allusiva” 74 n.39 Asphodel 119-122 Asteria 96-110, ch.3 passim Asyndeton with maxims following a question 42 n. 66 with vocative 120 Birth, ease thereof as showing lack of love between parents 117 n .42 Books and love 30-31 singing or talking (see also writing-tab­ lets) 29-33 in vase-painting 16 n. 10 Book-inscriptions 29-30 Book -worms 19, 44-45 C a llim a c h u s

activity in connection with Library 37, 97 n. 12 poetic programme 46, 86, 94-96 Celts attack on Delphi 91-93, 128-131 mutiny under Ptolemy Philadel­ phus 131-134 in Hellenistic poetry 129 n.66

Chemmis, floating island 137-138 Circling, as motif in Callima­ chus 125-128, 126 n.57 Closure, poetic conventions thereof in the Hellenistic Age (see also Coronis) 19 n. 20 a Columns of writing 15,33 Coronis 33-35 Cows 83-89 Cyrene 122 Daphnis, death of 66 n.27 Delos as emblem of Callimachean song 94-96, 119-124 free from death and war 124 impervious to earthquakes 100-103 Ptolemaic policy concerning 91-93 Delphi, as object of barbarian inva­ sions 129-131, 129 n.67 Dream-encounters, with past poets 71 n. 33, 72 n. 35 Egypt, traditions of in Callimachus (see also Kings, Marriages, Nile) 14 n.7a, 131-139 Epic, Hellenistic 50-56 Epicism, non-allusive use thereof 54-56, 72-73 Epimenides of Crete 76 n.42 Epinician, Hellenistic 23, 82 n.54 Epitaphs, cf. Sepulchral epigrams Fetus, already active in the womb in Greek and Egyptian tradition 133 n. 80 γάρ, explaining underlying thought 79 Gauls, see Celts Gymnasium, importance thereof as bul­ wark of Greek culture in Hellenistic Age 75 n. 41 H a m a d ry a d s, see T r e e -n y m p h s H e s io d H e s t ia

83-89, 58 n . 13, 121-122 102, 142-143

Subject Index Hipponax 63-67, 71 η .33 Homer 11-12, 36-37, 29 η. 39, 50, 55 η. 1 1, 57, 61, 70, 104-105, 124-125 Horus Egyptian pharaoh as 131-139 victory over Seth 131-139 Hymns 23-26, 26-27 n.38, 93-94 n.8, ch. 3 passim Katabasis 71-72 Keraunos 135-136 n. 84 Kings and Muses 78-82, 139-141 and poets 37, 77-82, 139-141 divinity of 78-82, 91-92 n.3, 128-129 enemies thereof burned in Egyptian tra­ dition 134 n. 8 1 Labyrinth 127 Lamentation, for dead poets 57-58 Literacy 10-14, ch. 1 passim Marriages, incestuous 92 n.3, 135 μή, as substitute for ού in Hellenistic pe­ riod 41 n.63 Meter, Hellenistic experiments with 22-23 Muses writing 15-20 reading 27-28, 35-37 plays about 16 n. 12 Museum of Alexandria organization thereof 14-15 connection with Library 14, 40 Names divine and mortal 101-102 μετονομασία 101-102 Nile 136-137 Niobe, as exemplar of preference for quantity over quality 117 Novelty, as poetic theme 22-23, 104-105, 108-110 Oichalias Halosis 30 ομοιον όμοίω 101, 117-118, 120 Orality 10 -1 4 ,4 6 -4 7,116

163

O r t y g ia , as a lte r n a te n a m e f o r D e l o s n . 21

Ouranopolis, city of glosses

102

72-73

P a t te r n - p o e m s ( s e e T e c h n o p a ig n ia )

16-17, 38 n.59, 59-61, 93-94 n.8 Peripatos, as model for Alexandrian Mu­ seum (see Museum of Alexandria) φίλος, used of familial bond 80 Phoinix, commander of Akragas 67-70 Pinakes 37, 97 n. 12 Prooimion 15, 19, 70, 110-111 Prophecy, post eventum, in connection with Egyptian kingship 133 Ptolemies, see Kings P e r fo r m a n c e

Quotation

76-83

Reading, effects thereof on reception of poetry 23-27, 59-61 Regional boundaries, ignored in Hellenis­ tic poetry 37-40 Reincarnation 70 Resurrection 65-67, 82-83 Riddles 23-24, 31-33, 88-89 Rivers, subterranean links between 136-137 σελίς, see Columns of writing Septerion, Delphic festival 129-131 Sepulchral epigrams 39-40, 58-65, 67-70 Similes 123-124 Simonides 20-21,67-70 σκυτάλη 28-29 n. 39 Sophocles 39-40, 59-61 Succession myths 114-115 Technopaignia 15, 18 Telchines 95, 112-113 Tragedy, revival of 60-62 Tree-nymphs 40-44 Wine and song 21 Writing tablets made of alder-wood 31-33 speaking 29, 31-33 used metaphorically of mental activ­ ity 12 n. 5, 105 n. 31 wax thereon speaking 33 n. 52