Epigrams of Crinagoras of Mytilene: Introduction, Text, Commentary 0199565821, 9780199565825

Citation preview

The Epigrams of Crinagoras of Mytilene Introduction, Text, Commentary

MARIA

YPSILANTI

OXFORD UNIVERSITY

PRESS

OXFORD UNIVERSITY

PRESS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,

United Kingdom

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,

and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries ® Maria Ypsilanti 2018 ‘Ihe moral rights of the author have been asserted

First Edition published in 2018 Impression: |

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted

by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the

above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017936877 ISBN 978--0- 19-956582--5

Printed and bound by CPI] Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CRO 4YY

Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Στὴ μνήμη τοῦ πατέρα μου Χρίστου

Contents Acknowledgements

ix

List of Abbreviations Introduction Life and Work

Language and Style Metre

Manuscript Tradition Testimonia Matters of Ascription About this Edition

Sigla

Text and Commentary Bibliography

Index of Greek Words Index of Ancient Authors General Index

503 519 522 576

Acknowledgements This book, a critical edition with commentary of all the epigrams of Crinagoras, is an expansion of my doctoral thesis entitled An Edition with Commentary of Selected Epigrams of Crinagoras’ (University of London, 2003). I would like to

thank my supervisor, Mr Alan Griffiths, for his time and for so readily placing his profound knowledge at my disposal throughout my work. During my doctoral study, Professors Chris Carey, Richard Janko, Cornelia Römer, the late Dr

Stephen Instone, and the late Prof. Gerassimos Chryssafis provided useful criticism and advice. Dr Nick Lowe and Dr Neil Hopkinson, my thesis examiners, offered some thought-provoking views. I must also thank the State Scholarships Foundation of the Republic of Greece for financing my doctoral studies over the period 1999-2003. My thanks are also due to the staff of the Library of the Institute of Classical Studies in London and to the staff of the Library of the University of Cyprus, and to Evie Antoniou Ktori, in particular, who greatly facilitated my research. ‘The present book is a radical reworking and completion of matters that made

up my thesis and is about double the size of the original doctorate. In the production of this revision, the observations of the anonymous OUP referees, whom I thank, saved me from many errors. My gratitude is also due to Prof. Emeritus George A. Christodoulou for many discussions on textual problems,

and to Prof. Mike Tueller, who allowed me a preview of unpublished work from his new Loeb Classical Library edition of the Greek Anthology. Numerous other colleagues and friends offered their practical help, providing me access to material otherwise unattainable, or made useful suggestions on diverse matters at various stages of my work: Lucia Floridi, Katerina Carvounis, Democritus Kaltsas, Myrto Garani, Rosalia Hatzilambrou, Ioannis Deligiannis, Alexandra Rozokoki. I am particularly indebted to Dirk Van Miert, for sharing with me his vast knowledge of the books and manuscripts of Renaissance scholars and especially of Joseph Scaliger, and for the photographic material he generously made available to me.

List of Abbreviations AApp

E. Cougny, Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina, vol. 3 (Paris 1890)

AP

Anthologia Palatina

API

Anthologia Planudea

BL

British Library

Bude

Waltz P. et al., Anthologie grecque (see Bibliography, Editions)

CEG

P. A. Hansen, Carmina epigraphica Graeca saeculorum VIII-V a, Chr. n. (CEG 1: Berlin, New York 1983), Carmina epigraphica Graeca saeculi IV a. Chr. n. (CEG 2: Berlin, New York 1989)

CIL

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin 1863-1959)

FGE

D, L. Page, Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge 1981)

FGrHist

F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin, Leiden 1923-99)

GD

E. Heitsch, Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit, 2 vols. (Göttingen 1961-4)

Gr. Gr.

Grammatici Graeci, 6 vols. (Leipzig 1965)

G-P GP

A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1968)

G-P HE

A. S, FE Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1965)

IEG

M. L. West, lambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, 2 vols.

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin 1873- )

K-A

R. Kassel, C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin 1983-95)

K-G

R. Kühner, rev. B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, 2 vols. in 2 parts (Hanover and Leipzig 1898)

Lewis & Short

C. T. Lewis, C. Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1879, repr. 1966)

LGPN

P. M. Fraser, E. Matthews, M. J. Osborne, S. G. Byrne, R. W. V. Catling et al., A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vols. I (The Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica), II (Attica), III A (The Peloponnese,

(Oxford 19892, 19922)

Western Greece, Sicily and Magna Graecia), III B (Central Greece

from the Megarid to Thessaly), IV (Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Regions of the Black Sea), V A (Coastal Asia Minor: Pontos to Ionia), V B (Coastal Asia Minor: Caria to Cilicia), (Oxford 1987, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2013)

LIMC

Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (Zurich, Munich, Diisseldorf 1981-99)

List of Abbreviations E. Lobel, D. Page, Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta (Oxford 1997°)

H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. 5. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. Ninth Edition with Revised Supplement (Oxford 1996) Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts S. Hornblower, A. Spawforth, The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford 2000)

J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca (Paris 1857-66) D. L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962)

A.F, von Pauly-G. Wissowa, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (1894-1997)

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden 1923- ) H. Lloyd-Jones, P. J. Parsons (eds.), Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin, New York 1983)

D. L. Page, Select Papyri III: Literary Papyri (London 1941) B. Snell, R. Kannicht, 5. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 5 vols. (Göttingen 1971-2004)

xi

Introduction Life and Work

Ὁ ἠθοποιὸς ποὺ ἔφεραν γιὰ νὰ τοὺς διασκεδάσει ἀπήγγειλε καὶ μερικὰ ἐπιγράμματα ἐκλεκτά. Ἡ αἴθουσα ἄνοιγε στὸν κῆπο ἐπάνω" κ᾽ εἶχε μιὰν ἐλαφρὰ εὐωδία ἀνθέων ποὺ ἑνώνονταν μὲ τὰ μυρωδικά τῶν πέντε ἀρωματισμένων Σιδωνίων νέων. Διαβάσθηκαν Μελέαγρος, καὶ Κριναγόρας, καὶ Ριανός." e

Ly

»

A

~

>

LA

Thus opens the poem Νέοι τῆς Σιδῶνος (400 μ.Χ.), written in 1920 by Constantinos Cavafy, the poet of contemporary Alexandria who wrote verses inspired by passages from ancient Greek and Byzantine authors, especially Polybius, Plutarch, the poets of the Greek Anthology, and other writers of Hellenistic times and late Antiquity. Sixty-seven years after the composition of the “Youths of Sidon, Odysseas Elytis remarked that there is no other reason for the particular selection of these three poets from among all the Greek epigrammatists in this poem than the ‘euphonic alchemy’ created by the juxtaposition

of their names: Μελέαγρος καὶ Kpwaydpas καὶ Pıavos.” Elytis’ interest in Crinagoras’ poetry and his decision to render Crinagoras’ epigrams into modern Greek is due to the two poets’ common origin from the island of Lesbos; similar motives moved Elytis to render into Modern Greek the poetry of Sappho. Crinagoras was an interesting figure for Elytis, his modern fellowcountryman, as Crinagoras’ career outside Lesbos is safely established by external evidence, quite apart from the indications offered in his poems. Fifty-one epigrams have been transmitted to us under Crinagoras’ name. Evidence for his life and activity is provided by a number of inscriptions found 1 “The actor they‘ brought in to entertain them / also recited a few choice epigrams. / The room opened out on the garden / and a delicate odor of flowers / mingled with the scent / of the five perfumed young Sidonians. / There were readings from Meleager, Krinagoras, Rhianos, translated

by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard. 2 O. Elytis, Κριναγόρας, Μορφὴ στὰ Νέα Ἑλληνικά (Athens 1987), 8.

2

Introduction

in Mytilene, published in 1888 by Conrad Cichorius, to which can be added other fragments discovered and published by Paton,’ which suggest that the poet was born around 70 Bc.* These are: a) IG 12.2.54: a small fragment of the remains of four lines from which no information can be extracted. It is perhaps to be restored as Kpivaydp] als] Καλλίππου.

Ὁ) IG 12.2.35a: this records a reply to an honorific decree conveyed by ten ambassadors on behalf of Mytilene, among which Kpivayöpas Καλλίππου appears in the third place. Scholars have generally accepted Mommsen’s

reasonable suggestion° that the author of the letter was Julius Caesar, who is here acknowledging honours from Mytilene after the battle of Pharsalus. The letter must then have been written by Caesar either during his second

consulship (48 Bc) or his second dictatorship (late October of 48-October 47 Bc), as the phrase τὸ Se[vre] pov in the first line of the inscription suggests. Sherk dates the meeting of the embassy with Caesar to shortly after Pharsalus (August 48 sc), in September 48 Bc, after Caesar's crossing of

the Hellespont.° Hereafter this mission will be called, as Gow-Page had it for this and the next ones, First Embassy. c) IG12.2.35b: this records a letter from Julius Caesar to Mytilene, renewing χάριτα φιλίαν συμμαχίαν (1.20) with the island, in response to the mission

of eight ambassadors, among whom Kpivaydpas Καλλίππου occupies the

seventh place, In ll. 6ff. the letter provides the information Γράμματα] Καίσαρος Θεοῦ. [[dtos Ἰούλιος Καῖσαρ αὐτοκράτ]ωρ δικτάτωρ τὸ τρίτον, καθεστάμενος τὸ τέταρτον and can thus be dated to between April 46 and

January-February 45 sc.’ It has been suggested that ‘Phainias, son of Phainias, son of Callipus, who appears in the second position, is a kinsman of the poet.® This mission will be called Second Embassy. Probably 17, on the death of the slave of Dies, is written during this journey. 4) IG 12.2.35c: this records a treaty between Rome and Mytilene, dated to 25 BC from the first line: Αὐτοκράτορος ΚαίσαροςΪ Σεβαστοῦ τὸ ἔνατον,

> See G-P (GP 2.210ff.) and Sherk 146ff.; cf. also Bowersock (1965) 36f., R. W. Parker 117f. For the numerous embassies to Caesar from distant kingdoms after Pharsalus, see Bowersock (1965) 11, Cichorius’ interpretation was occasionally erratic, as he took [Ὁ 12.2.35a (1888, 43ff.) to refer

to a Mytilenean embassy to Augustus in 27-25 Bc and [G 12,2.35b (1888, 12ff.) to refer to Augustus in 29-27 ΒΟ, suggesting that the poet visited Rome then for the first time (1888, 48). See also Gi-P GP 2.211, n. 2.

* See G-P GP 2.212, * Th. Mommsen, ‘Das Potamon Denkmal auf Mytilene) Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1895), 887-901, esp. 892-8. ° See Sherk 152-3. Appian (BC 2.13,89) records that Caesar, after crossing the Hellespont, was

met by envoys of the lonians, Aeolians, and other inhabitants of the area. See Sherk 153. ” See Sherk 154.

δ΄ See R. W. Parker 127, n, 44.

Life and Work

3

Μάρκου Σιλανοῦ ὑπάτων. In this year Augustus was in Tarragona in Spain and, although the members named, evidence from Crinagoras’ from Mytilene to Rome and then to ney will be called Third Embassy.

of the Mytilenean embassy are not epigrams suggests that he travelled Spain in the year 26-25 sc. This jourThis journey has probably provided

inspiration for the following poems: AP 9.559=32, referring to a voyage to Italy after a long time; 9.516=30,

acomment on a Ligurian practice, Liguria

being on the route from Italy to Spain; 9.419=29, on the Baths of Augustus at the Pyrenees; 7.376=16, on the death of Seleucus in the land of the Iberians. Perhaps 10.24=34, thanksgiving to Poseidon after a safe landing,

and 9.555=31, on an island with a funny name, can be associated with this embassy (although the possibility that they were written during the Second Embassy cannot be ruled out). Other epigrams are addressed to members of family of Augustus or related to specific incidents and so can be dated. These are: 9,284=37, on the decline of Corinth, probably shortly after 44 Bc.

9.81=22, on the disinterment of Nicias of Cos, probably around 30 Bc. 9,545=11: Crinagoras offers Callimachus’ Hecale to Marcellus as a gift; 27-23 Bc

(perhaps after 25 Bc; see ad loc., intr. note).

6.161=10, on Marcellus’ first shave, probably 25 ΒΟ. 7.645=20, on Philostratus fall from a high position, probably some time after the

poet’s arrival in Rome, that is after 25 Bc.’ 9.235=25, on the wedding of Cleopatra-Selene, around 20 Bc. 9.283=27, on the invincibility of Rome in regard to dangers from Germany, probably 16-15 Bc. API 61=28, on Tiberius’ victories over Germany and Armenia, probably 15-13 Bc. 6.244=12, on Antonia, soon to become a mother, probably around 15 Bc. 7.633=18, on the death of Cleopatra-Selene, after 5 Bc; see ad loc., intr. note.

The following epigrams can be dated to generally after 25 Bc, during the poet’s residence in Rome (a survey of their content will be given below): 7.741=21, 9,239=7, 9.542=39, 9.562=24, API 40=36.

Crinagoras’ epigrams cover a wide thematic range, comprising four major categories of the subdivisions apparently established already by Meleager: ἐπιτύμβια, ἐρωτικά, avaßmuarıra, and the comprehensive category known as ° In their introduction to Crinagoras, Gow-Page date the poem ‘within a few years following the battle of Actium (31 Bc). In their introduction to the individual poem, however, they seem to agree with Cichorius’ (1922, 314ff.) reconstruction of the probable conditions under which Crinagoras became aware of Philostratus’ fall and exile, which point to a date from 25 Bc (the poet’ arrival at Rome) onwards as ἃ plausible time for the poem’s composition. Moreover GowPage's inferences about the identification of Germanicus (AP 9.283=26) and their consequent dating of the poem after av 10 are disputable (see Syme 1986, 346-7 with n. 5) and cannot thus be included in the list of poems which offer a more or less specific dating.

4

Introduction

ἐπιδεικτικά, roughly equivalent to ‘miscellaneous.’® Love epigrams are represented by only two poems, 1 and 2, if we ignore the conventional ecphrastic iambic epigram on an image of Eros in bonds (50). The sepulchral epigrams concern the death of persons the poet knew from Mytilene or was acquainted with in Rome or which occurred during his trips: a woman named Prote, 14; his servant Inachus, 15; Eros, a servant of a fellow member in his Second Embassy,

17; Seleucus, probably a fellow member in his Third Embassy, 16; CleopatraSelene, the daughter of Cleopatra of Egypt, 18; Hymnis, a slave girl, 19; Eunicidas, a deceased villain whom the poet attacks with the pair 40 and 41. Some poems are dedicatory, 8, 9, 42, 43, probably 10 and 13. The erotic, sepulchral, dedicatory

epigrams continue the long tradition, Hellenistic and earlier, of the treatment

of these themes. Some of Crinagoras’ poems are notes sent with gifts: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,11. The poet’s presents are designed to suit the recipient; cf. 3, a pen for a boy who has just learnt to write; 6, roses for a lady's birthday; 7, a quintet of lyric books for Antonia; 11, Callimachus’ Hecale to Marcellus, See also on 5, intr. note,*’ As there is no specific epigrammatic category to comprise them, they

are put either in the sixth (ἀναθηματικά: 3, 4, 5, 6) or in the ninth book of the Anthology (ἐπιδεικτικά: 7, 11). As regards the Anthology, epigrams accompanying presents appear for the first time in the Garland of Philip;'” however, 1-7 Austin-Bastianini from the New Posidippus’ λιθικά are gems and jewels offered as gifts to ladies and are thus evidence for the occurrence of this type of epigram in Hellenistic times. Laurens (326) stated that we are dealing here with the ‘naissance d’un genre, substitut moderne de lépigramme votive: le cadeau, cest loffrande qui se laicise, se modernise.** This assumption does not fully describe the procedure that led to the birth of the genre of the epigram accom-

panying a gift, as there do exist literary, but non-epigrammatic, precedents, such as Theocritus’ Distaff (as Reitzenstein observed: see RE 6.97). In fact, epigram encompassed various forms of earlier poetry, and the gift poem too can be seen in this light. The majority of Crinagoras’ extant poems, however, deal with a wide variety of themes drawn from personal experience and this choice of subject matter is the most characteristic feature of his poetry. Most of

Crinagoras’ poems are for this reason placed in the ninth book of the Anthology, 1° For Meleager’s classification of his material into these four categories, see Cameron (1993)

23-6, Gutzwiller (1998) 278. It seems that Agathias added three more categories (sympotic, protreptic, scoptic) arranging the epigrams into seven books and Cephalas took from him these basic subdivisions, See Cameron (1993) 23.

τ Cf. Citroni and Howell on Mart. 1.111, intr. note, Laurens 326ff., Henriksén 2.52, Rosenmeyer (2002) 139-42, discussing Crinagoras 3, 4, 5.

12 Unless AP 5.80=‘Plato’ 5 FGE and Philod. 2 Sider is not by Philodemus, but by a Hellenistic poet (‘Plato’).

13. Salemme (10) rightly sees the gift epigram as partly deriving from the votive epigram. For a different view, i.e. that the dedicatory epigram is a ‘remote’ model for gift epigrams, see D. Meyer, “The Act of Reading and the Act of Writing in Hellenistic Epigram, in P. Bing and J. S. Bruss, 201. Rosenmeyer (2002, 138 and passim) sees them as an amalgam of epistle and epigram.

Life and Work

5

which is devoted to miscellaneous epigrams, the so-called emiöeırrırd.'* Many are inspired by contemporary events, which may be either political-military,

such as a Roman

soldier saving the legionary Eagle (21), the victory of

Germanicus over the Celts (26), the invincibility of Rome in connection with a campaign not mentioned (27), victories of Tiberius from Germany to Armenia

(28), Pyrenaean waters as witnesses to the glory of Augustus (29), the humili-

ation of Corinth (37), or other: Antonia’ impending child-bearing (12), the fall of a friend from high position (20), the disinterment of Nicias, tyrant of Cos (22), a goat accompanying Octavian on a boat-trip (23), a parrot teaching other birds to salute Caesar (24; if this is genuine), celebration of the wedding of Juba

II and Cleopatra-Selene (25), the poet's preparation for a journey to Italy (32), an earthquake (33), the poet’s safe landing after a storm at sea (34), the reversal of the fates of two brothers (45), the drowning of a woman while washing clothes (46). Other poems are inspired from observation or pieces of informa-

tion: the Ligurians trick of throwing dogs off their track (30), a little island with an amusing name (31), a strange kind of sheep (38).’* Some epigrams express a contemplative view of life: the moral conveyed by a skull at the wayside, (47), a foolish hope (48), appreciation of one's participation in the Eleusinian myster-

ies (35). The association of 44, on a drowned sailor who envies pastoral life, with 14 ‘The earliest attested inscriptions in the form of the elegiac distich are sepulchral and dedicatory, dated to the sixth century sc and the tradition continued into the fifth century, whilst the

first fictitious epitaphs appear in the fourth century. With the development of ‘book-poetry’ in Hellenistic times the subject matter of epigram was extended and enriched. Now, together with the traditional dedications and epitaphs, fictitious to a large extent, we also have love- and drinkingepigrams, descriptions of works of art and poems which express views and feelings or offer autobiographical or other information and which were conventionally called ‘demonstrative’ or ‘epideictic’ epigrams, dealing with themes with characteristic subjectivity. These themes and method of treatment were adapted for the epigram from earlier poetic forms, like elegy, monody, choral lyric, and sympotic song. See further DNP 3.1108ff.; for a detailed survey, see RE 6.78ff., Sider 24-8. For an overview of the fresh handling of the erotic, sepulchral, ‘demonstrative’ epigram by Philip's authors, see Laurens 318ff. In fact, Philips Garland contains more satirical and epideictic, that is ‘occasional, epigrams than epigrams of any other kind; see Argentieri 2007, 161. For ‘epideixis’ as associated with occasional and improvised poetry, see Hardie 74-85. It is difficult to define the ‘demonstrative’ epigram, which tends ‘to set a scene or to describe an object, is composed for exhibition, and constitutes pure ‘Buchpoesie’; cf. Gutzwiller (1998) 316. Lauxtermann investigated the problem thoroughly and argues (535-7) that Cephalas derived the term ἐπιδεικτικά to denote epigrams, either from the Palladas Sylloge or from the Cycle of Agathias, and emphasizes that it is anachronistic to use the term in relation to Hellenistic and early Roman epigrams. Referring to AP 9.1-583 Cephalas says οὐδὲ rots παλαιοῖς ἠμέληται τὸ ἐπιδεικτικὸν γένος, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιγράμμασιν εὑρεῖν Kal ἑρμηνείας ἐπίδειξιν Kal πραγμάτων ἢ ὄντως

γενομένων ἢ ὡς γενομένων ἀφήγησιν. Ἐπίδειξις designates ‘display, ‘oratorical exhibition, and ἑρμηνεία can mean elocution; Cephalas definition of the epideictic genre as narrating things that have or could have happened is related to the rhetoric progymnasma called διήγημα, It is clear that Cephalas sees the genre in the light of students’ practice in rhetorical techniques of ἐκθεῖναι the facts, of ‘telling a good story. See M. D. Lauxtermann, ‘What Is an Epideictic Epigram?, Mnemosyne 51 (1998), 529-31, Rossi 151-5 and passim. 15. Cf. the typically Hellenistic interest in wonders of the world and the genre of paradoxography; for instance, Call. θαυμάτων τῶν εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν γῆν κατὰ τόπους ὄντων συναγωγή, fr. 407 with Pfeiffer ad loc.

6

Introduction

a real event cannot be either established or excluded. Other poems are compliments to various persons: 36 to Crispus, 39 to the pantomime Philonides, 49 to an actor, probably sepulchral. 50 is an ecphrasis of an image of a statue of Eros in bonds and 51 is a eulogy of the Hellenistic physician Praxagoras. The specific background of each poem is examined in the introduction. Here it should be remarked that most of these themes are well represented in extant Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition. Unexpected events and strange deaths were popular subjects before and

chiefly during Crinagoras time;*° Hellenistic epigrammatists, however, although they did occasionally write on unusual situations or contemporary life, are

much more concerned with the purely traditional funerary, dedicatory, and erotic themes. Exceptional, to a certain extent, is New Posidippus: for instance, the unfamiliar types of the οἰωνοσκοπικά and the ἱππικά that celebrate contem-

porary horse victories do not reproduce traditional models.'” In Crinagoras’ work, the conventional topoi, without of course disappearing, yield to subjects

deriving from everyday experience and observation. Thus he celebrates the start of a new age in epigram and can be seen as the precursor of Martial. The praise of rich friends and rulers is also rooted in Alexandrian tradition, in

which the flattery of kings, as seen for instance in Callimachus’ Deification of Arsinoe, The Lock of Berenice, H. 1 and 4, Theocritus 16 and 17, was common practice. Hellenistic poets praised their rulers in both epigrams and in hexameter poems and elegies. Cf. anon. SH 979, Posid. 12 and 13 HE=116 and 119

Austin-Bastianini, Antip. Sid. AP 7.241=25 ΗΕ;

also several of the New

Posidippus’ ἱππικά (for instance 78, 79, 82 Austin-Bastianini for victorious

Berenice).'” However, the Greek epigrams written for Roman patrons are more numerous than those written for Hellenistic ones, as becomes clear if we compare the Garland of Philip with the Garland of Meleager.”° Before proceeding to a survey of Greek poets writing in a Roman environment, the praise of Rome in

'* "These appear in epigrams from the Hellenistic period down to the era of Philip, grouped in both the seventh and the ninth book of the Anthology. Cf. anon. 7.298=49, Antip. Sid. 7.210=63, Menecrates 9.390=1, Posid. 7.170=21 HE, id. 32, 33, 57 Austin-Bastianini, Antip, ‘Thess. 7.289=26, Antiphilus 9.14=30, id. 9.86=34, Bianor 7.644=4, id. 9.223=7, id. 9.548=17, Diod. 7.632=7, Erycius 9.233=9, Euenus 9.602=4, Honestus 9.292=7, Flaccus 7.542=4, Parmenion 9.114=9, Philip 9,56=37, id. 9.88=40, id. 9.311=5] GP, etc. Cf. also Sullivan (1991) 81, n. 6. '? ‘The ‘occasional’ character of certain epigrams of the New Posidippus is demonstrated by D. Obbink, ‘New Old Posidippus and Old New Posidippus: from Occasion to Edition in the Epigrams, in Gutzwiller (2005) 97-115; Obbink (99-100) defines occasional poetry as that which has ‘no particular purpose other than the creation of an exemplum, exercise, or ralyıror! ** See further Hardie 89f., Cameron (1995) 12f., 268ff., 289. For Callimachus’ and Theocritus’

poems for the Ptolemies, see Stephens 74-170. For the poets long tradition of praising the generosity of their patrons, see on Crin. 36, intr. note.

ΤΣ See the discussion of M. Fantuzzi, ‘Posidippus at Court: ‘The Contribution of the Ἱππικά of Mil. Vogl. VIII 309 to the Ideology of Ptolemaic Kingship, in Gutzwiller (2005) 249-68 and of D. J. Thompson, 'Posidippus, Poet of the Ptolemies, in ibid. 269-83.

*° See Laurens 325f., Hardie 39.

Life and Work

7

Greek poetry should be briefly reviewed.** Apart from epigrams in the Greek Anthology, there are further poems composed by Greeks in which Rome and important Romans are commended. It is important to distinguish those written before Rome became the dominant power from those written during Rome's military omnipotence and rule over Greece. In Hellenistic times, Callimachus tells the story of a heroic Gaius in his Aetia (frr. 106-7) and Lycophron extols Rome in his Alexandra (1226-60, 1435-45). Early eulogies of Rome are

Melinno’s Hymn to Rome SH 541 (268-9) and a laudatory reference to Roman power in Limenius’ Delphic paean (Powell 149), probably both from the second

century Bc.?” Powell (173) has a few lines from a Greek paean written in praise of Rome and of Titus Flamininus; the same Roman is greeted as a liberator of

Greece by Alcaeus Messenius in API 5 (after Cynoscephalae, 196 ΒΟ; see Gow-

Page on Alcaeus 5 HE). Up to the second century Bc admiration for Rome was genuine and sincere on the part of Greeks, as Roman power had not yet become dangerous and oppressive;”* later poems are written under different circumstances and convey attitudes which range from servile flattery to more dignified appreciation. For the now lost poetry of Archias, protected by Cicero, see below. A short elegy celebrating Octavian’s victory at Actium is preserved in a papyrus fragment, anon. 163 FGE=113 SP III. Athenaeus (15.677 d-f) mentions an epic that Pancrates wrote in praise of a lion hunt conducted by Hadrian and his beloved Antinous, a part of which is also preserved in a papyrus (GD 1.15=128 SP III);?* prelude to a celebration for the enthronement of Hadrian is

probably GD 1.12. At the Augustan court praise of Octavian and of other rich patrons was of course echoed by all major poets.” At this point it is necessary to investigate the nature of Crinagoras’ dependence on the family of Augustus. The poet's high social status was established with the discovery and publication of the inscriptions in which he figures as one of the members of the embassies sent by Mytilene to Julius Caesar and Octavian. As Gow-Page (GP 2.212)

*” For Greek authors who wrote chronicles of their Roman patrons’ deeds (such as Empylus of Rhodes, friend of Brutus, who wrote an account of Caesar's assassination), see Bowersock (1965) 4. 22 For Melinno's date, see C. M. Bowra, ‘Melinno’s Hymn to Rome; JRS 47 (1957), 28. For an

overview of scholars’ suggested dating of the poetess, see J. D. Gauger, ‘Der Rom-Hymnos der Melinno (Anth. Lyr. II6, 209f.) und die Vorstellung von der “Ewigkeit” Roms, Chiron 14 (1984),

267-99, esp. 273-4. Gauger (299 and passim) argues that Melinnos poem was composed some-

time during or after the reign of Augustus. ** See P Lévéque, ‘Les postes alexandrins et Rome, LInformation Historique 22 (1960), 47-52.

4 It is worth mentioning that Strabo (14.5,14) speaks of a bad poet and a bad citizen, Boethus of Tarsus, who had written an epic on Antony's victory at Philippi; see further Hardie 87 with n. 68 and 91. From later times we have anonymous fragments of panegyrics for Roman leaders: a certain Germanus, conqueror of the Blemyes on the Nile, is commended in GD 1.32=142 SP III, a poem possibly written at the end of the fourth century ap. GD 1.34=144 SP III is a panegyric for Heracleius, a Roman general. Panegyrics for other Roman leaders are GD 1.36=143 SP Hi and 141 SP HI, all written probably in the fifth century. *5 For a recent survey of the relevant passages of Horace, Virgil, and the elegists, see P. White (1993) 125-37, 159f., 189, 196f., and passim,

Introduction

observe, far from being a humble client,”* the poet ‘must have been recognised more or less as par inter primos, the accredited representative of an illustrious city overseas, acceptable in the highest society at Rome. It is plausible to assume that Crinagoras enjoyed the help and support of the house of Augustus. Various investigations have been made in the hope of revealing the specific nature of literary patronage in Greece and Rome. The case of Horace offers us the most concrete evidence for the circumstances of composition of certain of his works,

through our knowledge of the grant of his Sabine estate, as well as of Augustus’ request for the fourth book of the Odes and the commission of the Carmen Saeculare.”’ As far as literary patronage in Rome is concerned, much debate has taken place in regard to the poets’ degree of dependence and freedom of literary expression, and the extent to which their relation to their patrons can be described as a form of clientela. The fact that poets and other men of letters who formed the circle of a rich patron usually had a high social status in their own right and thus anyway moved in the orbit of the upper social and economic class together with the kind of services they rendered to their patron, ie. the fruit of their intellectual capacities and talent, demonstrates the distinctive character of the literary patronage they enjoyed which places it on quite a different level from that of

social patronage.”* The position of a writer in Roman society and the range of his duties and obligations to his patron depended on his own social status, nationality, and talent as well as on the status of his patron.” In general, as Gold (1987, 173)

observes, a Greek author did not have the same freedom as a Roman, such as Horace or Propertius, did. Crinagoras was not Roman, but he was both of a high 2° ΟἹ, for instance, Garzya 132: ‘non grande e vasta esperienza la sua, di greculo e di cliens’ 7 See Gold (1987) 140, P. L. Bowditch, Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage (Berkeley et al. 2001), 21. On Augustus’ support of talented writers and on other rich patrons apart from Maecenas (for instance, Messala, Crispus, Asinius Pollio) and the authors protected by them, see

Syme (1986) 357-62. Augustus insisted on the best and demanded it from writers whom he chose with care, cf. Syme (1939) 460, (1986) 359. Other Greek writers favoured by Romans include

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who was protected by Q. Tubero the historian; Strabo, who enjoyed the protection of Aelius Gallus, the second prefect of Egypt; Nicolaus of Damascus, who enjoyed the patronage of Augustus and Herod; and the historian Timagenes. See further Syme (1939) 460, (1986) 358, Bowersock (1965) 30-4], 122-39, T. P Wiseman, ‘Pete nobiles amicos: Poets and Patrons

in Late Republican Rome; in B. K. Gold (1982) 32, 34, 45f,, n. 62, Sider 5f. 28. Cf, for instance, Gold (1987) 39ff., 173f., Hardie 41ff; for Martial’s financial dependence and complaints about his ‘poverty, sce Nauta 54ff. Sometimes, however, writers did indeed also perform the duties of lower dependants, such as the morning salutatio. See further P. White (1978) 76, Gold (1987) 40. Even senators, in the hope of winning a consulship, might perform the salutatio; see Nauta 54, 56-7. We also hear of an impoverished senator seeking financial support from Nero; see Saller 55. As regards the description of the relationship between patron and writer as arnicitia, it is to be noted that the term was used to denote all kinds of attachment, including various relations of dependency. In general, it is misleading to try to apply strict categories to the relationship between a rich Roman and his entourage, as the important persons group of ‘friends’ could well consist of people who belonged to the equestrian order. See further P. White (1978) 74-82, (1982) 58, Nauta 54-7; cf, above, on the circle of Pompeius’ anıici. Nauta observes that ‘equestrian rank did not automatically entail wealth. See ibid. 54-5, For a detailed survey of the use of the words amicus and cliens, see ibid. 12-18.

29 See Gold (1987) 104, 173.

Life and Work

9

social rank in Mytilene, being in no need of any Roman's support, and was protected by the most prominent Romans, the Augustan family. Among other Greek writers, we have information about Strabo, who had the patronage of Aelius Gallus, of equestrian

rank, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who dedicated a

study on Thucydides to a Roman historian.”” Crinagoras’ case is comparable to that of his fellow-citizen Theophanes,

a politician and writer protected

by

Pompey. Theophanes also was of a high social status in Mytilene and belonged to Pompey’s group of amici, formed by various wealthy individuals, two among whom were of senatorial rank.*! Also comparable to the status of Crinagoras is that of another fellow-citizen and fellow-ambassador, the rhetor Potamon who

participated in Mytilenes embassies to Caesar and to Octavian, and also wrote encomia of Brutus and Octavian.** Crinagoras’ position in Rome can be seen in

the same light. The poet was a man of action, often defiant of danger and highly interested and involved in politics, as is demonstrated by his three attested embassies, during the last of which, it is interesting to note, he travelled from his island to Tarragona across the Mediterranean and then over the Alps, attempting an obviously difficult journey, in the course of which he lost at least one of his comrades (cf. the epitaph on Seleucus, 16; see ad loc., intr. note). It is quite probable that he made other journeys, too, from Mytilene or from Rome, as is suggested by his initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries (cf. on 35, intr. note; cf. also

the possible reference of 23 to a voyage in which the poet has accompanied Augustus; see ad loc., intr. note). It has been suggested that he may have spent some time at Alexandria and even perhaps in Judaea, at the court of Herod the Great.”” It can be plausibly suggested that Crinagoras enjoyed the favour of the Augustan family, probably also expressed with gifts, in cash or kind, which ensured him further social distinction, support, and protection. In return, the

poet could offer praise and contribute to the poetic immortality of Octavian and his family.** It is highly interesting and noteworthy, however, that, while writing 3° See Syme (1978) 107.

>" See Gold (1987) 91ff. Theophanes presumably had a higher position in Roman society than did Archias, who was protected by Cicero, as ‘Theophanes was clearly a man of importance in Mytilene, as well as being protected by Pompey, a more important Roman than Cicero; see Gald (1987) 88. For a discussion of the relationship between Theophanes and Pompey and the benefits that each derived from the other (restoration of the freedom that Mytilene had lost in 79 Bc, Roman citizenship for Theophanes; an adviser, secretary, true friend, and means of perpetuation of glory and fame for Pompey), see ibid. 87-107, esp. 94-7, 104. For the relationship between Archias and Cicero, see ibid. 73-86. 32 See Bowersack (1965) 11 with ἢ. 5 and below, Test. 5. > See Roller (1998) 62f. with n. 74, Roller (2003) 87. See also on Crin. 20, intr. note.

** For this reciprocity of ‘services’ between poets and patrons, cf. Ὁ White (1982) 59ff., (1993) laff, Nauta 26-34 and passim; for the age of Martial, cf. Hardie 49. For the high status of poets such as Crinagoras at the royal court, cf. G. Williams 135, A. Ambühl, “Tell, all ye Singers, my Fame: Kings, Queens and Nobility in Epigcam, in P. Bing and J. 5. Bruss, 293. Other authors of Philips Garland who were also distinguished politicians are, for instance, Gaetulicus, Polemon, Geminus; see Argentieri (2007) 160-1. While acknowledgement of presents is usual in Statius and Martial, payment in cash is not reported by any poet. The absence of any reference to this,

in honour of members of Octavian’s family, Crinagoras also composes poetry with an anti-Roman spirit and/or nostalgia for the past glory of Greek rulers. Especially striking is the case of Crin. 37 (even ifit was composed in Mytilene: see ad loc., intr. note). Cf. also the hope for the revival of Cleopatra's kingdom in the adverb πάλι in 25,5, the adjective ὀθνεῖοι for the Romans at 20,5 and the irony of 23 (see ad loc., intr. note and on 1. 6). Furthermore, it has to be underlined that, as

Bowie pointed out (2008, 233 and 2011, 186-95), the subject matter of Crinagoras is above all rooted in the Greek cultural tradition and his poetic world is basically Greek: the song of Nauplius, the poems of Anacreon, Callimachus’ Hecale, the Eleusinian mysteries, the Arcadian Pan, the performance of Menander’s comedies, etc. His Greek identity which encompassed the huge Greek poetic past is constantly demonstrated in the new ‘global’ Roman environment. Evidence for the composition and performance of poems on contemporary events is provided by Cicero, in regard to Antipater of Sidon and Archias (De Or. 3.194, Pro Archia 18f.), where the orator mentions these poets’ talent in the impromptu composition of hexameter verses. These verses are likely to have

been sympotic poetry and occasional poems like epithalamia; other occasions seem unlikely, as Cicero describes Archias’ extempore verse as referring to

events witnessed by the poet and happening in the place of recitation.’” Likewise, Crinagoras’ epigrams on a sympotic theme, like the erotic 2, on the

song of Aristo, and the ‘philosophical’ 48, on the foolish ambition for wealth, may have started as improvisations presented at a banquet and then been written down. Crinagoras’ gift poems (3-7, 6 being associated with the celebration of a birthday, as probably 7) were perhaps recited at a banquet, in the last two cases the banquet celebrating the birthday.** The epigrams on various contemporary incidents and other ‘outdoor situations by Crinagoras and his contemporary however, should not be taken as meaning that there was no such payment; cf. Hardie 46. The emperor was of course the best patron a poet could have: cf. Juvenal (Sat. 7) who holds that he is the only good patron. For a survey of imperial patronage, resulting in beneficia, honores, and other facilities for the amicus, see further Saller 41-58, For Crinagoras relationship with Crispus, see on Crin. 36, intr. note.

* Cf. Hardie 81ff., 100f. For Philodemus’ poems, often giving the impression of a sympotic improvisation and in any case presumably recited under such circumstances, see Sider 18, 27f. Lucillius complains about a host who bombards his guests with epigrams in AP 11.137, whilst Martial does the same in 3.45 and 50 (see further Fusi 329f. and 353f,); Trimalchio, inspired by an event in the dining room, improvises an epigram in Petr. 55. For Martial's epigrams, often recited

at symposia, where guests also improvised, see Nauta 9Iff,, especially 95}, 101-5. According to Suetonius (Aug. 98), Augustus himself improvised two iambic lines on something he noticed outside the dining room. According to Macrobius (Sat. 2.4,31), he also composed an epigram on another, non-sympotic occasion. Cf, G. Williams 137-8, Nauta 99 with ἢ. 32. Sometimes improvised verses at a symposium were written down before the recitation; see ibid. with n. 34, *° For indications of this function in Martial, for instance, epigrams celebrating the recovery of a friend from an illness, rendering thanks for a gift, describing an objet d’art (ecphrasis), and on departures, safe returns, birthdays, weddings, possibly but not positively recited at a symposium, see Nauta 101-5. For the presentation of published books of poetry in a symposium, see next note. Poems accompanying a birthday gift could be sent to the addressee as written verses; see (for Martial) ibid. 105-7.

poets were presumably produced in written form at the outset, to be initially

recited to a domestic public. The epigrams were then published, those which started life as extempore verse presumably after some polishing. That this was likely to have been the case is supported by evidence we have concerning pub-

lications of previous authors like Callimachus,*” and of course by the New Posidippus. Parthenius of Nicaea, the famous freedman of Cinna who led a literary career in Rome and largely influenced the Neoterics, wrote an elegy entitled Κριναγόρας (see below, Test. 1). It can be plausibly argued that the two men were

acquainted and that they knew each other during the 40s Bc, most probably during Crinagoras’ Second Embassy to Julius Caesar in Rome.** The theme of the poem may have been the love of the author’ friend; the σκῦλα ἔρωτος is an epigrammatic topos which, however, rather than referring to a real situation, may echo a motif from an epigram of Crinagoras.*? Otherwise Parthenius’ work does not seem to have anything in common with that of Crinagoras.*° Antipater of Thessalonica, a contemporary to Crinagoras, also lived at Rome and was protected by L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, who is mentioned in several of Antipater’s epigrams. Other epigrams are inspired from various social or political situations,*' together with the vast majority of those which treat conventional epigrammatic themes. As for the poetry of Archias we know only what Cicero reports of his protégé in the Pro Archia, since the epigrams transmitted

under Archias’ name are probably not his work.* Cicero remarks that omne olim studium atque omne ingenium contulerit Archias ad populi Romani gloriam laudemque celebrandam (Pro Archia 19) and mentions the poet's verses on Marius’ victory over the Cimbri and on Lucullus’ war against Mithridates (19, 21). These are obviously written epics, as opposed to his extempore verse, which

was probably produced on convivial occasions, such as birthdays, betrothals, or socializing with friends, for which cf. above. The only inference that can be

drawn regarding the relation of Archias’ poetry to that of Crinagoras from our extant evidence is that Archias’ extempore poetry seems to have been comparable to that of Crinagoras, as Crinagoras indeed wrote several poems for such >? See Fraser 1.607f., Gutzwiller (1998) 15-46, Nauta 91 with n. 2. As for books of Greek epigrams in Rome, evidence is offered by Lucillius, who with 9.572 dedicates his second book of epigrams to Nero and by Leonidas of Alexandria who with 6.328 dedicates his third book to Nero

or Vespasian. For the certainty of the existence of Philodeman collections, attested by Cicero's account for Philodemus’ popularity in Rome, see Sider 28. Martial often mentions symposid as an occasion for the reception of his books that are already published. See Nauta 139.

58 Cf. Lightfoot 156. ” See ibid. 74-5. See also on Crin, 1, intr. note. Parthenius’ fr. 48 belongs perhaps to his Kpwaydpas, as can be gathered from its Mytilenean associations; see ibid. 204-5,

“© Apart from the surviving prosaic Ἐρωτικὰ Παθήματα there is some evidence for poetic works by Parthenius. For a survey of Parthenius’ elegies, see ibid. 31-9. For poems in other metres, see ibid. 39-41.

* Cf. his gifts to Piso (AP 6.249=45, 9.93=31 GP). Also his references to current events, military (9.428=1 GP) or other (for instance, 9.215=25, 7.289=26, 7.402=66 GP); see further G-P GP 2.18ff.

12 See ibid. 2.432ff.

ΤΣ

Introduction

occasions. Several authors whose epigrams are preserved in Philips Garland lived in a Roman environment. The poetry of Philodemus, the philosopher who also wrote epigrams and was protected by L. Calpurnius Piso, does not offer

any information on Philodemus life, unlike Crinagoras’ poetry. Philodemus’ themes are usually erotic-sympotic, often treated in a satirical vein. Piso is

mentioned only in one case, 11.44=23 HE=27 Sider, an invitation to a dinner. If we exclude the various amatory scenes, which are probably, but not certainly

fictitious, a reference to a contemporary event is to be found in 9.412=20 HE=29 Sider, on the death of two friends. Philodemus shares Crinagoras’ high degree of emotion and personal involvement in the events he presents, a feature rarely to be observed in other Philippan authors.”* In the few surviving epigrams of Bassus there are no references to contemporary events. His poems usually belong to the traditional type of exercise on mythological, historical, philosophical, and other subjects. There are indications that he enjoyed imperial patronage: cf. his poems on the death of Germanicus (7.391=5 GP) and on the Trojan origin of Rome (9.236=6 GP; see also GP 2.191f.). As for poems on the

traditional topic of strange events, we have one epigram of Antiphilus (9.178=6 GP) on Nero,** in which he compares the emperor to the sun. Apollonides flatters Tiberius, very probably his patron, in 9.287=23 GP, and numerous Roman officers appear in his epigrams.** Similarly, the epigrams of Diodorus praise Tiberius (9.219=1 GP) and his brother Drusus (9.405=8 GP).** It is also

likely that Honestus enjoyed royal patronage, a possibility suggested by his epigram on an ‘Augusta and ‘two Caesars’ (21 GP), probably written for Livia Augusta, her husband Octavian Augustus, and her son Tiberius.”’ A court epigram (6.235=2 GP) for the birthday of a ‘Caesar, probably Germanicus, was written by Thallus, who perhaps enjoyed the patronage of Antonia Minor.” Exercises on conventional themes, mostly dedications and accounts of strange events, probably fictitious, make up the greater part of the poetry of Philip, the anthologist of the Garland who edited the work during the reign of Gaius. Court flattery is not entirely absent but is poorly represented in Philip, given the great number of his extant epigrams (6.236=2, 6.240=3, 9.285=4, 9.778=6 GP). Possible references to personal experiences are also rarely traced, in contrast to Crinagoras almost all of whose extant poems refer to real events coloured with personal sentiment.”” Although Crinagoras is a much more * Cf. ibid. 2.373 with ἢ, 5.

“* For the identification of ‘Nero’ with Tiberius or with Nero and the poet’s corresponding dating, see ibid. 2.116 and 119-20.

*S Laelius Balbus, consul in 6 Bc in 9.280=21 GP, Vivius Posthumus, proconsul of Asia in AD 13-15 in 9.791=25 GP, and others. See further ibid. 2.148. “6 For Diodorus, a friend of Strabo, see also Bowersack (1965) 133f. See also Syme (1978) 107.

*” See further G-P GP 2.301 and 308-9, Hemelrijk ΠΟΙ, “See G-P GP 2.410, Burkhard 35-6. Hemelrijk (110) is sceptical as regards this alleged relationship of patronage between Thallus and Antonia. ” E.g.6.251=7 GP with Gow-Page ad loc., intr. note. See also the introduction of Gow-Page to Philip, GP 2.327-9,

Life and Work

13

interesting poet than Philip, the two authors share, to a certain extent, a taste

for coining words (see Language and Style, ἅπαξ λεγόμενα). The variety of subjects of the extant epigrams of authors who enjoyed or sought imperial patronage demonstrates the diversity of preferences on the part of various patrons who encouraged the writing of poems influenced by

their personal tastes. This is shown by the case of Philodemus’ poetry, the subjects of which differ from those of other authors of a comparable social status. The choice of themes which are mainly (but not exclusively) of an Epicurean morality is due to Piso’s Epicureanism, the author's quality as a philosopher and

the analogous philosophical orientation of the whole entourage of friends in Naples.*’ The fact that most of these Greek poets who lived and wrote in a

Roman environment produced considerable amounts of epigrams, which, rather than involving praise of Roman personalities, concentrated on traditional Hellenistic themes, describing unexpected situations or being fictitious

sepulchral compositions, probably recited at gatherings of patrons and friends, is a further indication of the Hellenocentric literary interests and tastes of a

court which encouraged and appreciated the themes of the Greek epigrammatic tradition. Crinagoras’ (already discussed) considerable ences and current events over the traditional

recitation of poems on various In comparison with these poets, preference for personal experitopoi of the genre is impressive.

Crinagoras’ influence on Antipater is clear. He and Philip often produce variations of Crinagoras’ epigrams or echo his phraseology.” The first-century AD

poet Leonidas of Alexandria also seems to have been influenced by Crinagoras; cf. his gift poems (6.321=1, 322=2, 325=4, 328=7, 329=8, 9.353=30, 355=32 FGE).

Leonidas was also patronized by the imperial family of his time, and often addresses and flatters Nero or Vespasian (6.321=1, 328=7, 9.349=26, 352=29

FGE), Neros mother Agrippina (6.329=8 FGE), and his wife Poppaea (9.355=32 FGE). He also presents himself as being well known among the high society of Italy, εὐγενέταις γνώριμος Ἰταλίδαις, 9.344=21,2 FGE.°* To sum up: it was

Crinagoras who fashioned and established this ‘renovated’ type of courtepigram of imperial times, thereby breathing new life into the epigrammatic *° Philip shows a much greater preference for these words than does Crinagoras. Philip has more than 160 new words in 532 lines (see G-P GP 2.329), while Crinagoras has only 17 in 304 lines. ‘The considerable quantity of rare words in Crinagoras, however, is more than double this number. * For Pisos conversion to Fpicureanism, cf. Sider 17£; for the association of Philodemus’ philosophical opinions and his poetry, cf. Sider 24-39. Indicative of the subjectivity of the tastes of a patron and the possible gap between these and the ideals of wider society is Cicero’ fierce attack on Pisos encouragement of Philodemus to present his Epicurean lifestyle in his poetry (In Pisonem 70f,): rogatus, invitatus, coactus ita multa ad istum de ipso quoque scripsit ut omnis libidines, omnia stupra, omnia cenarum conviviorumque genera, adulteria denique eius delicatissimis versibus expresserit. *? Some random typical examples: Antip. Thess. AP 7.216=17,5f. GP τίς παρὰ πόντου / πίστις, «A. (Crin, 9.276=46,5f. GP τίς x" ἐνὶ uni] θαρσήσαι, «rA.), ibid. 6.198=100,5 GP τοίην ἀλλ᾽ ἐπίνευς

(Grin. 6.242=9,5 GP τῶνδ᾽ ἀπ᾿ lovAwy); Philip's 7.383=32 GP is probably inspired by Crin. 47.

** See further Page FGE 503-4, 530, 533, 535,

14

Introduction

tradition, whilst adjusting the genre to the specific needs of the era and of the author's social and political environment. Crinagoras constituted an important

model for Martial.**

Language and Style DIALECT Crinagoras language is the conventional epic-Ionic of the epigrammatic genre. Attic forms which the codices transmit, i.e. éveyx- (7,6, 8,1, 14,4) for eveik-,

Kpwayé pov (15,6) and Εὐνικίδου (41,5) for -ew, τέτταρσι (39,1) and ἀήττητον (31,8) for -oo-, ἑκυρά (12,5) for -ρή, are unnecessarily changed by Rubensohn

to the equivalent Ionic ones. Gow-Page rightly retain them (though not in the last case), as Attic forms did occasionally crop up in the conventional Ionic

vocabulary of Hellenistic and later poets. A poet’s consistent adherence to the same form is not a general rule. Cf. the codices’ reading Νικίεω in 22,3 and P’s Ἀράξεω in 38,1; also, for instance, Diodorus’ Aldew in AP7.624=5,2 and Aldov

in 7.627=6,2 GP. The reading ofthe codices is hardly reliable, given the numerous alterations in the process of transmission, now proven through compari-

son of the same piece in the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Posidippus. However, the usual process is that of regularization, so that ‘unexpected’ forms in an overall epicIonic diction should be regarded as likely to be what the poet wrote, rather

than the opposite.”” For the occasional use of Attic forms instead of the epicIonic ones by the epic poets, cf., for instance, F. Williams on Call. H. 2.7 μακράν.

The Doric form ἀγητῆρσι in 44,3, retained by Rubensohn, certainly need not be changed as it adds a Theocritean touch to the bucolic setting of the epigram.

LATINISMS

The poetry of Crinagoras, who lived in a Roman environment, displays occasional influences from Latin:” ὁ πᾶς ἐπὶ σοί ~ totus tuus (4,6; cf. G. Williams °4 Cf, Sullivan 84f. Also N. Holzberg, Martial und das antike Epigramm (Stuttgart 2002), 28f. and Luccioni passim. For the comparability of Martial to Leonidas of Alexandria, cf. Hardie 139f. °° For a discussion of the complexity of the issue of inconsistency as regards linguistic forms and the probability of elimination of dialect-based colouring in the course of transmission, with special reference to Doricisms in Posidippus, see Sens (2004) 66-7, 82-3, and passim. °° Greek authors of the first two centuries Ap did have knowledge of Latin literature. G. Williams (125-34) suggests the possibility that certain Latin passages are echoed in several Greek epigrammatists (Erycius, Apollonides, Antipater of Thessalonica), including Crinagoras.

Language and Style

15

133), ἀπὸ θυμοῦ πλείονος, probably influenced by the Latin multo animo (3,5f.).

Cf. the unusual implications of the Greek proverb probably influenced by its Latin use in Crin. 30,1; see ad locc. Τύχαι in 26,1 is used to render the three

temples of Fortuna. A possible Latinism is 26,4 aorparrwv....’Evvalıov (see ad loc.). These instances are, of course, few and exceptional and do not affect the

poet's overall style of writing.

Ἁπαξ

λεγόμενα

Crinagoras shows a liking for ἅπαξ λεγόμενα or rare words. Leaving aside the words of dubious authority, we have the following ἅπαξ λεγόμενα: διάγλυπτον (3,3), σηματόεσσα (17,7), dipéw (32,3), τριτοκεῖ (38,5), λαοτέκτονος (40,2), δυσνύμφευτε, κακοσκηνεῦς (41,7), οἰνοπέπαντοι, itpiveat, ποπάδες, φιλοσκίπωνι (42,1, 4, and 7), εὐπίδακες, πιτυστέπτοιο, λιθηλογέες, ἐλαφοσσοΐης (43,1, 3, 7,

and 8), νήοχα (44,4), ὑποβένθιος (44,5).57 The use of rare words accords with

the purely Hellenistic taste for unusual vocabulary and shows a careful choice of language.°® Almost half of the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα occur in the two dedicatory epigrams which are, for this reason, partly transmitted by the Suda under the lemmata of unique or rare words and/or meaning of words, especially dedicatory objects or parts of the landscape.””

°? Rare (a typical selection): ἁλικύμονος (2,1), νεόσμηκτον (3,2), μεταδόρπιον (4,3), στρηνές

(13,2), ἡμιθανής (21,4), ἀμολγεύς, πουλυγαλακτοτάτην (23,1 and 2), ἀμφίκομοι (30,2), νεοτευχέα (33,3), παλιμπρήτοισι (37,5), ψεδναί (38,4), τὠλιγηπελές (40,6), εὐστόρθυγγι (42,7), yepavöpvou (43,5), ἐπροβάτευον, λευκόλοφον (44,1 and 2).

°° The comparison of Crinagoras with a «dé pup Bos, a cluster, usually of ivy, in Philips proem (AP 4.2=1,7 GP), employed by Meleager in his proem for Leonidas (AP 4.1=1,15 HE), should not be taken to mean that Philip has consciously juxtaposed these two authors, on the basis of subject matter or style. Even if we accept the point that Crinagoras probably wrote more dedicatory epigrams than the surviving two (42 and 43), which are anyway Leonidean in style (note also the multitude of ἀπαξ λεγόμενα in these two epigrams, a feature which also occurs in Leonidas; cf. next note), his use of themes differentiate him considerably from Leonidas. Moreover, the absence of any relation between the other authors who are compared to the same flower in the two proems (cf., for instance, Antipater of Thessalonica and Bacchylides, both compared to στάχυς, Philodemus and Polystratus, both compared to dudpaxov) suggests the existence of various criteria that dictate the choice of these particular plants. The suggestion by Gow- Page (GP 2.330) that the first three wreath components of Philip (στάχυς, κόρυμβος, βότρυς), which correspond to Antipater, Crinagoras, and Antiphilus respectively, are intended to indicate how fully these three authors are represented in the Garland, in fact more fully than any other contributor except Philip himself, seems reasonable. °° Fragments of Leonidas’ epigrams are also often transmitted by the Suda which preserves them as examples of the rare vocabulary used in the poems. Verses of 28 out of Leonidas’ 103 extant epigrams are found in the Suda and are drawn mainly from dedicatory poems. Extracts of 22 out of Philip’s 80 extant poems are also transmitted by the lexicon for the same reason.

16

Introduction

HOMERICISMS The style is generally elevated. Crinagoras often adapts Homeric forms and expressions in his verse. Cf., for instance, 4,1 αἰετοῦ ἀγκυλοχείλου, 12,5 ὄφρα κε γηθήσειε,

κτλ., 14,1 τί σε πρῶτον....τί δέ δεύτατον,

KrA., 17,3 οὐ νέμεσις, 21,6

ἀρηϊφάτων... ἐκ νεκύων, 32,5 μετοχλίσσαντες ὀχῆας, 32,6 δισθανέα (this Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον is employed to echo the Homeric situation here; see ad loc.), 26,5 οἱ 6’... ἀολλέες, 38,4 ἀγροτέρων.... χιμάρων, 28,3 ἥλιος avımv... ὑπὸ

χερσὶ δαμεῖσαν, 35,3 ἐπιβήμεναι. In 13 the main image of the epigram echoes a Homeric one; see ad loc. on ὑπὲρ πεδίων and κώδων χάλκεος.

APOSTROPHES

It might be thought that loftiness of style was occasionally achieved by apostrophes without ὦ; although the particle ὦ was empty of meaning in the language of Alexandrian times and was no longer used in polite society, Crinagoras’

adherence to Homer can support the assumption that he followed his epic model in this feature of diction, especially as certain situations in which ποη- ὦ

vocatives are employed do require solemnity and/or seriousness of tone. These cases are 26, on Germanicus, conqueror of the Celts (apostrophe to lands and mountains),°' 24 (to ‘Caesar; if by Crinagoras), the prayers 12, 32, and 34 (to

gods or divine powers: Hera and Zeus, the personified earthquake, the ‘holy spirit’ of Poseidon). The addresses without ὦ in the sepulchral 14 and 16 (apostrophe to the dead persons), 25 (on the wedding of Juba and Cleopatra-Selene),

51 (praise of the physician Praxagoras) are to be seen in the same light, or, perhaps more plausibly, can be justified because the addresses are directed to specific individuals, according to Alexandrian everyday usage.®* This is also the case for 6° See B. L. Gildersleeve, C. W. E. Miller, ‘The Vocative in Apollonios Rhodios, AJP 24 (1903), 197, Giangrande (1968a) 59, F. Williams (1973) 54. For a detailed survey of the use of the vocative in

Homer and Hesiod, where the non-& vocatives usually occur in passages of dignity and elevation, where the speaker is expressing respect, reserve, or distance, see J. A. Scott (1903) 192ff. In two further articles, Scott examines the vocative with and without ὦ in later literature, lyric poetry, Herodotus, tragedy, comedy, and Plato (1904, 1905), demonstrating the everyday-speech quality implicit in the interjection of & which ‘was not freely used until the familiar language of comedy, dialectic, and the law courts became the language of literature’ (1905, 42-3). For the familiarity that the -vocatives imply in Homer, see Scott (1903) 194f.; for the excitement shown by the ö-vocative, see Scott (1905) 40f. Apollonius and Callimachus tend to use the non-& vocative in addresses to

gods and in contexts of respect, while the ὦ vocative is confidential and emotional in tone. See Giangrande, 1968a, 52ff., Mineur on Call. H. 4.1. For Theocritus, see F. Williams 1973. °! For apostrophes to inanimate objects the ö-vocative is used in tragedy, see J. A. Scott (1904) 82. Crinagoras, who treats the lands and the mountains as personified objects in these poems, does not conform to this practice. * ‘The tone of this poem (33) is not entirely serious. The ποη- ὦ vocative can lend an ironical tone of dignity and elevation; see J. A. Scott (1905) 40f.

°® For this usage in Callimachus’ epigrams, see F. Williams (1973) 54 with ἢ. 6.

Language and Style

17

1 (the poet addressing himself), 3,2 (to Proclus), 4,6 (to Leucius), 5,3 (to a ‘son

of Simon’), 32,5 (to Menippus, the geographer), 36,2 (to Crispus), 39,3 (to Philonides, a writer of mimes), 45,3 (a mother to her children), The remaining

non-«& apostrophes are to objects, in the dedicatory 42 and 43, and likewise in 47 (to a skull, presumably a parody of a dedicatory epigram). In his dedicatory poems Crinagoras is imitating Leonidas, who occasionally uses this vocativeopening; cf. 6.334=3 HE, an epigram Crinagoras is in fact echoing. See on Crin. 43, intr. note. Moreover, in 17 and 37 we have apostrophes with and without ὦ to the same object or closely related ones (Ὀξεῖαι and ὦ χθών in the former

poem, ὦ ἐλεεινή, referring to Corinth and Κόρινθε in the latter) which show a

random usage in these poems. The @-vocatives ὦ ἄλλιστ᾽ Ἀίδη (19,3), ὦ δύστην᾽ ὄλβοιο Φιλόστρατε (20,1), &...unries (30,5f.), ποιμὴν ὦ μάκαρ (44,1), ἄχρι τεῦ, A δείλαιε... θυμέ (48,1, anyway a Homeric expression; see ad loc.), ὦ πίβουλς

(50,2) are indeed used in contexts of familiarity and closeness to the addressee, are said in a teasing spirit (in the third and last cases), or in a tone of excitement and impatience (first and fifth cases; although in the first case the address is to

a god, the tone is excited and emotional).** The frequency of apostrophes in Crinagoras’ poetry serves to increase the feeling of emotional attachment of the poet to the events he presents.° The poet also often personifies inanimate objects. Cf. the speaking oil-flask, roses, books of poems, island (5, 6, 9, 31), the parts of the landscape imagined as being able to act like humans (17 ἠρνήσαντο.... νῆσοι... κληθείητε καὶ bupes, KTA., 25 ἄγχουροι μεγάλαι κόσμου χθόνες.... ἐκοινώσασθε, KTA., 26 οὔρεα [Πυρηναῖα καὶ at βαθυαγκέες Ἄλπεις... μάρτυρες ἀκτίνων, κτλ., 28 ἥλιος... εἶδε, 37 οἵους ἀνθ᾽ οἵων

οἰκήτορας, ὦ ἐλεεινή, / εὕραο.... Κόρινθε) and other cases of personification (33 ῥιγηλὴ ... ἔνοσι χθονός... ῥύευ, 43 σπήλυγγες Νυμφῶν, Πανός τ᾽ ἠχήεσσα Karun... ἱλήκοιτε). This habit also emphasizes the poet’s emotional tone.

SYNTACTICAL

VARIATION

Crinagoras occasionally uses the form of syntactical variation, which is often rendered with the Latin term inconcinnitas by critics. Cf. Pfeijffer 51: Inconcinnitas is the use of unlike syntactical constructions to express ideas which are parallel 6 Even in Homer there is no absolute rule. Cf. J. A. Scott’s conclusion (1904) 81: ‘In Homer and

Hesiod it was found impossible to form any rules for the use of the interjection with the vocative, except negative ones. In Early Epic the interjection was not used in passages of worship, dignity, or elevation. In familiar scenes its use was not obligatory, but only permissive’ Callimachus can also adopt the Homeric usage in certain passages, without this meaning that he generally conforms with this practice; see Mineur on Call. H. 4.1. °° For exclamatio as an emotive figure, see Lausberg 358f., $ 809. °° See Lausberg 369f., $ 826ff. Lausberg (§ 826) remarks that ‘Fictio personae is the introduction of non-personal things as persons capable of speech and other forms of personified behavior... Fictio personae is a most emotive figure, produced through the exaggeration of mental creativity.

with respect to their contents. For examples in Pindar, who, by means of incon-

cinnitas, tries to elaborate his style and also to imitate spontaneousness,”” see Pfeijffer 51f. Syntactical variation does occur in Philip’s epigrammatists, albeit

not particularly frequently; the technique appears mostly in Antipater.°* In Crinagoras we have: 20,3f. ἢ ἐπὶ Νείλῳ / «ἢ &v”Iov>daloıs ὧν περίοπτος ὅροις (if Nordens supplement is correct; different prepositions connected and express-

ing slightly differentiated senses of placing, ‘on; 'within’), 23,3 γευσάμενος... ἐπεί τ᾽ ἐφράσσατο, 29,1f. κἢν μυχὸν Ὀρκυναῖον ἢ ἐς πύματον Σολόεντα / ἔλθῃ καὶ Διβυκῶν κράσπεδον Ἑσπερίδων, 35,5f. κὴν ζωοῖσιν... κεὐτ᾽ἂν ἵκηαι ] ἐς πλεόνων

(temporal participles connected with temporal clauses). A slight asymmetry occurs in 3,3f. ed μὲν ἐυσχίστοισι διάγλυπτον κεράεσσιν, / εὖ δὲ ταχυνομένην

evpoov εἰς σελίδα, where the counter-balancing adjectives διάγλυπτον and εὔροον are further defined by a dative and a prepositional group. Comparable is 11,3f. ἀείδει δ᾽ Ἑκάλης τε φιλοξείνοιο καλιήν / και Θησεῖ Μαραθὼν ods ἐπέθηκε πόνους, where the objects of ἀείδει (καλιήν and πόνους) are differently qualified, with an adjective in the first case and a relative clause in the second. Cf. also 17,7 ὦ χθὼν σηματόεσσα καὶ ἡ παρὰ Ovi θάλασσα (adjective-prepositional group).

In 31 we have more than one example of syntactical variation: the qualifications of the island are all asymmetrical in the sense that they are adjectives (or a participle, in the first sentence) variously further defined (τίκτουσαν ἐπ᾿ αὔλακα πῖαρ ἀρότρου... καὶ παντὸς κάρπιμον ἀκροδρύου, καὶ... εὔαγρον ὑπ᾽ ἰχθύσι Kal ὑπὸ Maipn εὐάνεμον λιμένων τ᾽ ἤπιον ἀτρεμίῃ). In the phrase εὔαγρον ὑπ᾽ ἰχθύσι

καὶ ὑπὸ Μαίρῃ / εὐάνεμον, the two constructions with ὑπό + gen. convey different senses (cause, place): here we have parallel constructions which express unlike ideas. The definition of syntactical inconcinnitas should comprehend both possibilities (parallel constructions expressing dissimilar ideas, as well as different constructions expressing parallel ideas, the latter recognized in Pfeijffer’s definition, mentioned above).

“7. According to ancient grammarians, the figure aims at the imitation of the natural style and lends vivacity to speech, being in fact a characteristic of the αὐστηρὰ ἁρμονία. ** Cf. Antip. Thess. 7.136=55,1f. ody ὅτι rotov/ ἄξιος ἀλλ' ἐχθρῶν χεροὶν éxavedpeba, 7,286=14,2E. κεῖσαι δὴ ξείνῃ γυμνὸς em ἠιόνι ἢ σύ ye πρὸς πέτρῃσι, 7.692=107,4f. οὔτ᾽ ἐν Ἰταλοῖς / οὔθ᾽ ᾿Ελλάδι.... οὔτ᾽ ἐν Ἀσίδι, 9.82Ξ15,}. μήτ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ἀγκύρης....}.... μὴήδ᾽ εἴ τοι πείσματα χέρσος ἔχοι, 11,31=37,1-3 οὗ μοι Πληιάδων φοβερὴ δύσις οὐδὲ θαλάσσης 1... κῦμα..., / οὐδ᾽ ὅταν ἀστράπτῃ

μέγας οὐρανός, Parm. AP 11.65=13,1f. ἀργαλέον μέν / πεινῆν, καὶ κοίτη δ' ἔστ᾽ ἀδυνηροτέρα (ἔστ᾽ ὀδυνηροτέρα being Reiskes emendation of P's εἰ τὸ δυν-), Philod. 5.25=3,1f. εἴτε κατ᾽ ἦμαρ / εἴτ᾽... ἑσπέριος, Quintus 6.230=1,5 GP θῆκε γέρας λιτὸν μέν, ἐπ᾿ εὐσεβίῃ δ' Later: e.g, Agath. AP

5.289,3f. θέλγεται οὔτ' ἐπὶ χρυσῷ οὔτε ζωροτέρῳ μείζονι κισσυβίῳ. A relatively cammon instance of syntactical variatio is the conjunction of imperative with hortatory subjunctive: cf., for instance, Diosc. AP 7.162=28,1 HE μη καῖε, Φιλώνυμε, μηδὲ μιήνῃςν Philod. 10.103=24,1 μήτ᾽ ἔμβλεπε μήτε

παρέλθῃς, Marc. Arg. 7.403=32,5f. GP μήτε σὺ βάλλε

μήτ᾽ ἄλλον πείσῃς.

ENJAMBMENTS Enjambment in which the noun is separated from its adjective or participle (or

demonstrative pronoun)” occurs quite frequently in Crinagoras, often between first and second line: 3,5f., 6,1f. and 3f., 9,1f., 13,5f., 18,1f., 19,1f., 20,1£., 25,1£., 32,3f., 41,5f., 44,5f., 45,1f., 48,5f.; with noun/predicate 14,5f., 16,3f., 18,3f. With

name/apposition: 21,1f. Especially, but not exclusively, in epigrams listing objects, like the dedicatory 42 and 43, or qualities/features, like 41, we have

enjambment between a noun and the genitive depending from it, almost always (except for 41,7f.) the genitive preceding its noun of dependence: 4,5f. δαιτός / δῶρον; 28,1f. Νέρωνος / ἔργα; 38,1f. Ἀράξεω / ὕδωρ; 41,1. φωτὸς ἀλιτροῦ ὀστέα,

3f. ὀδόντων / πρίονα, 7f. ἐπὶ τέφρης ἀνδρός; 42,1f. ῥοιῆς θρύμματα, 3f. μελισσῶν / ἀμβροσίη; 43,51. ἀρκεύθοιο / πρέμνα; 47,1f. κέλυφος / ὄμματος, 3f. θανάτοιο / λείψανον; 51,11. τέχνης / ἰδμοσύνην. As is typical for epigrams, the enjambment occurs between hexameter and pentameter, rather than the opposite. Thus the

division of the word group enhances the effect of fluency and continuity of meaning (particularly in epigrams that involve a list of objects or features, the

impression of the presence of great numbers and the similarity between the terms described are underlined even more). At the same time, the coherence of

each couplet remains undisturbed, Occasionally the enjambment may have a more specific effect: see on 6,1 ἐνὲ μέσῳ / χείματι, 12,4 πρηείας, 15,2 καὶ νέκυν,

and 32 and 45, intr. notes. More frequently, as is to be expected, we have enjambment between a verbal

form and its subject or supplement (object, predicate, infinitive as object, prepositional or other attribute), again always between hexameter and pentameter: 8,3f., 12,3f., 15,1. and 3f., 16,1f., 19,3f., 22,3f., 23,5f., 27,5f., 32,1f. and 5f., 34,1f., 35,1. and 5f., 36,3f. and 5f., 43,1f., 44,1f., 45,3f. and 5f., 49,1f., 50,4f., 51,3f. and 5f.

Such enjambments are an inherited feature ofepigram and they occur early on, in archaic and classical inscriptional epigrams.”°

A distinct case of enjambment that breaks the convention by which enjambment is avoided between pentameter and hexameter, is the single word that completes the meaning of the previous couplet and is followed by full stop or semicolon in 1, 5 of two Crinagorean epigrams, 44 and 45. These words are ἅλμῃ at 44,5 and ὄψεσθαι at 45,5. Ending a sentence at this point is very rare in epigrams. This kind of enjambment in Homer is described as necessary and ‘pro-

saic’ by Parry.’* However, through these enjambments Crinagoras may be in fact emphasizing a crucial notion that the isolated words convey in each epigram. At © Adjective/noun enjambments are rare in Homer except with πᾶς, πολύς, ἄλλος: see McLennan 50 and Appendix 1.

7° See, for instance, J. W. Day, Archaic Greek Epigram and Dedication: Representation and Reperformance (Cambridge 2010), 95 with n. 47.

7) M. Parry, ‘Enjambement in Homeric Verse; in The Making of Homeric Verse (Oxford 1971), 263ff.

a.

--

44,5 the sea is introduced into the picture with the noun ἅλμῃ, which actually reveals for the first time the cause of the sailor’s death; at 45,5 ὄψεσθαι stresses the tragic quality of the mother who witnesses her son’s death. The pause after

these words in both cases underscores the abruptness and finality of death.

STRUCTURE

Typical of Crinagoras’ poetry is the delay of the verb in the main opening sentence, which often comes in the third line. This stimulates the reader’s curiosity, builds up tension and emphasizes the importance of the action presented in it. Cf, for instance, 10, 13, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 40, 46, 47, 48, 51. The

presumably oral premiere of (some of) the epigrams (see above, Life and Work) renders this delay more effective.”* The poet is also very careful in how he constructs the epigram, distributing the information in it smoothly and harmoniously. The epigram may open with a gnome (for which see on 22 and 30, intr. notes) or, more generally, with a statement which is explained, justified, exemplified, or merely developed in the sequel, usually occupying the first couplet (cf. 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 28, 30, 37). In other cases, this order is reversed and the last

couplet (or, more rarely, the last line) resumes and forms the peak and the culmination of, or the conclusion derived from, the situation presented in the poem (cf. 6, 13, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 38, 41, 46, 47). Poems ending with moralizing conclusions/gnomae are also 12, 50, 51. The epigram is often symmetrically constructed, dividing the material into two, three, or four neat couplets, each of which offers a new piece of information, or encircling the central couplet, which

conveys the main information, with an opening-introductory and a closingconcluding couplet. Cf. I, 2, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 22, 28, 32, 35. The descriptive epigrams in which each line adds new features to the object of description are to be seen in this context, 3, 4, 31, 38, 41, 47.” See also on 5, 15, and 43, intr. notes. Occasionally there is a strikingly cyclic treatment, as the end of the poem echoes its beginning: 6 εἴαρος... ῥόδα — ἠρινὸν ἠέλιον, 13 Τυρσηνῆς . σάλπιγγος - κώδων / χάλκεος, 18 ἤχλυσεν -- κνέφεϊ, 23 αἶγα -- Αἰγιόχου, 33 ῥιγηλὴ . . ἔνοσι χθονός γαίης ἐλελιζομένης, 36 τρισσαΐ... Τύχαι -- κείνου... τύχη, 41 δύσβωλον.... χθόνα χθὼν ὦ δυσνύμφευτε, 45 παΐδων ἀλλαχθέντι μόρῳ... ἠμείφθησαν | δαίμονες. 13

and 34 are constructed on a ring composition scheme; see ad locc., intr. notes.’* ™ ‘that is, if we ignore the dedicatory 42 and 43, as the delay of ἀνεθήκατο, dvexpéuacev, and the like is typical in this kind of poem, cf., for instance, Leon. 42, 48, 52, 55, 82 HE, Philip 17, 18, 19, 21,22 G-P GP, al.

75 Poems, needless to say, can display the structure of more than one ‘category’ simultaneously. A detailed analysis of the style and structure of the distich epigram is the work of M. Lausberg, Das Einzeldistichan (Munich 1982).

”* For ring composition/chiasm in Marcus Argentarius, see Small 90f.

PLEONASMS Pleonastic expressions occur occasionally in Crinagoras. We have 3,6 ἀρτιδαεῖ... εὐμαθίῃ, 13,1f. κελάδημα dtarpboror.../... στρηνές, 21,6 ἀρηϊφάτων.... νεκύων, 30,2 λασίαις ἀμφίκομοι κεφαλαῖς, 38,6 βηλή ... μαστοῦ οὐθατίου, 42,4 ἰτρίνεαι ποπάδες, 44,5 ἔδυν ὑποβένθιος. For pleonasms in Hellenistic poetry, cf,

Call. H. 1.35f. πρεσβυτάτῃ ! πρωτίστῃ γενεῇ, 65 atovros ... ἀκουήν, 68 μέγ᾽ ὑπείροχον with McLennan ad locc.

BREVITY For brevity as a typical feature of epigrams, see Parmenion AP 9.342=11 GP with

Gow-Page ad loc., intr. note.”” On top of this general rule, Crinagoras tends to offer the least possible information on his theme, thus cutting the poem down to the absolutely necessary. The assumption that the situations treated in his poems

were known to his audience justifies the avoidance of tedious and superfluous information which would weaken the epigram’s poignancy. The omission of information is a recurrent feature in Crinagoras’ poetry, since this is typically inspired by real events, known to the epigrams’ first readers; such partial omission of information is rarer in other epigrammatists of Philips Garland, who alsa write poetry about specific occasions and incidents, although it does some-

times occur.” Omitting information further underlines the exclusivity that characterized the first audience and also suggests the extempore character of some of the epigrams. The specific circumstances and the identification of per-

sons mentioned in the poems would have been of no importance to Jater audi-

ences.”” Thus, 6 does not name the lady to whom the roses are offered, 25 does not mention the royal couple who are about to get married, 26 does not clarify which Celtic victory of Germanicus the poem is referring to, 27 does not mention the occasion of the suffering of Rome, 28 does not give us any clue as to ‘Neros’ victory over the Rhine and the Araxes, 31 does not mention the name of the island with the amusing name, 38 refers to the Armenian sheep as if the audience knows of it already; see ad loc. on |. 1 τῆς ὄιος. For the accomplishment of the athlete of 13, see ad loc., on |. 3, Δημόσθενες. Sometimes, however, the epigram becomes difficult to understand, due to the lack of further information. Of special interest is Photius’ remark on the possible explanation of an epigram by Crinagoras (Test. 4) which shows that the poet’s point in the now lost epigram ΤΣ See further Gutzwiller (1998) 3f. with n. 9, 117f.

75 C£, for instance, Antip. Thess. AP 9.92=2, where the poet offers thanks to a patron he does not name and Parmenion 5.34=2 GP, on Zeus and Danae, mentioned with respect to an occasion left unexplained.

”” T owe this point to Prof. Chris Carey.

was difficult to grasp without a specific mythological knowledge. Cf. 30, on the (unexplained) manner in which Alpine bandits deceive the dogs. These observations on language and style make clear the poet’s care in regard

to both the structure of the epigram and the choice of vocabulary. Crinagoras takes much greater liberties in matters of metre and especially in regard to

hiatus, as will be shown below.

Metre Crinagoras’ epigrams are written in the traditional elegiac distich, except 40 and 50, which are written in iambics. Also, the central couplet of 7 is iambic; see on 7, intr. note and 3f. Metrical features of the elegiac distich will be elaborated below.

GENERAL Correption Correption’® at the end of the dactyl occurs normally at the first dactyl of the hexameter and pentameter (4,1, 14,3 and 4, 15,3, 16,6, 32,2, 34,2, 36,4, 42,6, 48,1, 51,4), or before the bucolic diaeresis in the hexameter and the equivalent position of the pentameter (2,4, 6,3, 7,5, 9,2, 12,3, 20,2, 29,6, 31,5, 32,1, 35,3, 37,3, 38,1, 2, and 6, 39,3, 41,5, 42,2 and 3, 43,6, 49,2). However, Crinagoras allows

correption in other positions, where it is uncommon or normally avoided: a) at the feminine caesura in the hexameter (4,1 ἀγκυλοχείλου, 6,5 στεφθῆναι, 17,1 ἄλλαι, 19,1 Εὐάνδρου, 42,1 οἰνοπέπαντοι and 3 δάκνεσθαι, 51,7 τοῖοι).

b) between the short syllables of the first dactyl of the hexameter or pentameter (9,1 ἠοῖ, 12,1 Ἥρη, 16,6 κεῖται, 38,6 θηλή). c) between the short syllables of the fifth dactyl of the hexameter (11,5 ein, 22,3 ἤδη).

d) other positions: between the two shorts of the first dactyl of the second half of the pentameter (4,4 κέντρῳ, 25,2 τέμνει, 32,4 ἄξει, 37,4 ψάμμου, 39,2 γράψαι); at the end of the fifth dactyl of the hexameter (12,3 fAaox). Usually the syllables shortened with epic correption in the Garland are -μαι, -€at, -σαι, -raı of verbs, and -o1, -aı of nouns, adjectives, participles. Crinagoras allows all kinds of endings, -n, -7, -&, -eı, τοι, του, τω, -w.”” 78. Not taking into account the correptions of kai, μοι, τοι, που, etc, See Gow-Page GP 1 xxxix, B with n. 4.

”° See Gow-Page GP 1 xl, b), c).

Short vowels before mute + liquid or nasal consonants These combinations normally

a) cause the lengthening of the preceding short vowel within a word or a

word group“ and b) leave it short when the vowel is the final vowel of a word (for this ten-

dency and for exceptions in later epigrams, see Gow-Page GP 1 xxxviiixxxix, Maas § 124, West 1987, 81). Exceptions to a) in Crinagoras are 8,4 πᾶτρός, 18,1 ἀκρέσπερος, 28,1 μέτρα, 47,6 ri πλέον; exceptions to b) 11,6 MapxeAAg, κλεινοῦ, 29,3 dud κλέος, 39,2 ἔττ

πλέοσιν, 41,6 ἔτι χλωρῆς. With lengthening of a particle, also 38,5 νηδὺς δὲ

τριτοκεῖ; cf. also 21,1 ueyä κλέος, which can be probably seen as an ‘extension of the word group principle: Cf. the analogous examples mentioned by Gow-Page, GP 1 xxxix, with n. 2.

Movable nu

Crinagoras allows nu to lengthen a syllable by position twice before the caesura of the pentameter. See below, on Pentameter, The syllable before the caesura. In other positions: 25,5 παισίν, 27,6 ἑστᾶσιν, 51,7 θνητοῖσιν.

Hiatus

Crinagoras is remarkably indifferent to hiatus, offering as many examples as all the other contributors in the Garland of Philip. Excluding hiatus in correption and before the pronoun oi, the remaining cases in Crinagoras are®' 6,3, 14,2 and 5, 15,5, 18,1 (bis), 19,3, 20,3, 22,1 (bis), 27,5, 29,5, 30,6, 31,5, 34,1 and 3, 35,1, 37,1,

38,5, 45,1, 46,5, 48,1 and 4. As far as 22,1 un εἴπῃς and 48,1 ἐπὶ ἐλπίσι are concerned, their inclusion among the cases of hiatus depends on whether we recognize the influence of digamma or not. Crinagoras’ tolerance of hiatus, however, coupled with the rarity of cases in which the authors of the Garland use the digamma to avoid hiatus, led Gow and Page to assume that the poet *° Word groups usually consist of article + noun or adjective, preposition + noun or adjective,

expressions like τί πλέον.See Gow-Page GP 1 xxxviii-ix, A. In Crinagoras for instance 2,2 6 θρασύς, 6,5 ἐπὶ κροτάφοισι, 9,4 τὸ πρῶτον, 13,3 ὁ πρίν, 40,1 ἀπὸ πλακός, 43,2 κατὰ mpedvos. δάκρυον is one of the words which are ‘proner than others to exceptional treatment’ (ibid.); cf. 47,4 (a), 50,4 (iambic, &).

*! Cf. Gow-Page GP 1 xl-xli. Crin, 31,8 tr@ ἐπεωρίσθηντ included by Gow-Page in their list of passages with hiatus in Crinagoras should probably be ignored, as the text is corrupt and uncertain,

disregards the digamma (GP 1 xli). However, the possibility that Crinagoras might have taken account of the digamma, at least in 48,1 cannot be discounted; see ad loc., on κεναῖς ἐπὶ ἐλπίσι. Hiatus at the diaeresis of the pentameter is avoided (and in all probability 16,2 does not constitute an exception, since the

codices’ αἰσθόμενοι or αἰθόμενοι does not seem sound; see ad loc.). If we read μεγάλη at 37,2 we would then have hiatus at the diaeresis of the pentameter; see ad loc.

HEXAMETER Caesuras

The figures for the caesuras are 87:57 for the third trochee caesura, that is 87/144 or 60.41% third-trochee (feminine) caesuras, as against 57/144 or 39.58% pen-

themimeral (masculine) caesuras. This is in accordance with the general Hellenistic preference for the feminine over the masculine caesura. Closest to Crinagoras in percentage is Meleager, with 61% feminine caesuras.*”

The syllable before the masculine caesura Normally this is long by nature. Exceptions in Crinagoras are: 4,3 μίμνον | μεταδόρπιον, 6,1 ἤνθει μὲν] τὸ πρίν, 22,1 θάνατον | βιότου, 27,1 Ὠκεανὸς | πᾶσαν, 3 ὀσσὸν | βλάψει, 28,1 δύσιες | κόσμου, 41,1 δύσβωλὸν | θλίβει, out of 57 hexam-

eters with a masculine caesura, that is at ἃ rate of 12.2%, a little higher than the average rate of this feature in the authors of the Garland of Philip (10.3%). It is interesting to note that as time passes poets tend to avoid lengthening by position at this point, since the rate in HE is 17%, in Philodemus 8.5%, in Philip

2.5%; see further Sider 43.

Bucolic diaeresis

63.19% (91/144) of Crinagoras’ hexameters display the bucolic diaeresis. Cf. 88.6% in Callimachus’ epigrams, 63.5% in Leonidas, 57.7% in Meleager, 72% in Philodemus. See further West (1982) 154, Van Raalte 165, Sider 42. Lines with a masculine caesura and without a bucolic diaeresis are 17,5, 19,3, 20,5, 27,1, 29,5, *? Callimachus in his epigrams displays a rate of 78% for feminine caesuras, while Leonidas displays a rate of 56%, and Philodemus, in contrast to the general Hellenistic tendency, only 48%. For figures of the caesuras in the Hellenistic poets, see further West (1982) 153, Sider 42.

38,3 (also a violation of Meyer’s Third Law; see below) and 7; in these I include also 21,3, 28,3, and 36,5.°*

Trisyllabic proparoxytones at hexameter-end These (including names of persons and places) in Crinagoras display a rate of 13.8% (20/144), identical to that of Philip (14%) and a little higher than the random standard of Meleager, Philodemus, and Palladas, (13%). See Page

(1978) 28, Sider 42.

Spondees Crinagoras is quite free with spondees. 117 out of 144 hexameters (81.25%) have spondees in either (or both) of the first two feet.”° There is a tendency to avoid spondees after the second foot in elegiac hexameters: 60/144 (41.6%) have spondees after the second foot, the same as in Philodemus (see Sider 43). Out of Crinagoras’ hexameters, 5.5% (or 8 out of 144) have a spondee in the fifth foot,

i.e. are spondeiazontes.°° Among these σάλπιγγος at 13,1 is the only occurrence

of a trisyllabic last word, while the last word of a spondeiazon otherwise consists of either four or six syllables; see G-P GP 1 xliv, L. Also of interest is the frequency of series of spondees in Crinagoras. The longest series are three successive feet; 12 is notable, for here series of triple spondees occur in two successive hexameters: in 1.1 we have spondees at the second, third, and fourth feet,

and in |. 3 at the first, second, and third feet. For the effect, see ad loc. on 1.1. The

first three feet are also spondaic in 13,5, 15,1, 27,3, 37,1. Two successive spondaic feet occur in the first and second feet in 30 out of 144 hexameter lines of

*? 12,1 is to be ignored, see below, Meyers Third Law, with note. Together with Crinagoras, Parmenion, Philodemus, and Philip are not strict in following the tendency of a masculine caesura followed by bucolic diaeresis. See Gow-Page GP 1 xliii F, Sider 42. Hexameters with a masculine caesura and without a bucolic diaeresis possess a secondary caesura after the fourth princeps, that is, after the seventh element (hephthemimeral caesura: see Maas § 93). This happens in all cases mentioned here, as well as in the instances of a dubious and probably non-existent bucolic diaeresis, discussed in next note. ** As παρά, ὑπό, and ἐπί are prepositions, hence prepositives, and cannot be taken as separated from their case (παρὰ χεύμασι Νείλου, ὑπὸ χερσὶ δαμεῖσαν, ἐπὶ μεῖζον ἀέξξοι respectively). See below, Elision (in the Hexameter), with note.

** As against 84.48% in Callimachus’ epigrams, 67.72% in Leonidas, 67.75% in Meleager. See further Van Raalte 152 and 163.

** As against 0% in Callimachus’ epigrams, 2.91% in Leonidas, 0.38% in Meleager, see Van Raalte 163; spondeiazontes are rare in the Garland of Philip as well, the majority being found, apart from Crinagoras, in Antipater, Bianor, and Zonas, see Gow-Page GP 1 xliv.

Crinagoras (20.83%),°” and in the second and third feet 18/144 (12.5%).°® If we exempt the remarkable line 12,1 just discussed, 27,1 is a unique example, in which the two successive spondees are found in the third and fourth feet.

Hermanns Bridge Crinagoras respects this, ie. he does not allow a word to end between the short syllables of the fourth foot. 14,1 τί | δὲ δεύτατον einw,and 3 καὶ | ἐς εἴδεος ὥρην, 19,3

τί] πρόωρον ἐφιείς, 30,1 καὶ | in’ AAmas

ἄκρας, 36,3 τί] γὰρ ἀνδρὶ τοσῷδε do not

count as violations of the Bridge, as τί and καί are prospective monosyllables.°”

Wernicke’s Law

In Crinagoras’ work, there are no occurrences of a word with a final syllable lengthened by position when it ends at the contracted biceps of the fourth foot. This is known as Wernicke's Law. The second biceps follows this tendency but

less strictly (West 1982, 37; cf. Gow-Page GP 1 xliv, H, I).”°

Meyer’s Laws Meyer’s First Law (against word ending x -~| or x - ~~ | in the second foot) is only twice ignored, in two successive hexameters of the same epigram: 17, 1 ἠρνή]σαντο! καὶ ἄλλαι and 3 KAnbei|nre καὶ ὕμμες.5" 57. 6,5, 12,3, 13,5, 15,1 and 5, 18,1 and 5, 20,1, 22,5, 27,3, 31,1,3, and 5, 32,3, 33,1, 34,3, 35,1, 37,1, 38,3, 39,1, 41,7, 42,3, 43,1,3, and 7, 44,3, 45,1 and 5, 51,1 and 7. 88. 6,1, 12,1 and 3, 13,5, 15,1 and 3, 17,5, 25,5, 26,3, 27,3, 30,5, 31,7, 36,1,3, and 5, 37,1, 41,1 and 5.

89. See Gow- Page GP 1 xliii-xliv, G; also West (1982) 155. ° 8,1 λυρικῶν ἐν | τεύχεϊ (fourth biceps) and 13,3 φθεγξαμένης ὁ | πρίν (second biceps) do not

count as violations because prepositions and articles are prepositives; cf. West (1982) 37 with n. 15. For the expression τὸ πρίν, τό taken together with the following word in epic, see ibid. 26. In general, even with a natural long final syllable, word ending at the contracted biceps is rare anywhere else but the first foot (ibid. 37). In the fourth foot it is prohibited by Naeke's Law (ibid. 154-5,

Magnelli 76 with n. 73). In Crinagoras’ work we have 45,5 ὄψεσθαι. νῦν δ᾽] of μέν (second biceps), but this is mitigated by the elision. In this and other positions we have prepositives or postpositives which do not count: 3,1 (ἀργύρεόι σοι. natural long at second biceps), 6,1 (Fue | uer, natural long at second biceps, and μὲν τὸ | πρίν, long by position at third biceps), 18,5 (yap καὶ κάλλος, natural long at second biceps), 20,5 (καμάτους τοὺς | σούς, natural long at third biceps), 31,1 (τὴν ei | κἀμέ, natural long at second biceps), 51,7 (θνητοῖσιν δ᾽ ef τοῖοι, natural long at second biceps). ” Bor the Law, see Meyer 980. Hellenistic poets very rarely break the law. Callimachus does so twice, Nicander three times: see West (1982) 38 and 155 with n. 51. See also Fantuzzi (2002) 84-7,

with reference to the New Posidippus, and Magnelli 74, with reference to Euphorion. Avoidance of ending at x - "| (of a word beginning in the first foot) has been more specifically defined as Meyers First Law, and avoidance of ending at x - ~~] (of a word beginning in the first foot) has been defined as Giseke's Law. Word ending after the second monosyllabic biceps (- - |) is avoided according to Hilberg’s Law, It is avoided even more when the word begins in the first foot, in

Crinagoras twice breaks Meyer’s Second Law (which forbids a word of the shape — to stand before the penthemimeral caesura), at 39,5 πέριξ | δρυτόμοι and at 44,5 ἔδυν | ὑποβένθιος. Antipater and Philip break the law more fre-

quently; cf. Gow-Page GP Ὶ xliv, K.*? According to Meyer’s Third Law, word ending after the third and simultaneously the fifth princeps of the hexameter is avoided.”” There is only one exception in Crinagoras,”* 38,3 χαῖται δ᾽ οὐ μήλοις ἅτε που μαλακοῖς ἔπι μαλλοί.

Fifth-foot breaks There is a tendency

in Hellenistic poets and particularly in Callimachus,

Apollonius, and Theocritus not to allow a word ending in the fifth princeps (espe-

cially avoided is the placing of words shaped |- -| or | "“-|, so that they end in the fifth princeps: cf. Maas $ 97, West 1982, 155). Crinagoras is not particularly rigid in avoiding this. Cf. 29,1 πύματον and 38,3 μαλακοῖς (also a violation of Meyers Third

Law).”° For longer words, cf. 2,3 Kadnpeins, 3,3 διάγλυπτον, 10,1 ἀνερχόμενος, 13,1 διαπρύσιον, 34,3 διωκομένῳ, 41,7 κακοσκηνεῦς, 47,3 ἀτυμβεύτου, 48,3 διαγράψεις.

Elision Elision at the caesura is avoided. Exceptions are 12,3 νεύσαιτ᾽ ] Ἀντωνίῃ, 19,3

ἄλλιστ᾽ [ Aidn (masculine caesura). Elision is also avoided between the short

syllables of the fifth foot; exception: 21,5 ὡς ἴδ᾽ ὑπ᾽] ἐχθροῖς." which case the Law is defined as the Giseke-Hilberg Law; see Fantuzzi (2002) 84-5 with n. 19,

Magnelli 74-5. Violation of the ‘simple’ Hilberg’s Law in Crinagoras occurs is 3,1 ἀργύρεόν oot |. 52 For the Law, see Meyer 980, West (1982) 155.

53 For the Law, see Meyer 980, West (1982) 197. » 12,1 Ἥρη Ἐληθυιῶν μήτηρ, Ἥρη δὲ τελείη does not count, because δέ is a postpositive. Analogous cases are: 6,1, 13,3, 15,1 and 3, 21,1, 23,5, 26,3, 28,1, 30,5, 32,1, 37,1, 38,5, 43,1, 46,5. For the

appositives, especially monosyllabic, that are not separated from the words they belong with by metrical boundaries, cf. West (1982) 26, (1987) 9.

955. Plutarch (Mor. 747f) calls such verses κακόμετροι, citing an epigram with masculine caesura which has a word of the shape | "-| (βασιλεῖς) ending at the fifth princeps of the hexameter, which thus breaks Meyer’s Third Law, too. 12,1 Ἥρη δὲ and 5 μήτηρ 6’and 47,1 ἐρημαῖόν re do not count because δέ and re are postpositives (cf. prev. note). As for monosyllable words ending in the fifth princeps, 3,1 és τεὸν ἦμαρ, 11,1 δὴ yap ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, 13,3 ἐν δυσὶ νίκαις and 5 ot ποτε κώδων, 14,5 ἦν yap ἅπαντα, 15,1 γῆ με καλύπτει and 3 ἐκ δέ με μητρός, 17,3 οὐ νέμεσίς τοι, 20,1 ποῦ σοι ἐκεῖνα and 3 ἢ

ἐπὶ Νείλῳ, 21,1 ἢ Κυνέγειρον and 5 ὡς 18’ ὑπ’ ἐχθροῖς, 23,5 ᾧ γὰρ ἐπέσχον, 25,1 ἃς διὰ Νεῖλος, 26,3 ἃς ἀνέτειλεν, 28,1 καὶ τὰ Νέρωνος, 30,5 & κακὸν εὑρεῖν, 31,5 καὶ ὑπὸ Μαίρῃ, 32,1 ἐς γὰρ ἑταίρους, 37,1 ὦ ἐλεεινή, 38,5 ἐκ δὲ γάλακτος, 42,3 ἥ τε μελισσῶν, 43,1 af τόσσον ὕδωρ, 46,5 τίς κ᾽ ἐνὲ νηίdo not

count as γάρ, δέ, με, σοί, are postpositives, ἐς, ἐν, ἐκ, αἱ, ds, οὐ, ἢ, ὡς, ὦ, Kal are prospective monosyllables, % τε, οὔ ποτε, ἐκ δέ με, ᾧ γάρ, ἐς γάρ, τίς x’ ἐνί combine both restrictions. For fifth-foot word breaks in the Garland of Philip, not uncommon in Philodemus and Philip, apart from Crinagoras, see further Gow- Page GP 1 xliv, J, Sider 43. °° Not included by Gow-Page in their list of exceptions (GP 1 xliii, 1, iv), although the elided word (ἰδ is not a preposition or a δέ, με, oe, etc. which they ignore. Such cases in Crinagoras are

itrOduction

PENTAMETER

Accented pentameter ends With the passing of time there is a tendency to avoid accented pentameter ends, so that figures range from 17% in Callimachus’ epigrams to as low as 1.5% in

Antipater of Sidon, 3% in Antipater of Thessalonica, and 1% in Philip. With 7.6% (11 out of 144 pentameters) Crinagoras constitutes an exception to the

authors of Philip’s Garland, though the most striking one is that of Philodemus (13%). See further Page (1978) 30, West (1982) 159, 162, Sider 43-4.”

The syllable before the caesura Lengthening by position in the syllable before the diaeresis of the pentameter is increasingly avoided as time passes. Theognis, for instance, displays a rate of 15.5%, Callimachus in the epigrams 13%, Antipater of Sidon 5.8%, Leonidas and Meleager 9.5%, Apollonides, Bianor, and Philip 0%. Crinagoras, with

14/144 or 9.7% is among the few Philippan authors who seem indifferent to the tendency.”® Particularly rare is the lengthening by means of the paragogic nu, 13,6 ἤχησεν, 23,4 νηυσίν.

Elision

This is avoided before the diaeresis of the pentameter. An exception in Crinagoras’ work is 34,4 mpyei’| ἀσπασίῳ (if this reading is correct). One or two

9,5 τῶνδ᾽ ἀπ᾿ ἰούλων, 26,5 εἶπε 8 'Ee|vud, 34,3 διωκομένῳ ὑπ᾽ ἀϊήτῃ, 48,5 ταῦτα Ö’aluvöpe. After the second short syllable of the fifth foot we have also an elided preposition, 11,1 δὴ pap ἐπ᾽] αὐτῷ. I have not counted 30,1 ὑπ᾿ λπιας ἄκρας as an instance of elision before the bucolic diaeresis as Gow-Page do (GP | xlii), because prepositions are prepositives (cf. West 1982, 25-6) and as such they belong with their case. Thus 1 do not take lines such as this one and others (for instance 1,1 ἐπὶ δεξιὰ ῥίψῃς or 14,3 ἐς εἴδεος ὥρην, 17,7 καὶ ἡ παρὰ θινὶ θάλασσα) as having a bucolic diaeresis. There are more occasions of elision after the long syllable of the fifth foot, although most of them are appositives that do not count: 3,5 ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ | θυμοῦ, 6,1 νῦν δ᾽ ἐνὶ μέσῳ, 9,5 τῶνδ᾽ ἀπ᾿ [Ϊ[ούλων, 12,5 μήτηρ 8 éxulpy re, 30,3 ὧδ᾽ ἀλέϊονται, 32,3 ὅς μ᾽ ἐπὶ | νήσους, 35,3 adp’ἂν ἐκείνας and 5 weds’ ἂν ἵκηαι, 45,1 τοῦτ᾽ ἐλε]εινή, 46,5 τίς κ᾽ ἐνὶ νηί, ” Accented pentameter ends are 9,6, 10,4, 16,6, 30,2 and 6, 35,2 and 4, 37,6, 41,2, 45,6, 51,4. In 12,2, ] accept P's reading πάτερ, instead of the πατήρ (which would make an accented pentameter end) which many editors adopt. Including 12,2, the Instances are 12 in 144 lines, which is 8.3% (as

West, 1982, 159, also estimates); if 12,2 is not included, the percentage is 7.6%.

*® For the rule, figures, and further discussion, see Maas § 22, Gow-Page GP 1 xli, Ὁ with n. 3, Page (1978) 30f., Sider 44. The instances in Crinagoras are 3,2, 13,6, 14,2, 18,2 and 4, 21,8, 22,4, 23,4, 31,4, 43,6, 44,2, 45,6, 47,4 and 6.

Metre

29

exceptions are also found in other authors of the Garland.”” Gow-Page further

observe that in the second half of the pentameter elision becomes rarer the further the line advances. In Crinagoras we have the following: after the long of the first dactyl, we of the first dactyl, Garland. After the 19,4, 22,4, 25,2 and

have six (23,6, 31,8, 33,4, 43,8, 44,2, 46,4); after the first short we have two (7,6 and 20,6) out of the twenty-six in the second short of the first dactyl, we have eight (10,2, 16,6, 17,8, 6, 51,6) out of the thirteen of the Garland. After the long of

the second dactyl we have two or three, depending on whether 24 is accepted as Crinagorean or not ((24,6), 27,6, 41,8) out of the ten in the Garland.'” These

figures, especially the frequency of the elision after the second short of the first dactyl, show that Crinagoras does not make any particular effort to avoid elision in advanced positions of the second half of the pentameter, which stands in contrast to the efforts he makes to avoid elision between the two halves of the pentameter, where his care is comparable to that of the other poets.

Homoeoteleuton and agreement between pentameter ends Along with his licence in the handling of hiatus, the pentameter technique is also very characteristic of this poet's style. Crinagoras has an exceptionally high rate of 49/144, or 34% homoeoteleuton between the two halves of the pentameter. Closest to him, in terms of Hellenistic epigram, is Nicias with 33%, while the average is 15-16%. Philodemus’ rate of 22% is also considered high; see further Sider 44."°' Crinagoras is also very fond of grammatical agreement between the pentameter ends (noun + adjective/participle/pronoun, regardless of which

comes first and regardless of the rhyme, which anyway occurs for most of the parts that agree), with a rate of 62/144, or 43%, higher than other poets (Anyte has 38.5%, Mnasalcas 36.8%, Callimachus in the Aetia and Hymn 5 an average of 37.5%, while in the epigrams only 16.1%). Other epigrammatists like Asclepiades and Leonidas display lower rates, 14.7% and 22.6% respectively; see Slings 37.'°* Philodemus has 31.6% (see Sider 44); Crinagoras’ rate demonstrates his

personal taste for such phrasings and does not reflect any general epigrammatic

δ Gow-Page GP 1 xliii, 2 i, West (1982) 158. Elisions of δέ, με, σε re, are disregarded in this position. Such cases are not uncommon in Crinagoras: 2,2 ἐκ μολπῆς δ᾽ ὁ θρασύς, 11,6 κλεινοῦ 7’ | αἶνον, 22,4 νεκρὸς δῚ ἦλθεν, 27,6 φύλλων δ᾽ ada, 28,4 δούλοις | ἔθνεσι, 31,6 λιμένων τ᾿] ἥπιον, 32,4

ἀρχαίην τ᾽] ἄξειν, 35,2 χερσαίας τ᾽] οὐκ, 42,4 πυκναί τ᾽] ἰτρίνεαι, 43,4 λιθηλογέες θ᾽] Ἑρμέω, 45,6 ἄψευαστον δ᾽] ἵκετο, 47,2 ἀγλώσσου θ᾽] ἁρμονίη.

*°° For the figures in the Garland, see Gow-Page GP 1 xliii, 2 ii. ‘92 For homoeoteleuton in general, see Lausberg 323f., § 725-8. The pentameter homoeoteleuta in Crinagoras occur at 3,2, 5,2, 6,2 and 4, 7,2, 8,2, 10,2, 11,6, 12,6, 13,2 and 4, 14,6, 16,2 and 6, 17,8, 20,4 and 6, 21,2, 4, 6, and 8, 22,2, 25,2, 27,2, 28,2, 29,2 and 6, 30,2, 32,4 and 6, 33,4, 35,4, 37,6, 38,2, 4, 6, and 8, 41,2 and 8, 43,4, 6, and 8, 44,2, 46,2 and 4, 48,2, 49,2, 51,4 and 6.

*° SR. Slings, ‘Hermesianax and the Tattoo Elegy, ZPE 98 (1993), 29-35.

tendency in this direction. Cf. Argentarius’ 19.2%, Antiphilus’ 14.5%, Bianor’s 16.4%.

Other Irregularities Placement of a monosyllabic enclitic before the masculine caesura occurs in 6,1 μὲν | τὸ πρίν, 23,5 αὐτίκα mov | καί. Before the diaeresis of the pentameter, 14,2 ἐν παντί.

IAMBIC

Apart from Crinagoras, other poets of the Garland of Philip whose iambic epigrams survive are, inter alios, Apollonides, Antipater, Philip; see further GowPage GP | xxxviii. We have two iambic epigrams of Crinagoras, 40 (seven lines) and 50 (eight lines). The figures for the caesuras are 9:6 for the penthemimeral caesura, that is 9/15 or 60% penthemimeral and 6/15 or 40% hephthemimeral caesuras. Elision of nouns, adjectives, and verbs is rare in Lycophron, the principal iambic Hellenistic text (see West 1982, 159). In Crinagoras we have

in 50,3.'° A. Ὁ, Knox noticed that the form - U - | x -|

λεείν᾽

U-is avoided at the second half

of the iambic trimeter or tetrameter, and, discussing various exceptions, remarked that in Crin. 50,7 ἐστί σοι γέλως ἄχη ‘there is really no break.’ For Crin. 7, probably an epigram of mixed metre, see ad loc., intr. note.

Note

In the commentary I use the terms ‘thesis’ and ‘arsis’ not in the traditional sense, but rather in their literal sense, i.e. thesis=the long, first syllable of the

In

other Philippan authors we have δαίδαλ᾽ (Apollonides AP 9.264=18,3 GP), κύματ᾽

(Isidorus 7.293=3,2 GP), ἀπισχ᾽ (Heracleides 7.281=1,1 GP), κὐμβαλ᾽ (Philip 6.94=14,2 GP).

δὲ “Herodes and Callimachus, Philologus $1 (1926), 250f. Knox justified similar instances with the assumption that the actual metrical scheme in these cases would be - U - x - | U-, since small words coalesce (A. D. Knox, "Ihe Early lambus, Philalogus 87 (1932), 23f). In his later article,

Knox explained Crinagoras’ passage through its similarity with Semon. 7,79 [EG οὐδέ of γέλως μέλει (ibid. 29). Another example of the Garland of Philip that Knox cited (1926, 251, 1932, 29) is Philip AP 7.394=26,5 GP ὡς ἔχοι μ’ αἰεὶ βαρύν. An earlier formation of this rule (against a| x - | Uending, such as δοῦναι δίκην) was made by U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Griechische Verskunst (Berlin 1921), 289, See also West (1982) 42, with n. 37.

foot, and arsis=the second element (brevia, if the foot is a dactyl, and second long, if it is a spondee).

Manuscript Tradition CODEX

PALATINUS

GRAECUS

23 (P)

Preserved in the Palatine Library at Heidelberg, the Codex is a manuscript collection of Greek epigrams, usually called the Anthologia Palatina (AP) or Anthologia Graeca. It was compiled in Constantinople, probably during the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (944-59). After travelling at least to

London and Louvain during the sixteenth century, it was acquired by Sylburg probably around 1580,"°° before being famously ‘discovered’ by Saumaise in 1606. AP is based on the Anthology of Constantinus Cephalas, compiled early in the tenth century, and is the work of several scribes. Crinagoras’ epigrams occur in the parts written by J, A, and B. A later scribe, C, revised the text, making various corrections at the same time.'”°

The epigrams of Crinagoras transmitted by this manuscript alone (being absent from Pl) are: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 25, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 49.

APOGRAPHA

OF P

Apographon Vossianum. Voss. Leidensis gr. O 8 (Ap. V.) The traditional view is that Apographon Vossianum perhaps descends from an apograph by Sylburg (1536-96), who made his copy directly from the Palatine Codex in Heidelberg, and that it was owned by Gerhard (1577-1649) and Isaac

Vossius (1618-89). Accordingly, it was dated to 1593-6. It contains notes in two hands, of which the older was usually attributed to D. Heinsius and the more recent to Saumaise. It has been also suggested that the notes may have been written by G. Voss or I. Voss, or by E. Spanheim (see Aubreton 1980, 5-15, Floridi 41, Guichard 92). This view, which rests on information given by Vossius friend, Paul Colomiés (see Hutton 1946, 253f.), was recently challenged by D. Van Miert, who argued that the original Vossianus, from which Ap. V. probably *°5 See Cameron 1993, 185-97. For the argument that dates the composition of the Anthology to between 944 and 959, see Cameron (1993, 115-16). See further on Crin. 22, intr. note.

*°S For a detailed discussion of the scribes and their possible exemplars, see Cameron (1993) 99-116.

descends, was actually a copy that Isaac Vossius made of the manuscript which Saumaise had produced, based on the Palatine before this was taken to Rome

in 1623; Van Miert suggests that Vossius, who had already seen the manuscript of Saumaise in 1638, copied it in 1648 in Leiden, when Saumaise lent it to him.'® Both this theory of authorship and of dating and the traditional theory

(Sylburg, 1593-6) explain the similarity of Ap. V. to the Codex Gaulmini and to part of Philaras’ codex, which will be discussed below, on Parisin. Coisl. 352. The evidence offered by the watermark of Ap. V. remains ambiguous.'°® Other information, regarding the mistakes in Saumaise’s copy as noted by Nicholas Heinsius, is, again, not adequate to allow one either to accept or reject the view that it is identical with the Vossianus.'” Ap. V. displays occasional similarities with Supp. Gr. 557-Ap. B.; see below, on Apographon Buherianum. It is believed that the Vossianus disappeared when the library of the University of Leiden purchased the library of Vossius (who lived in England after 1670), after his death in 1689. See Hutton (1946) 254. Hutton asserted that the Vossianus

was copied by many scholars, mainly from the Netherlands and England, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; see Hutton (1946) 9 with n. 25, 254.

Ap. V. contains fourteen of Crinagoras’ epigrams in the following order: 40, 18, 44, 45, 25, 7 (first two lines), 37, 29, 2, 30, 39, 31, 32, 33. See also below, on

Apographon Buherianum.

Apographon Buherianum. Gottingensis Phil. 3 (Ap. B.) and Parisinus Supp. Gr. 557 Ap. B. is the manuscript used by Brunck for the edition of his Analecta. It was copied from Parisinus Supp. Gr. 557 (seventeenth to eighteenth century) by 19” See further Van Miert 16 and 21f. with n. 25. '8 "The eagle in an escutcheon of the type described by Aubretan (1980, 7) is found in Heidelberg and elsewhere between 1593 and 1600 (C. M. Briquet, Les filigranes, 4 vols. (Genéve 1907) nn. 222-7),

as Aubreton had observed. At Heawood n. 1275 (‘Dutch c. 1650’) there is a watermark resembling Briquet n. 224 fairly closely, which may mean that the Vossianus was produced later and in Leiden, on

the grounds that similar watermarks were to be found in the mid-seventeenth-century Netherlands. 19 "Ihe commentary of the scholiast on AP 15.27 (the Egg) is reported (by Nicholas Heinsius: see Hutton 1946, 259) to have been dramatically changed by Saumaise in his transcription. Van Miert (22, n. 25) suggests that it was the Vossianus, reflecting Saumaise's transcription, that Heinsius had seen, which led him to formulate this opinion. Alternately, Heinsius saw the copy of Saumaise at the court of Christina in Sweden (see below, on Coisl. 352). In fact, the commentary on this poem in Ap. V., repeated in Coisl. 352, appears also in Supp. Gr. 557- Ap. B. In any case, this part of Supp. Gr. 557 recalls Ap. V., as Aubreton has observed (1981, 20f. See below, on Apographon Buherianum). It is interesting that on the third page of Supp. Gr. 557 (Aubreton 1981, 18) we are warned that the manuscript contains some of the grave errors of Saumaise. ‘The commentary of AP 15.27 is more or less the commentary of the Palatine codex. However, the order of the comments has been disturbed. Would these changes have been great enough to give rise to the statement by Heinsius, so that we might infer that Ap. V. and Supp. Gr. 557 reflect the transcription by Saumaise rather than that by Sylburg?

J. G. Schneider in 1772, at the request of Brunck. Parisinus Supp. Gr. 557 was perhaps created by Bernard de La Monnoye (1641-1728) and in 1704 it must have been in the possession of Jean Bouhier (1673-1746). Some of its conjectures may

belong to Saumaise and Guyet, and others to Schneider and Brunck. See Hutton (1946) 523-5, Aubreton (1981) 12, 18-28, Sider 52, Guichard 91, Sens (2011) ciii.

As regards Crinagoras’ poems, Ap. B. contains twenty-six epigrams in the following order: 14, 8, 3, 4, 42, 9, 12, 43, 5, 6, 13, 40, 18, 44, 45, 25, 7, 37, 29, 2, 38, 30, 39, 31, 32, 33. Some mistakes of Supp. Gr. 557 (not in P) are repeated in Ap.

B.;!2° some others appear corrected in Ap. B.''' For 42,4 ποκάδες, both in Ap. B. and in Supp. Gr. 557, see ad loc. Aubreton (1981, 21f.) observed that in certain parts, Supp. Gr. 557 bears simi-

larities to the work of Sylburg, ‘as if the author were inspired by Ap. V! As far as Crinagoras’ poems are concerned, this view is justified by the presence of όπου and ἀλυπίας in 30,1, εὐανέμου, aprepin, and ἀλλ᾽ ἀγελᾶσθαι in 31,6 and 7, and Ade in 32,5, readings appearing also in Ap. V.; also, by δεΐμη in 33,3 (the reading

of Ap. V. looking like deiun), and in ἐλιξομένης in 33,4, which appears as ἐλελιξομένης in Ap. V. On the third page of Supp. Gr. 557 it is stated that prodigi-

osos errores, quos in Anthologiä describenda commisit (Salmasius) aliquando videbis, ubi redierimus, ego et Longermanus (followed by the statement that

Nicholas Heinsius is addressing Isaac Vossius); see Aubreton 1981, 18. If Van

Miert is right in assuming that Ap. V. reflects the transcription of Saumaise, rather than that of Syiburg (see above, on Apographon Vossianum), then these mistakes are probably to be attributed to Saumaise. For Parisin. Supp. Gr. 557, see also below, on Apographon Guietianum and on Parisin. Supp. Gr. 886, In the commentary, Supp. Gr. 557 and Ap. B. will not be

distinguished from each other and only Ap. B. will be mentioned, unless there is a difference between their readings (see on Crin. 3,6 σύμπνοον).

Parisin. Coislin. 352

Parisin. Coislin. 352 is dated to the seventeenth century and contains a collection of epigrams from the Anthology (see Aubreton (1981, 45), the order of which is particularly interesting and will be discussed below. On the first page the manuscript reads Epigrammata Graeca et variis auctoribus collecta manu Leonardi Philaras vulgo Villeret Atheniensis qui alios huius bibliothecae codices descripsit (the words qui...descripsit are erased). The note continues an vero 110 In Crinagoras: 5,4 γειθομένῃ, 30,1 ὀπου (P has ὁπου) and ἀλυπίας, 31,5 εὔαργον, 6 εὐανέμου and dprepin, 7 Φαικηίδος, and 8 ἀλλ᾽ ἀγελᾶσθαι, 32,5 λάβε, 33,2 τὸν ἀσσομένων, 33,3 δεΐμη, 42,3 ἀμύγδαλαι, 43,2 σχολιοῦ.

+1) 5,3 ἦμαρ in Supp. Gr. 557, ἦμαρ in Ap. B., 7,5 Avrov- in Supp. Gr. 557, Avrwy- in Ap, B., 12,4 μαλαχαῖς in Supp. Gr. 557, μαλακαῖς in Ap. B., 40,1 λυγδινῆς in Supp. Gr. 557, Auyöivns in Ap. B.;

likewise in the lemma. In 6,1 Supp. Gr. 557 has the correct évi, while Ap. B. reads ἔνι.

211 4214} Ὁ 19}

Epigrammata illa sint anecdota ut dicitur supra sedulo disquirendum est. Foll. 126-32 contain epigrams and other poems composed by the Athenian scholar Leonard Philaras (1595-1673), who was educated in Rome and sent to Paris in

1640 by the Duke of Parma. The manuscript is sometimes called the Codex of Philaras. On f. 133r there is the note, in margine, ἰζύριλλος ἱεροδιάκονος 6 Xtos (in a different hand from the rest of the codex). Cyril was a friend of Philaras

and author of the work ϑυχωφελὲς Zaparräpı, published in Paris in 1643. In

1644, he published an ode to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, which, together with other poems, Philaras had left with Cyril when he left

Paris, recalled by the Duke of Parma.''? Philaras later returned to Paris, remaining there until his death. This ode, written in Pindaric style, appears on ff. 129v-3lv of the present apograph. The marginal note KupiAdos, κτλ. seems

to refer to Cyril as the author of at least one of the epigrams in honour of Philaras which close the manuscript, placed after those composed by Philaras

himself.'** A copy of Coisl. 352 is DOrville Bod]. MS 236 (see Hutton 1946, 189, n. 10).

The apograph contains twenty-six epigrams of Crinagoras, exactly the same and in the same order as Ap. B. (and Parisin. Supp. Gr. 557), except for the fact that the sequence 18, 44, 45 appears as 44, 18, 45 in Coisl. 352. There are mistakes common to this manuscript and to Parisin. Supp. Gr. 557 (and Ap. B.), absent from P. As regards Crinagoras epigrams, these are evapyov in 31,5, τὸν ἀσσομένων

in 33,2, ποκάδες in 42,4, and most (though not all) of those mentioned above, in Apographon Buherianum, which display a certain proximity to Ap. V.: ἀλυπίας in 30,1 (ἀλύπιας in Coisl., ἀλυπίας D’Orville Bodl. MS 236), εὐανέμου, ἀρτεμίη, and ἀλλ᾽ ἀγελᾶσθαι in 31,6 and 7 (however, in the latter instance ἀλλὰ γελᾶσθαι

D’Orville Bodl. MS 236), λάβε in 32,5, deen and ἐλιξομένης in 33,3 and 4; however, this is not a general rule and there are occasional proximities sometimes between this codex and Supp. Gr. 243/Ap. G., sometimes, indeed more often, between this codex and Ap. B. (when Ap. B. is different than Ap. G.),''* sometimes with "12. “This Conception tAcadémie la Rochette μέσων τοῦ *? On

ode was included in the Recueil de pieces lues dans les séances publiques de I'Immiaculeé of 1781. See Chardon de la Rochette 2.305 and A. G. Ballin, Notice historique de des Palinads (Rouen 1834), 23. An early account of Philaras’ biography is Chardon de 2.302-8. See also Hf. IT. Bourtepidy, Taropia τῆς Νεοελληνικῆς Aoyotexvias ἀπὸ τῶν TE αἰῶνας μέχρι τοῦ 1800 (Athens 1924), 354-64. fol. 132r starts a sequence of epigrams composed for Philaras, headed eis τὰν

χρησιμώτατον καὶ ἐλλογιμώτατον κύριον κύριον Acovdpday τὸν Φιλαρᾶν τὸν ἀθηναῖον διαφόρων

ἐπιγράμματα. At the end of fol. 132ν Philaras’ name is anagrammatized (εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν ἀνάγραμμα. AEONAPAOL GIAAPAL. EAAAZA ZOBOE ALPE) and 133r contains two epigrams, in one of which this anagram is incorporated. The asterisk at ils end refers to the marginal note Κύριλλος, «TA, so that it is logical to assume that this Cyril was the author of both the anagram of Philaras’ name and the epigram that is constructed around it. The epigram runs: Movady ἐνδυκέως ἐπιήρανος ar AKONAPAE αἰὲν ἀριατεύεις ἔργμασι θεσπεσίοις / τοὔνεκεν ἡμετέρην ZOPOE AIPEIE EAAAAA πᾶσαν, / κοσμηθεὶς ἀρετῶν κάλλεσι καὶ χαρίτων, Chardon de la Rochette (2.317, 325) had already noticed that Cyril was the author of the anagram and the epigram. τς For instance, at Coisl. 3r (Simon, AP 13.11,2) we have οὗ ῥόδιον τὸ γένος ἦν, καὶ πρὶν φυγεῖν τὴν πατρίδα, similarly to Supp. Gr. 886 and Ap. B. and in contrast to the other apographs that

none. Unique readings are probably mistakes by Philaras.*’* However, it is notable that some readings, normally different than those of the other French apographs appearing usually as a note in these,’** can be related to another ultimate source, and mainly to the still unidentified codex Gaulmini, the manuscript belonging to the scholar Gilbert Gaulmin (1585-1665). Information

about this codex is found in the French apographs’ notes. Of particular note is the fact that these readings and probably other features as well are common to Coisl. 352 and Ap. V.

retain P’s reading οὐ ῥόδιος γένος ἦν, val πρὶν φυγεῖν τε πατρίδα, in Coisl. 3r (Hegesippus, 13.12,8) we have κροσσῶ (κροσσῷ in all French apographs, P’s κρωσσῶ in Ap. V.), and in Coisl. 3v (Simon! 13.14,2) we have ἱππόκοτον (similarly to all French apographs, ἱππόβοτον in Ap. V., 8 written similarly to « in P). The combination of similarities can vary: in Coisl. 4r the second couplet of ‘Simon. 13.19 is not missing, in similar fashion to Ap. V., Supp. Gr. 886, and Ap. B., and in contrast to Supp. Gr. 243 and Ap. G.; the second line of the couplet, which is missing in the two other apographs (added in marg. with different readings), reads in Coisl. ἑξήκοντ᾽ ἀμφορεῖς, similarly to Supp. Gr. 886 and Ap. B., and in contrast to P’s and Ap. Vis reading, ἑξήκοντα ἀμφιφορεῖς. In Coisl. 4v κ᾽ Ἀφροδίτῃ, similarly to Ap. V., Supp. Gr. 886, and Ap. B., while (‘Simon? 13.20,3) we have ἀνέθη Supp. Gr. 243 and Ap. G. read συνέθηκε Ἀφροδίτῃ, ἀνέθηκ᾽ being a correction over συνέθηκε in

Supp. Gr. 243 and Ap. G. In contrast to Ap. V., Supp. Gr. 886, and Ap. B., in Coisl. 5r the last line of Call. 13.24 is missing, as it is missing also in Supp. Gr. 243 and Ap. G. (where, however, itis added in marg.). Atl. 4 we read ἡ μαστοὺς ἐφίλασε, while in Ap. V., Supp. Gr. 243, and Ap. G. we have ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἐφίλησε, and in Supp. Gr. 886 and Ap. B. ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἐφίλασε. It is noteworthy that Philaras as early as the mid seventeenth century reads (if indeed he is the first to make the correction), in his codex, ἡ μαστούς for P’s ἡμᾶς τούς, although this correction (7 μαστούς) is usually attributed to Anna Fabri (who also conjectured ἐφύλασσε, 7 μαστοὺς ἐφύλασσε) by editors, including Pfeiffer and Gow-Page. Brunck (Analecta 3.109) attributed it to the much later J. Toup. Fabri

(Callimachi Cyrenaei Hymni, Epigrammata et Fragmenta, Paris 1675, 233) and Toup (Curae Posteriores, London 1772, 41) seem indeed to have made the correction independently. Anna Fabri had seen Supp. Gr. 243, as is stated on p. 139: jamjam Typographi manus occupabat noster

Callimachus, cum Vir illustris Ρ D. Huetius mihi manuscriptum Codicem tradidit, ubi Epigrammata quaedam nondum in lucem edita continebantur. The correction appears in Supp. Gr. 886, Supp. Gr. 243, Ap. G., and Ap. B. in margine. 113 For instance, Coisl. 3r (Hegesippus, 13.12,2) reads νεμωμένης (nveuwuevns P, ἠνεμομένης Supp. Gr. 243 and Ap. G., ἠνεμωμένης Ap. B. and Ap. V.); in Coisl, 3v, the fourth line of ‘Simon! 13.14 is missing (in contrast to all other apographs and, of course, to P). The same mistakes are repeated in Bodl. D’Orville MS 236, D’Orville, however, made more spelling mistakes during the

copying: for instance, at Crin. 5,2 he reads ὄπλην, at 32,1 he reads ἐντήνεται and at 40,2 he reads ordypy and at 1.5 ζωφόδης.

1° For instance, at Coisl. 3v (Parmenon 13.18,2) we have the κεντροπαγῆ of Supp. Gr. 886 iii (κεντροραγῆ Ap. G. and Ap. B., κεντροφαγῇ corrected with a p over ¢ in Supp. Gr. 243, in all three κεντροπαγῆ in marg., κεντροῤῥαγῆ Ap. V., which is also P’s reading): kevrporay is attributed to

Saumaise by old editors (Brunck, Jacobs). At Coisl. 4r, Parmenon 13.18,3) we have Ψύλλη λευρὸν ἔθευσε (appearing in marg. in Supp. Gr. 886 iii, Supp. Gr. 243, Ap. G. and Ap. B.), the French apographs’ and Ap. V’s reading (identical to P) being Ψίλλη λευρὸν ἔθυσε. Two lines further down (Parmenon 13.18,5) all apographs read P’s Φώκριτε and καὶ ὑλαΐδαι, whilst Coisl. reads Φώκρητε and καὶ ὑλάτα (the French apographs having the explanation of ὑλάται in marg.). At Coisl. Ar (Simon! 13.19,11) this apograph reads Φλιουντείῳ, whilst all other apographs read P’s Φλιοῦντι, Φλιουντείῳ appearing in all except for Ap. V. as a marginal note. At 13.20,1 Coisl. reads ὄλπις (ams Ap. V., which is P’s reading, Ams in all French apographs). Ὄλπις appears in marg. of all French apographs but Supp. Gr. 886, without any attribution to any source.

36

Introduction

Ap. V. and Coisl. 352 are mostly identical in particular details,’'’ and are fairly close to each other as regards readings in Book 12. Most of the readings

attributed to Codex Gaulmini in the notes of other apographs appear in Philaras, and, even more accurately, in Ap. V.'’* Some differences do, however, occur.’ As regards structure, Coisl. 352 is constructed as follows: ff. 2-6v contain epi-

grams from Book 13 of the Palatine Anthology, 6v-22 amatory epigrams, 22-43v dedicatory epigrams, 43v-67 funerary epigrams, 67-78 demonstrative epigrams; 80-111 contain Strato's Muse (Book 12), 111-14v another section of

amatory epigrams, 114v-16v epigrams from Book 11, followed by a selection

from Books 9, 14, and 6.'7° The sequence of ff. 2-78 (epigrams from Book 13, first amatory selection, dedicatory, funerary, demonstrative) coincides with the corresponding part of Parisin. Supp. Gr. 557.’”* At f. 1Ur of Coisl. 352, the sequence of Stratos Muse is followed abruptly and without any title by Lucian

6.17, which is followed by a second sequence of erotic epigrams’”? (the first one, which occupies ff. 6v-22 of Coisl. 352, is, as we have seen, similar to the “7 For instance, 12.172 and 173 are united in both manuscripts. See further the analysis of this part of Ap. V. by Aubreton (1980, 7 with n. 6). "® Book 12 (it is principally in this book that the French apographs refer to the Codex

Gaulmini). For example, at 12.74 both Ap. V. and Coisl. read κακειοτέρα, at 12.20 the name is read in both as Ἰουλίου, at 12.26,1 they read ἀφήσας, at 12.31,1 they read σκύφος, at 12.46,2 they read ἔρωτες, at 12.53,6 they read παιζοπόρον, at 12.51,1 they read εἶπε, at 12.54.3 they read ἐὸν (eör Ap. V,), at 12.58,2 and 3 they read δινήσας and τόσσον δ᾽ at 12.69,2 they read AdéavSpoy, at 12.81,5 they read εἰ γάρ, in 12.105 they read dvi συμφέρομαι, at 12.129,4 they read λειπόμεθα, at 12.173,5 ἕτοιμα. All these readings (for more see next note) are attributed to C. Gaul, in margine of Supp. Gr. 886 iii and/or Supp. Gr. 557-Ap. B. (some also in Ap. G., here occasionally without any attribution), and are not accepted in the text in these apagraphs. Several attributions to the Codex Gaulmini (including most of those mentioned here and in next note) in the French apographs are listed by Aubreton (1981, 16, n. 1). For references to Codex Gaulmini in Ap. G. specifically, see Aubreton

1981, 33. An interesting case is Laurea's 12.24, which appears at Coisl. 352 with χαρτόστομος in |. 1 and a lacuna in line 2, while Ap. V. reads yapros ojos and has the same lacuna. In a similar fashion, in the second appearance of the epigram in Supp. Gr. 557-Ap. B., these apographs read χαρτός dyeos with something resembling a τ superscript between the two words. On the other hand, in the ‘normal’ sequence of the other apographs (and Supp. Gr. 557’s first appearence of Stratos Muse), we have yapros ἐμός and the second line is complete. In this first sequence there is the marginal note In C. Gaul. καρτάρυμος. 1% For instance, there is a lacuna at Meleager 12.132,2 in Coisl. 96v (ἐξῷ, read in Ap. V., is missing). Instances where Ap. V. is closer to Codex Gaulmini than Coisl. 352: at 12.30,1 only Ap. V. reads καὶ ἡ (ren Coisl.); at 12.36,2 only Ap. V. reads xpoos (yvoos Caisl.); at 12.77,3 only Ap. V. reads Pid ἄγλον (φίλ᾽ ἄλγον Cod. Gaulm., according to Supp. Gr. 557- Ap. B., φιλάγλαον Coisl.); at 12.154,2

only Ap. V, reads χάρη ἐστιν exw μὴ οὐχι (χαρίεις tv’ ἔχω μὴ οὐχε Coisl.); at 12.171,3 only Ap, V. reads τινὰς (τείνας Coisl.). In the same line, Supp. Gr. 557 further reports ‘Tarini ὀλίγον, which is also the reading of Ap. V;; at 12.175,8 only Ap. V. reads μοῦνον (βουνὸν Coisl.; for this note in Supp. Gr. 886 iii and 557, see Aubreton 1981, 19). Occasionally (but less frequently) Coisl. 352 is closer to Codex Gaulmini than Ap. V. At 12.53,5 it reads καλὴ νῆσος (xaAn woes Ap. V.). Also, Coisl. alone reads at 13.20,4 Βρύζωνος (Ap. V. reads, together with all the other apographs, P’s Βρύσωνος, Βρύξωνος attributed to Cod, Gaulin. in Supp. Gr. 557-Ap. B. in marg.).

120 See Aubreton (1981) 44f. 21 For the contents of Supp. Gr. 557, see Aubreton (1981) 19-21.

122 "Auf. ΠῚ se termine le livre XI]; or, sans séparation ou titre, on retrouve, aprés VI, 17, une sélection du livre V’ (Aubreton 1981, 45).

Manuscript Tradition

37

amatory epigrams of the other French apographs, Supp. Gr. 557-Ap. B. and Supp. Gr. 243-Ap. G.).

Interestingly, Lucian 6.17 is found among the erotic epigrams in Supp. Gr. 886 iii (p. 89) and Supp. Gr. 557- Ap. B. (not in Ap. G.), accompanied by the note stat hoc Epigr. primum τῶν ἐρωτικῶν in Cod. Galmini in 886 iii (Cod. Galm!

also in Supp. Gr. 557-Ap. B.). Furthermore, the order Stratos Muse, Lucian 6.17, Amatory Epigrams, and the consequent selection from Books 1] and 9 of the Palatine (this selection with a few alterations) is common to Ap. V. and Coisl. 352; this is an indication that both Coisl. 352 and “Codex Galmini’ share (at least) this structural pattern with Ap. V. Significantly, in this particular instance, among others in certain marginal notes, the apographs’ marginal notes have

Galmini or Galm., rather than Gaulm. The reading Galmini (and its abbreviation) js perhaps to be explained by the occurrence of the form Gaumin (which would have been Latinized as Galminus), in parallel to Gaulmin.'?” Now, both Ap. V. and Coisl. 352 contain the complete Book 12 of the Palatine (epigrams 1-258), unlike other apographs (although Supp. Gr. 557, which opens with the French

apographs’ standard selection from Book 12, contains a part of the same book, in its Palatine order, at its end).'?* The second erotic sequence in Coisl. 352

(ff. 111-14v), which follows Strato’s epigrams, is, again, very similar, although not completely identical, to the first section of amatoria of Ap. V. (pp. 76-85), con-

taining 24 out of the 120 amatoria not found in Planudes.'”” If we look at the differences between this amatory section of Ap. V. and Philaras’ second amatory section and also at the differences between the first and the second Philaras’ amatory section, we reach an interesting conclusion: the first amatory section in Coisl. 352 is almost identical to the standard amatory sequence in the French apographs,’”° as stated above, and the second one is almost identical to this amatory sequence of Ap. V. The second sequence in Coisl. 352 contains the

epigrams missing from the first, as Aubreton observed,’ but this is not all: the epigrams missing from the first section of Philaras and contained in the second are actually the epigrams contained in the first amatory section of Ap. V. Apart from 6.17, four other epigrams of this section of Ap. V are omitted in the second amatory section of Coisl. 352 (5.199, 5.243, 5.255, and 5.271) and are found in 123 Cf. for instance, the reference to ‘Gilbert Gaumin’ in H. de Coste, La vie du R. P Marin Mersenne (Paris 1649), 74, and the article ‘Gilbert Gaumin’ in E. Titon du Tillet, Le Parnasse Francois (Paris 1732), 289-90, together with the usual form (for instance, ‘Gilbertus Gaulmyn’ as the editor of De vita et morte Moses, Paris 1629).

124 For the sequence of Book 12 in the French apographs, see Aubreton (1981) 15f. with ἢ. 6. The Palatine order of a part of Book 12 also appears in the end of Supp. Gr. 557 (pp. 257-323 of Supp. Gr. 557, ‘une edition critique des épigrammes 1 4 99 du livre XII’: Aubreton 1981, 24). 125 For the first erotic section of Ap. V., see Aubreton 1980, 7 with n. 7 (who describes the fact

that Lucian 6.17 is followed by twenty-four amatory epigrams as ‘un certain désordre’), and for Coisl. 352, see Aubreton 1981, 45, n. 1.

126 For which see Aubreton (1981) 20, ἢ. 2 and (1980) 21, n. 4. 125. This observation (Aubreton 1981, 45) is mainly but not completely accurate, as a couple are repeated in both amatory sections of Coisl. 352 (AP 5.44, the first line of 5.54).

pirronncrror

the first section of this codex, in their ‘normal position, where they stand in the French apographs, too (the epigrams of the second section of amatoria in Ap. V., pp. 120-5, anyway make up a part of those appearing in Supp. Gr. 557-Ap. B.).'?8 It can be further observed that the structure of f. 11lv-18v of Coisl. 352 is

more similar to that of the corresponding part of Ap. V. than to that of Supp. Gr.

557, though both these share similarities.'”” From all the above it is obvious that a part of Coisl. 352 is closer to Supp. Gr. 557 and another to Ap. V., which probably displays affinities with the Codex Gaulmini. It is possible that the scribe of Coisl. 352/Philaras used a model close to Supp. Gr. 557 and, at the same time, also at least one model close to Ap. V. If Aubretons assumption that Supp. Gr. 557 is posterior to 886 is correct, and if

the scribe of Supp. Gr. 557 and 886 iii was de la Monnoye whose dates are later than those of Philaras (see below, Parisin. Supp. Gr. 886), then Philaras’ one model must have been a codex from which 886 derived; this assumption (against a direct modelling on 886) perhaps explains the occasional similarities of Coisl. 352 with Supp. Gr. 243, as well. If this assumption is correct, Philaras included two amatory groups from the two apographs, with the necessary adjustments, in his codex, and more generally, he combined the material of the two, hence the peculiarity of his manuscript, which Aubreton (1981, 21, n. 2, and

44) described as belonging to ‘another type’ of apographs.'*? The assumption that somehow the codex of Gaulmin might have influenced Supp. Gr. 557 might explain the occasional similarities between Ap. V. and Supp. Gr. 557, already noticed by Aubreton.'”' In any case, the assumption that the manuscript close to Ap. V. that Philaras used must have been the Codex Gaulmini becomes almost certain given the evidence about Philaras’ and Gaulmin’s acquaintance/friendship provided in the pair of epigrams composed by Philaras in honour of

Gaulmin on f. 127r of Coisl. 352.'”?” Consequently, it also seems that Codex Gaulminiisclose to Ap. V. and depends on (one of) the apograph(s) of Saumaise, if Ap. V. and the apograph of Saumaise were indeed close to one another. It is

noteworthy that, even though the French apographs attribute certain readings to the Codex Gaulmini, many are actually P’s readings: probably they do reflect work which was based on the Palatine Codex itself (see also above, Apographon Vossianum). At least one instance in Crinagoras points to the possibility that

Philaras might have used a manuscript reflecting the work of Saumaise "2° For the rest of Ap. V., see Aubreton (1980) 8 with ἢ. 1.

2° For Supp. Gr. 557, see the description of Aubreton (1981) 21, with n. 2. For Coisl. 352 Aubreton (1981) 45, with ἢ. 4, and for Ap. V., (1980) 7f.

#39 ‘The strange ordering of the epigrams in Philaras’ codex was already observed by Chardon de la Rochette (2.314); see also Hutton (1946) 189.

δ. See above, on Apographon Buherianum. Gottingensis Phil. 3 (Ap. B.) and Parisinus Supp. Gr. 557.

#2 Introduced by the heading τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐγκωμιαστικὸν eis τὸν ἐξ εὐγενῶν καὶ πλείστοις ἰδίων ἀρετῶν πρατερήμασιν εὐγενέστατον ᾿ ωλγμῖνον ἀναδήματος ἄξιον. For Gaulmin’s exceptional erudition and many intellectual qualifications, see Hamilton and Richard 44 with n. 110.

(although the poem in question does not appear in what we now have as Ap. V. and does not belong to the recognizable “Vossian’ sequence of Philaras, for which see above, at the end of the previous paragraph). It is the last poem before this sequence, as it belongs to Philaras section similar to the usual sequence of the French apographs: in Crin. 38,3, Coisl. 352 reads μήλων in textu, while all other apographs have P’s μήλοις in textu and μήλων, probably the correction of

Saumaise (who printed the poem with μήλων in Salmasius 1689b, 165) in margine. Cf. also the case of κεντροπαγῆ (see above, n. 116).

Saumaise, whose friendly relationship with I. Vossius is firmly attested for

1639, had already made copies of the Palatine in 1607 and in 1615, this time in Dijon.'”” Saumaise was indeed acquainted with Gaulmin to whom we know

that he sent at least one Palatine manuscript before 1625.'°* It is logical, there-

fore, to assume that, during, or shortly after the sojourn of the Palatine codex in Paris or in Dijon in the hands of Saumaise in 1615, Gaulmin must have produced his codex from Saumaise’s transcription. Later, between 1632 and 1650,

i.e. the period of his professorship at Leiden, Saumaise was in Paris and in Dijon

again in 1635-6 and in 1640, while Gaulmin was also an exile in Dijon until Richelieu’s death.'*° The similarities between Ap. V. and the Codex of Gaulmin can be explained either (a) in accord with the traditional theory of Sylburgian authorship of the Vossianus, by assuming that Vossius and Saumaise communicated to each other their manuscripts and ideas on readings, or (b) in contrast

to the traditional theory, by assuming that both the Apographon Vossianum and the Codex Gaulmini descend independently from (one of) the manuscript(s) of

Saumaise.'”‘ Thus, if the Codex Gaulmini was produced around 1615-20, Philaras must have met Gaulmin and consequently produced Coisl. 352 during his first stay in Paris, in the 1630s. Relevant to the discussion here is the point that both Gaulmin and Philaras were associated with Richelieu. Philaras, who

was introduced to the Duke of Parma by the cardinal, wrote an epigram in his honour preserved in Coisl. 352 (126v) and dedicated to him his theological

work Χριστιανικὴ Διδασκαλία, published in Paris in 1633.'”” Gaulmin was a counsellor of the cardinal and also dedicated to him his Epinicia Musarum,

133 See Aubreton (1980) 11.

4 For Gaulmin’s 1625 edition of Theodorus Prodromus, from a Palatine manuscript that Saumaise had copied, see M. Ph. Lebas, Fragments inedits de deux romans grecs (Paris 1841), 6 and M. Reeve, “The re-emergence of ancient novels in western Europe, in T. Whitmarsh (ed.), The

Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel (Cambridge 2008), 290. For an anecdote involving Saumaise, Gaulmin, and Jacques-Philippe de Maussac in Paris, reported by Vossius, see, for instance, W. Seward, Anecdotes of some distinguished persons, chiefly of the present and two preceding centuries, vol. 1 (Dublin 1796), 400.

155. ΒΚ Pintard, Le libertinage érudit dans la premiere moitié du XVHe siécle (Geneva 2000), 184. “°° For Van Miert's theory regarding the dependence of the Vossianus on Saumaise’s manuscript, see above, on Apographaon Vossianum.

7 See E. Legrand, Bibliographie Hellénique, ou description raisonnée des ouvrages publiés par des Grecs au dix-septieme siécle, vol. 1 (Paris 1894), 309-15,

published in 1634.'** Philaras was again in Paris between 1640 and 1644, and it seems that at least between 1654 and 1656 he was again in the city.'”” However, since 1642 is probably a terminus ante quem for the production of Philaras’ codex, as Richelieu died in this year (see Aubreton 1981, 45, n. 6),'"° Coisl. 352

can be more probably dated to c.1633 (rather than to 1640-2, a period in which Gaulmin, as we have seen, was expelled from Paris by Richelieu).

It should also be stressed that Isaac Vossius and Gaulmin also knew each other and shared an interest in manuscripts. Gaulmin sent Christina of Sweden a collection of codices in about 1651 through the mediation of Vossius, her librarian at the time.'*' Isaac Vossius probably took the Vossianus together with

the whole library of his father, and his own, with him there, in 1649.'"? Saumaise also arrived in Stockholm in 1650, bringing with him a copy of his early tran-

scription of the Palatine epigrams as a gift to the queen.'** Coisl. 352 reads uniquely γηθοσύνῃ at Crin. 5,4 and ἀστοί in 13,5, perhaps due to carelessness; in 40,6 this apograph alone retains P's -γωπ- (τ ὀλιγωπελές

in Coisl.). The apograph has no marginal notes.

Apographon Guietianum. Parisinus Gr. 2742 (Ap. G.) and related Apographs This is dated to c,1650 and is the archetype of Parisin. Supp. Gr. 45 (seventeenth century) and Parisin. Supp. Gr. 1168 (seventeenth to eighteenth century). It is also closely related to Parisin. Supp. Gr. 886 (see below), and Parisin. Supp. Gr. 557; see Aubreton (1981) 12f. It is usually maintained that Guyet (+1655) copied

Saumaise's excerpts from the Palatine codex and thus produced this manuscript. A note preceding the epigrams from Book 12 of the Anthology (p. 4 of the manuscript) reads: Fasciculum hunc epigrammatum ineditorum collegit et manu propria exaravit notisque illustravit Franciscus Guyetius, Andegavens. Aubreton (1981, 30f.) argued that the manuscript’s scribe was a copyist who worked for Guyet, rather than Guyet himself. The manuscript's notes and 158. See E Secret, ‘Gilbert Gaulmin et histoire comparée des religions, Revue de l'histoire des religions 177 (1970), 36 with n. 2.

9 See B. Knös, “O Acorapdos ὁ Φιλαρᾶς" in ᾿Βλληνικά, Παραρτ. 4, Προαφορὰ eis Στίλπωνα II. Kumaxtön» (Thessaloniki 1953), 345-57, 354f, Between 1652 and 1654 Philaras was in London, where he met the poct John Milton (see Z. N. Τσιρπανλὴ, To ᾿ξλληνικὸ KoMeyıo τῆς Ῥώμης καὶ of μαθητές του, Thessaloniki 1980, 425). 4° I have not been able to trace the watermark described by Aubreton (1981, 45, n. 6) in the catalogues of watermarks as further evidence as regards dates. "See, for instance, Hamilton and Richard 44, 167. ‘This collection did not contain any Greek manuscript. See Blok (2000) 332. ? See Aubreton (1980, 10 with n. 2). For the shipping of the libraries of Gerard and Isaac Vossius to Sweden in 1649, see F. I. Blok, Contributions to the History of Isaac Vossiuss Library (Amsterdam, London 1974), 18-20 and (2000) 272f. 3 See Blok (2000) 347.

Manuscript Tradition

41

conjectures were regarded as belonging to Guyet and Saumaise, See further Hutton (1946) 187 and Aubreton (1981) 29-35; also Floridi 43, Guichard 89f.,

Sens (2011) ciii-iv. Regarding Crinagoras’ poems, it contains the same as Ap. B., in the same order, except for the last five, that is twenty-one epigrams: 14, 8, 3, 4, 42, 9, 12, 43, 5, 6, 13, 40, 18, 44, 45, 25, 7, 37, 29, 2, 38. See also below, on

Parisin. Supp. Gr. 886 and on Apographon Ruhnkenianum. Parisin. Supp. Gr. 1168 is probably the work of the elder of the two Boivin brothers (Louis Boivin, 1649-1724) and it is a ‘transcription’ of Ap. G. (see Aubreton 1981, 35). It contains the same twenty epigrams of Crinagoras as they

appear in Ap. G., in the same order, except for 14: 8, 3, 4, 42, 9, 12, 43, 5, 6, 13, 40,

18, 44, 45, 25, 7, 37, 29, 2, 38. Parisin. Supp. Gr. 45 belonged to the library of de Boze. Aubreton (1981, 34) identified its scribe with a hand which added notes

to Ap. G., and suggested that this might be Gilles Ménage (1613-92), into whose possession Ap. G. came after Guyet’s death, ie. after 1655 (Hutton 1946, 9). It

contains the same twenty-one epigrams of Crinagoras as Ap. G. There are several mistakes that are repeated in Ap. G. and in Parisin. Supp. Gr. 1168 and 45 (neither in Parisin. Supp. Gr. 557 nor in Ap. B.). Most of them appear also in Ap. R.

(see below, on Apographon Ruhnkenianum).'** The author of Supp. Gr. 45 was, in general, more erudite and/or careful than that of Supp. Gr. 1168. There are some mistakes in Ap. G. (and Supp. Gr. 1168, not in P) which do not appear in Supp. Gr. 45,"*° and, more importantly, as regards the examination of the order of transcriptions, there are some cases of mistakes (not in P) appearing in Supp. Gr. 1168, not in Supp. Gr. 45, and corrected in Ap. G.'*° Since Supp. Gr. 1168 is a transcription of Ap. G., such instances suggest that the corrections to Ap. G. were made after Supp. Gr. 1168 was produced. If Aubreton’s assumption that

Supp. Gr. 45 is the work of Ménage, who also added notes on Ap. G., is correct, As

regards Crinagoras’ poems that are not found in Ap. R,, at 18,3 Ap. G., Parisin. Supp. Gr.

1168 and 45 have ὁμόνυμον, at 29,6 all apographs have Aodrpa (instead of the correct λουτρά), and at 44,3 all have αἰγητῆρσι or cıy- (in these instances Parisin. Supp. Gr. 243a has only the mistake Aoörpa and alyyr-). “5 As regards Crinagoras, λάμπαδα at 8,1, Εὐκλίδην at 9,6, Κριναγώρου in the heading of 38, and dyes in the lemma of 45 appear in Ap. G. and Supp. Gr. 1168, the correct forms appearing in Supp. Gr. 45 (λαμπάδα, ὐκλείδην, [ζριναγόρου, ὑγιές). The οἵων of Ap. G. and Supp. Gr. 1168 in 37,1 seems to be corrected to οἵων in Supp. Gr. 45. '# As regards Crinagoras, at 40,5 Supp. Gr. 1168 reads ξωφώδης, while in Ap. G. the ζωφώδης was corrected to ζοφώδης with an ὁ written over ὦ and at 25,6 Supp. Gr. 1168 reads ἠπείρης, in Ap. G. oc written over the ἡ of the last syllable (ἠπείροις), Al Crin. 43,7 Ap. G. has ἡλήκοιτε, the second ἢ corrected from « while Supp. Gr. 1168 has ἡλίκοιτε and Supp. Gr. 45 ἡλήκοιτε (the correct form, appearing on P, ἑλήκοιτε), Another case, similar to the ζωφώδης in Crinagoras’ poem, is ξωφίαισιν (ζοφίαιαιν P) at Erycius AP 7.377=13,7 GP in Supp. Gr. 1168, the mistake not appearing in Supp. Gr. 45, and the w corrected with an o written over it in Ap. G. Some other mistakes, corrected in Ap. ας, appearing in Supp. Gr. 1168 and not in Supp. Gr. 45, are ἠιώσι (Hegesippus, 35r of Ap. G.),

ἀνθριάδων (instead of ἀντριάδων, Theodoridas, 37r of Ap. G.), εὐμύχῳ (instead οἔεὐμύκῳ, Erycius, 39r of Ap. G.), Τελωνιάδους (instead of Τελωνιάδος, Phanias, 41ν of Ap. G., corrected in marg. in Ap. (ἃ, the ending underlined in Supp. Gr. 1168), ἔσθε (Theaetetus, first line of 44r of Ap. G., corrected to ἔστε).

IUTUQRCTION

then Supp. Gr. 45 must have been copied from Ap. G. between 1655 (Guyet's death) and 1692 (Ménage's death). While producing Supp. Gr. 45, Ménage must

also have corrected some of Ap. G.s mistakes on Ap. G. Consequently, Supp. Gr. 1168 must have been copied from Ap. G. before that time. Parisin. Supp. Gr. 243 (seventeenth century) was traditionally thought to have been written by Huet (1630-1721), in all likelihood mistakenly so. However,

the codex must have been owned by Huet (Aubreton 1981, 35f.). It contains

three sections, which Aubreton (1981, 38f.) categorizes as Parisin. Supp. Gr. 243a (very similar to Ap. G.), Parisin. Supp. Gr. 243b (recalling the first two parts of Parisin. Supp. Gr. 886), and Parisin. Supp. Gr. 243c. As far as Crinagoras is concerned, Supp. Gr. 243a contains exactly the same epigrams, and in the same order, as Ap. G.; Supp. Gr. 243b contains the first words of 14 and 1 (whole), as happens in Supp. Gr. 886 ii (there 14 appears complete), and Supp. Gr. 243c contains twenty epigrams of Crinagoras: 40, 18, 44, 45, 25, 7, 37, 29, 2, 38, 42, 9,

12, 43, 5, 6, 13, 8, 3, 4. Most of the mistakes of Ap. G. appear also in Parisin. Supp.

Gr. 243a; however, several do not (as regards Crinagoras, see also below, on Apographon Ruhnkenianum).'*” Aubreton (1981, 36, 38f.) reached the conclusion that Parisin. Supp. Gr. 243a is prior to Parisin. Gr. 2742 (Ap. G.) and that it was perhaps the model of Parisin. Gr. 2742 and of all contemporary French apographs. Although its watermark could not be found in Heawood’s catalogue, very similar watermarks are dated to 1629-44 and originate in Amsterdam.

Parisin. Supp. Gr. 886 This is dated to the seventeenth century. A note in the beginning of the manu-

script reads: Anthologiae Gr. ineditae, Fr. Guyeti manu exaratae, fragmentum. The manuscript survives in a mutilated condition, consisting of three parts, each by a different scribe: i) Book 3, ii) Books 4 and 5 up to ep. 149, iii) Books 12 and 5 up to ep. 296 (Aubreton 1981, 11). It contains Crin. 14 (bis) and 1 (p. 13, part

ii): Crin. 14 appears in part ii (p. 12) and again in part iii (p. 95). The third part, the one ‘quon désignera essentiellement sous le nom de Parisinus Suppl. gr. 886;

according to Aubreton (1981, 15), displays handwriting strikingly similar to that 7 For instance, most of the mistakes common to Ap. G. and Supp. Gr. 1168 listed in the previous note do not appear in Parisin. Supp. Gr. 243a. However, the scribe writes ζοφώδης adding an w above the o in Crin. 40,5. Furthermore, the mistake εὐμύχῳ, corrected in Ap G., appears also in Supp. Gr. 2438, As regards λάμπαδα al 8,1, ὐκλίδην at 9,6, Κριναγώρου in the heading of 38, and ὕγιες in the lemma of 45 appearing in Ap. G. and Supp. Gr. 1168, all of them but Kpivaywpov appear in Supp. Gr. 2438. ‘There are mistakes common to all three (Ap. G., Supp. Gr. 1168, and Supp. Gr. 45) which do nat appear in Supp. Gr. 243a: these are, as regards Crinagoras, ὁμόνυμον in 18,3, Eörixidar / -ao in Crin. 40 Gemma and |, 7). In other poems, cf, for example, Maxedcrvas in the author's name in Antiphanes’ epigram (31v Ap. G., ὃν Supp. Gr. 1168, 104 Supp, Gr. 45), /IpareatAaor / -ein the lemma and first line of Philips epigram (47v Ap. G., 36r Supp. Gr. 1168, 158 Supp. Gr. 45), κοσμόν in the same epigram.

manmsenpt rain

43

of Parisin. Supp. Gr. 557, and Aubreton (1981, 17) suggested that the two manuscripts were written by the same scribe, perhaps Bernard de la Monnoye (1641-1728), who, however, was not interested in the Anthology before 1692. Aubreton further remarked that the first two scribes of Supp. Gr. 886 may have copied directly from P while it was in Paris or in Dijon. As for Crinagoras, this

assumption is supported by the fact that the second scribe’s Crin. 14 (p. 12) has

p’s δεύτατον in |. 1, ἦθος in 1. 4, and ἔσκεν in 1. 6, while all the apographs of the French tradition have ὕστατον, ἄνθος, and ἐστίν respectively, which is what the third scribe of Supp. Gr. 886 gives, too, in Crin. 14 (p. 95). The reading ἔσκεν, in

articular, suggests a direct copying from P, as even Ap. L., which has δεύτατον and os, reads ἐστίν rather than P's ἔσκεν. The second scribe also writes οἴχεται

in textu, P’s reading ante rasuram (retained by Ap. L.), and οἴχεαι in margine, P’s reading post rasuram, the reading accepted by the French tradition manuscripts.

Aubreton (1981, 19) argued that Supp. Gr. 886 is prior to Supp. Gr. 557; see also Floridi 44.

Apographon Ruhnkenianum. Leidensis B. P. G. 87 (Ap. R.) This was acquired by Ruhnken in 1756, presumably during a trip to France,'** and was then owned successively by Pierson, Van Lennep, Schrader, and De Bosch. See further Aubreton (1981) 42-4, Guichard 90, Sens (2011) civ; Aubreton

suggested that it constituted the model for B. P. G. 67 J (about which De Meyier (118) had assumed French origin, due to the presence of the notes in French that accompany the epigrams). As regards Crinagoras’ epigrams, it contains seventeen poems (the same as Ap. G. except for four) in the following order: 14, 40 (bis:1*° 40° and 407), 45, 25, 7, 37, 2, 38, 8, 3, 4, 42, 9, 12, 43, 5, 6.

The view that Ap. R. is of French origin’®® is clearly justified, since the epigrams are occasionally followed by notes in French (consisting of a ‘summary’ of the poem, after the notes in Latin, which appear, with variations, in other apographs, as well) and/or a French translation. Moreover, and most importantly,

there are readings and mistakes common to Ap. G. and Ap. R. that do not appear in the other French apograph (Supp. Gr. 557-Ap. B.; needless to say, they are also absent from the apographs of the German-Dutch tradition, Ap. L. and Ap. V., when these apographs contain the epigrams under discussion, as, of course, they are absent from P), and which point to the association of Ap. R. with Ap. G. or with an apograph close to it. For instance, editors, including '° E. Hulshoff Pol (Studia Ruhnkeniana, Leiden 1953, 123) dated the trip before 1747.

'* Pages and groups of pages with the same numbering and containing the same epigrams are occasionally repeated in Ap. R. For instance, the block of pages 443-80 (Crin. 40 appearing on p. 450) appears twice and the epigrams repeated there display differences between their first and second appearance in terms of spelling and comments under the poem.

8° De Meyier 179; cf. Aubreton (1981) 42f.

IMITOUUTTION

Pfeiffer and Gow-Page, are inaccurate when they attribute to Ruhnken the reading Σιμώνῃ at Call. AP 13.24=20,2 HE, since the reading exists already in Ap. G. and the apographs close to it (as well as in Coisl. 352). The same mis-

takes/peculiarities are repeated almost always in Parisin. Supp. Gr. 1168, which is an extremely faithful copy of Ap. G., and usually (though not always) in

Parisin. Supp. Gr. 243a; to a lesser extent in Supp. Gr. 45.'*' As regards Crinagoras’ poems, such mistakes are numerous.'”? The same observations can be made for a number of notes: a note citing Hesychius’ comment s.v. κάλυξ: τὸ ἄνθος τοῦ ῥόδου, τὸ μὴ ἐκπετασθὲν ἄνθος ἡ νύμφη Occurs in all apographs on

Crin. 6, and the note σὺν ἔρωσιν appears as an explanation of the σὺν Ἱμέροις of Crin. 7 in all apographs in margine. Likewise, in the notes on Crin. 4, the accentuation ὄπασσαι σοι and the explanation of δεδοικώς in Latin appear in all and not in Ap. B. Similarly, J’s comment on Crin. 45 is repeated mutilated and with a mistake in the accentuation in all apographs (it stops at τοῦ μὲν οὖν and it reads ὕγιες rather than ὑγιές). At 12,3 Ap. G., Supp. Gr. 243a, and Supp. Gr. 1168

'# A few examples of mistakes repeated in Ap. R. and in the apographs related to Ap. G., generally with the exception of Supp. Gr. 243a and Supp. Gr. 45: in Ap. R. p. 223 ‘Simon. AP 13.111) we have εἰκώνα (Ap. G. ante corr, and Supp. Gr. 1168), εἰκόνα Ap. G. post corr., Supp. Gr. 243a, and Supp. Gr. 45, Similarly, in Ap. R. p. 234 (Phaedimus, 13.22,1) we have Γίγαντας (Ap. Gi. ante corr. and Supp. Gr. 1168), Γίγαντος Ap. G. post corr., Supp. Gr. 243a, and Supp. Gr. 45; in the same epigram, at 1. 5 Ap. R. has λέξονται like Ap. G. ante corr. while all the others (and Ap. G. post corr.) read λέξωνται. In the same epigram, |. 8, Ap. R. reads cide, like Ap. G. (and perhaps Supp, Gr. 243a) ante corr, whilst Supp, Gr. 1168 and Supp. Gr. 45 read öde. See further next note. a At 2,3 ψευστὴς (instead of P's ψεύστης), at 3,1 ἀργυρέον and ἧμαρ (wrong accentuations, not in P) and 3 εὐστίχοισι (spelling mistake instead of P's εὐσχίστοισι), at 5,3 ule (instead of P's υἱέ the mistake υἷε not in Supp. Gr. 243a), in 6,6 ἠέλιον (instead of P's néA-), at 7,6 καλλεὺς (instead of P's κάλλευν), al 8.1 λάμπαδα (wrong accentuation; not in Supp. Gr. 45, however) and 3 ἀέθλον (thus certainly in Ap. R.: looking like dé@Aoy also in Ap. G. and less in Supp. Gr. 1168; not in Parisin. Supp. Gr. 2438 and not in Supp. Gr. 45), at 9,6 Μύκλίδην and πολλῆς (both spelling mistake of P's ἰὐκλείδην and alteration of P's πολιῆς to πολλῆς, the former mistake not in Supp. Gr. 45), at 12,) Ἐληθυίων (instead of P's -υἱῶν), 3 Avrovin (instead of P's Avraw-), 5 καὶ (instead of P’s κε, in the French apographs καὶ written in abbreviation), and 6 καὶ νυδύς (instead of P's ἡ, ἡ appearing in the French apographs in warg.), at 14,5 ἣν (wrong accentuation, not in P), at 25,3 ἐκοινονώσασθε (instead of P's ἐκοινώσασθε, the French apographs’ reading being ἐκοινοινώσασθε), 5 ef (instead of P's ἐκ) and βασιλήων in the lemma (instead of P's βασιλέων; Ap. R. has -λῆων), at 37,3 εἶθε (wrong

accentuation, instead of P's εἴθε) and 4 ἐριμοτέρη (wrong spelling, not in P), at 38,1 τίς (instead of P's τῆς), 3 μαλάκοις, and 6 θήλῃ (wrong accentuations, not in P), al 40,2 αταθμῇ, 6 τοὐλιγήπελες (wrong accentuations, not in P), and 7 Hdvyidao (corrected with ἃ « above y in Ap, R. and in marg. in Ap. Ο and Supp. Gr. 168; the mistake does not appear in Supp. Gr. 243a: in 40 the readings are τοὐλιγηπέλης and Körxiöao respectively), and at 42,6 ἐπεισοδίᾳ (wrong accentuation and ending of P's ἐπεισόδια, ἐπεισοδία found in Supp. Gr. 557, but not in Ap. B.). At 43,1 Ap. R. has LayAcyyes and the French apographs have Σίλυγγες (instead of P's σπήλυγγες), at 2 they all have mpcovos, in 6 they have “Eppew (wrong accentuations, instead of ΡῈ mpeovos and Ἑρμέω respectively), and at 7 they have ἡλήκοιτε (spelling mistake, instead of P's ἰἱλήκοιτε; Supp. Gr. 1168 has ἡλίκοιτε). At 45,1 Ap. R., Ap. G., and Supp. Gr. 1168 have τούτ᾽ (wrong accentuation, not in P; the mistake does not appear in Supp. Gr. 243a). A couple of mistakes of Ap. G. (appearing also in Supp. Gr. 243, Supp. Gr. 1168, and Supp. Gr. 45) that are not repeated in Ap. R. are (as regards Crinagoras) evardpruyy: at 42,7 (instead af the correct εὐστόρθυγγι), πιτεστύπτοιο (instead of the correct πιτυστέπτοιο) at 43,3.

Manuscript Tradition

45

have ἵλαος (instead of P’s ἵλαοι) and Ap. R. has ἵλαας, the a in the last syllable in

all likelihood being a correction of an original o. These observations indicate that Ap. R. is closer to Ap. G. or Supp. Gr. 1168, than to the other apographs related to Ap. G. It is of interest that, although the

manuscript belongs to the French tradition, and in Crin. 14,1 and 4 it has

ὕστατον and ἄνθος, respectively, in textu (cf. above, on Parisin. Supp. Gr. 886), it

has P’s δεύτατον and ἦθος in margine; it also has in textu the οἴχεαι of P post rasuram, and in margine οἴχεται, Ps reading ante rasuram, which appears in Ap. L. These

marginal

notes

seem

to belong

to the manuscripts

diverse

owners

(Aubreton 1981, 44). Itis also noteworthy that at Crin. 14,4 Ap. G. has ἀνεγκαμένη

with a scribbled d, while Ap. R. reads aveykauevn with an e written above a. If

Ap. R. depends on Ap. G. or on a manuscript depending on Ap. G., as it is suggested by the similarities mentioned above, it was, at some stage, compared to

one or more other apographs of P; this comparison resulted in notes/corrections like the ones just mentioned above in Crin. 14. The fact that the two last words of Crin. 45 (πένθος ἐμοῦ are missing in Ap. G. (in their place there are five

dots), but appear in Ap. R., as in all apographs other than the French ones very close to Ap. G. discussed here, reinforces this assumption (although J’s com-

ment still appears mutilated in Ap. R.; see prev. paragraph).

Apographon Lipsiense. Lipsiensis Rep. I 4.55 (Ap. L.) This was probably copied by J. Gruter c.1622 from Leidensis B. P. G. 34 B (for which see De Meyier 51f.), which was copied directly from P by Scaliger. It served Reiske as the most important manuscript for his 1754 edition of selections from

the Anthology.**? Its corrections and notes belong to Gruter, Reiske, and, perhaps, D. Heinsius. See Reiske (1754) xx, Aubreton (1980) 21-7, Sider 52, Floridi

42, Guichard 90f., Sens (2011) civ. It contains twelve of Crinagoras’ epigrams in the following order: 14, 8, 3, 4, 42, 9, 12, 43, 5, 6, 13, 40. Mistakes of B. Β G. 34 B are repeated in Ap. L. (ολπιν at 5,2, πυροπλοκίης at 8,2, δακρύεσθαι at 42,3, ἱλαοί

at 12,3, and some other instances of wrong accentuation; in the lemma of 40, the mistake λάρυγξ in B. ΒΟ, 34 B, instead of P’s λάρναξ, is repeated in Ap. L.’**). At 9,1 Ap. L’s scribe repeats a reading that appears to be Hos, although the scribe of B. P G. 34 B, i.e. Scaliger, probably wrote ἢ, which looks like s. At 9,5 Ap. L. reproduces its model’s ἐπ᾿ (while P has dz} and in 6,3 it similarly reproduces its model's cof (of P). In 42,5 B. P. G. 34 B has the correct yeAyıdes, while Ap. L. copies mistakenly γέγλιθες. In the commentary, the two manuscripts will

55. ‘The other manuscripts that Reiske used were Lipsiensis Rep. Fol. 35 and Hamburgensis phil. 5. The latter was copied from Berolinensis Spanhemianus 44, which derives from Ap. V. 4 Reiske (1754, 139, in the notes to ἢ. 600) comments that this is a ‘specimen oscitantiae librariorum.

riot be distinguished from each other and only Ap. L. will be mentioned as far as readings are concerned.

A copy of Ap. L. is Bodl. Auct. F 3. 22,‘°° by Edward Bernard. Of the mistakes (concerning Crinagoras) common to Ap. L. and its model, Bernard has corrected the tAao/ in 12,3 to its correct accentuation. The mistake γέγλιθες of Ap. L. (not in its model) in Crin. 42,5 is repeated in Bodl. Auct. Ε 3. 22; also, in 9,1 it

clearly reads Hos. In 40,4 Bernard reads τ᾽ ὠλιγηπερὲς since the A of Ap. L. looks like a p. In addition to Ap. L., this manuscript has translations into Latin of certain of the epigrams at the end.

CODEX

MARCIANUS GRAECUS ITS APOGRAPHS

481 (PL) AND

Marc. Gr. 481 is the autograph of Maximus Planudes, preserved in the Marcian library of Venice, dated to September 1301. It was through this collection that the Greek epigrammatic tradition was known to the West before the discovery of the Palatine codex in the early seventeenth century. It is divided into two sections, PIA (fols. 2-76) and PIB (fols. 81v-100), while the intervening section

(77-81r) contains non-epigrammatic material. The first section is divided into seven books of epigrams (I demonstrative, II scoptic, ΠῚ funerary, IV descriptions, V Christodorus’ descriptions of the statues in Zeuxippus gymnasium, VI votive, VII amatory), which are further subdivided into chapters. The second

part complements the first. It is of different origin and contains various epi-

grams belonging to certain categories of the first part (see Floridi 44-5, Guichard 92-3). After finishing his work, Planudes discovered another exemplar of Cephalas, as he notes on fol. 81v of this Anthology, with the remark that

the two sections should be integrated.'** Crinagoras’ twenty-four epigrams contained in Pl are (in this order) 26, 27, 35, 23, 46, 22, 47, 24, 30, 48, 17, 36, 28, 50, 51, 10, 1 (PIA), 21, 15, 11, 20, 16, 19, 41 (PIB). From these, 28, 36, 50, and 5l are

transmitted only by Pl. A manuscript of the British Library, BM Add. 16409, conventionally abbreviated as Q, is probably the earliest copy of Pl, as Cameron argued, revised by Planudes himself, in which the two Planudean sections remained separated. Now, Paris. Gr. 2744, which has survived in a mutilated condition, is the earliest

codex in which the two sections of P] have been integrated.'” It has been dated 155. Thus rightly placed by Aubreton in the tradition of Scaliger, rather than in that of Sylburg, as some have thought (see Aubreton 1980, 9f. with n. 6). 5° See Aubreton (1968) 33-7, Cameron (1993) 351, Lauxtermann (2009) 45. 7 As Aubreton (Seriptorium 23, 1969, 69-87) has shown in a detailed examination. See also Aubreton (1968) 40-2.

to 1315-20 and was produced by a scribe who worked under Demetrius Triclinius. Together with Pl, Q also served as a model for Paris. Gr. 2744; see

Cameron 1993, 347-57. The earliest copy of another branch of the ‘united’ tradition (as Cameron

(1993, 357-62) suggests) is Paris. Gr. 2739, written by Michael

Apostoles in c.1450. Cameron (1993, 361-2) argues that it originates from a

manuscript produced during Planudes’ lifetime, which Planudes used as his ‘rough copy’ and the scribe of which had at his disposal both Pl and Q. It is customarily held that the rest of the Planudean apographs (for the catalogue of which, see Lauxtermann 2009, 64-5), descend from the tradition either of C (Paris. Gr. 2744, Triclinius) or of D (Paris. Gr. 2739, Apostoles); see the stemma

of Lauxtermann (2009, 64-5).'”® Among them, Paris. Gr. 2891 (c.1480) and 2863 (c.1480-94) are believed to have been written by Ianus Lascaris and (at least?) one of them formed the model of the scholar’s 1494 editio princeps,'”? which, of course, represented the united version of Pl, as also did the next

Planudean editions, as well. Lascaris’ edition is actually also repeated in the first

Aldine (1503).'°° The instances where the two apographs differ from each other as regards readings of Crinagoras’ epigrams are not decisive as to which was used by Lascaris: in Crin. 21, the és of Lascaris’ edition appears in 2863 and not in 2891; in Crin. 28, the reading εἶχε of Lascaris edition seems to emerge from the scribble of the syllable -y(;)e in 2891, while 2863 has the correct reading, Pl’s εἶδε. Εἶχε is also the reading of Apostoles, to the tradition of which (Ὁ) the two

apographs of Lascaris belong." ‘The mutilated Paris. Gr. 2744 contains (in this order) Crin. 46, 22, 47, 24, 30,

41,20, 16, 19, 17. Paris. Gr. 2739 contains the twenty-four Planudean epigrams of Crinagoras in their ‘correct’ (unified) order, i.e. 26, 27, 21, 35, 23, 46, 22, 47, 15, 24, 30, 11, 48, 20, 16, 19, 17, 41, 36, 28, 50, 51, 10, 1.

Short note on old editions and emendations with unrecorded sources

In terms of corrections and critical notes, the most important editions of Planudes, after Lascaris’ princeps and the following Aldinae, are Brodaeus edition of 1549 and Etienne’s edition of 1566 (see Bibliography). J. Reiske was the first to produce a significant edition of the ‘new’ Greek epigrams, those of the *** For example, Vat. Gr. 63, Ambros, A 114 sup (D), Ambros. A 161, Vat. gr. 62, Laur. XXXI 28,

Par. Gr. 2740 (C), Fora manuscript in Madrid, Bibl. Nat. 4562, the work of Constantinus Lascaris, see Aubreton (1968) 78.

*° Opinions differ concerning which of the two was used by Lascaris in his edition. See Lauxtermann (2009) 48-9 with n. 27. For Paris. Gr. 2891, see also Hutton (1935) 119f. See also on

(τη, 27,2 Γερμανίη... πίῃ and on 28,4 εἶδε. 10 See Hutton (1935) 149. ©. See Lauxtermann (2009) 48, 64-5.

IntPodiiction

Palatine codex,’®’ mainly based on Ap. L. Using Ap. B., Brunck, a little later, published the epigrams unifying P and Pl. Brunck organized the material by author. In his first edition Jacobs, who produced a rich commentary on Brunck’s material, followed this order and in his second edition he introduced the order

established thereafter in all editions of the Greek Anthology, where poems appear by book as given by the Palatine codex. The epigrams transmitted only by Planudes are added at the end as the ‘last’ book of the Anthology, Book 16 or Appendix Planudea. There are emendations of readings transmitted by Pl (not necessarily exclusively by Pl), reported in editions of the whole of the Anthology, the fundamental one, after the edition of Jacobs, as regards attribution of readings to apographs and critics, being Stadtmiiller’s. The ultimate source of these emendations is unknown. They may perhaps originate in handwritten marginal notes added to editions of Planudes. In fact, Scaliger’s suggestions that are absent either from his published works or from his letters do appear on copies of the Stephaniana. They are contained in two Stephanianae reserved in the Bibliotheque Nationale de France:'°” BNF Res. Yb. 355, which belonged to Huet and has Scaliger’s marginal annotations, as is stated on its first page (‘scriptae ad oram emendationes plurimae manu illustris viri Josephi Scaligeri’), and Res. Yb. 356, which belonged to Claude Dupuy and has also partly (though not wholly) the same annotations, although their authorship is not clearly stated anywhere. As is reported on its first page, Scaliger's corrections (albeit not all of them) also appear on a 1566 Stephaniana, now in the university library of Leiden (756 D 9). As regards Crinagoras, these are ἥξει at 17,4, ἀπληστ᾽ at 19,3,

Appıos at 21,3, and ἀνακρέμαται

at Crin. (?) 24,8. A correction by Scaliger appearing both in a published work of his and on the margin of the French Stephanianae (not in the copy of Leiden) is ἐπαινῆς at Crin. 35,3. See further on Crin. loce. citt.

Reiskes emendations on epigrams of the Planudean codex may perhaps likewise be found one day on the margins ofa copy ofsome edition of Planudes owned by Reiske. Jacobs! (Prol. cxxxiii) stated “Reiskii notae in Planudeam adhuc

alicubi latent.'** As for Crinagoras, we have the emendation κακοσκηνεῦς (41,7, placing the accentuation on the last syllable), which editors attribute to Reiske.

'®? After the quite unreliable edition of J. Jens (1742; see Bibliography) and the selection of sepulchral epigrams of the Anthology by J. H. Leich (Sepuleralia Carmina ex Anthologia m.s., Leipzig 1745). 19? My thanks are due to Dirk Van Miert who directed me towards the BNF for Scaliger’s notes

on copies of ftienne’s edition. ’* Jacobs

(Prol.

Ixxxii)

commented

on

Reiske’s obvious

knowledge

of the

Planudean

Anthology, referring to his prologue (1754, xviii), where Reiske discusses Planudes’ Anthology in relation to Cephalas’ work.

Testimonia

49

Testimonia LITERATURE 1 Parthenius fr. 13 Lightfoot: Kpiwvayopas

ἀμφοτέροις ἐπιβὰς Aprvs ἐληΐσατο Et Gen a 1225, ii. 223.6 Lasserre-Livadaras (cf. Et. Μ, 148,32): Apzus: ὁ Ἔρως" ἡ

χρῆσις παρὰ τῷ Παρθενίῳ ἐν Κριναγόρᾳ: Ἀμφοτέροις.... ἐληΐσατο. Εἴρηται de παρὰ τὸ ἁρπάζειν τὰς φρένας' οὕτως Διονύσιος ὁ τοῦ Φιλοξένου.

Bestriding him with both feet the Snatcher despoiled him. Harpys: Eros, The usage occurs in Parthenius’ Crinagoras: Bestriding him with both feet’, etc. The name derives from the fact that it snatches away the wits: so Dionysius the son (?) of Philoxenus.’°° 2 Strabo 13.2,3, enumerating famous Mytileneans: καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς δὲ Ποτάμων καὶ NeoßorAns καὶ Kpwaydpas καὶ ὁ συγγραφεὺς Θεοφάνης. But Potamon, Lesbocles, Crinagoras, and Theophanes the historian (were born) in my time, It is possible that Strabo has met the poet in Rome (for instance, see Bowersock 1965, 133).

3 Philip AP 4=1,7f. GP: mpéper... ὡς δὲ κόρυμβος / Κριναγόρας. Crinagoras will adorn (the wreath)

like ivy-berries.'®°

4 Photius Bibl. 150a,20-4 (on the fifth book of the New History of Ptolemy Hephaistion): ἡ δὲ ε΄ βίβλος, ὡς μετὰ Ἀμύκου, φασίν, Ἰάσων, ἀλλ᾽ obyi Πολυδεύκης ἐμαχέσατο" καὶ ὁ χῶρος μαρτυρεῖ Tnadvios αἰχμὴ καλούμενος, καὶ πηγὴ ἀνατέλλει ἀγχοῦ Ἑλένη καλουμένη. Ἐκ τούτου λύεται καὶ τὸ Κριναγόρου ἐπίγραμμα. The fifth book reports that people say that Jason and not Polydeuces fought with Amycus; and the place testifies this, called ‘Jason's pike’; and a spring flows nearby, called ‘Helen’. In this way Crinagoras’ epigram can also be explained. Geist’s suggestion (49f.) that AP 14.59 Yias πεντήκοντα μιῇ ἐνὶ γαστρὶ λαβοῦσα

Ἐμηλιστῶντ πάντων ἔκτανον ἡγεμόνα. Αὐτὰρ 6 dis τέθνηκεν, ἐπεὶ δύο γαστέρες αὐτόν τίκτον, χαλκείη καὶ πάρος ἀνδρομέη 2

\

τ

Al

’

165. Lightfoot’s translation.

3

x

7

7

3

4

166 Translation of Gow-Page.

could be Crinagoras’ epigram mentioned by Photius is highly unlikely. The sources

for Book

14 are Diodorus,

Diogenes

Laertius,

Pausanias,

Plutarch,

Herodotus.'® Riddles are not among the poetic themes of Crinagoras and the other well-known epigrammatists of Hellenistic and imperial times.

INSCRIPTIONS 5 1G 12.2.35a, 1-12: [I paupara Katoapos Θεοῦϊ.

[Γάϊος Ἰούλιος Kaicap αὐτοκράτωρ...τὸ] | delurelpor Μυτιλ[ηναίων ἄρχουσι | βουλῇ δήμῳ χαίρειν" εἰ ἔρρωσθε, καλῶς ἂν] ἔχοι’ κἀγὼ δὲ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύίματος | ὑγίαινον. Ποτάμων “εαβώνακτος,... καφένους, ἰζριναγόρας Καλλίππου, Z] =

4

id

vw

-

τ

"Ἢ

3

ι

᾿

i}

”~

#

ωΐλο[ς [Ἐπιγένους ....Ἶτας δικαίου, Ὑβρίας Διοφάντου, Ἱστιαῖος | |... Δ ημή]τριος Τιμαίου of πρεσβευταὶ ὑμῶν συνέ-] [τυχόν pot......... καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα ὑμῶν ἀπέ]

δωκαν καὶ περὶ τῶν τιμῶν διελέχθησαν ||... Ir κατωρθώκαμεν, καὶ εὐχαριστήσαντες | [...eve]ruxov μετὰ πολλῆς φιλοτιμίας καὶ eis | |... |wr ἔχειν. Ἐγὼ δὲ τοὺς ἄνδρας 3

Ld

4

Ma

’

4

?

v

»

4

4

4

u

ἐπήνε-[[σα διὰ τὴν προθυμίαν αὐτῶν καὶ φιλοφρόν]ως ἀπεδεξάμην, ἡδέως τε τὴν πόλιν | [ὑμῶν εὐεργετεῖν πειράσομαι καὶ κατὰ τ]οὺς παρόντας καιροὺς καὶ ἐν τοῖς μετὰ ταῦ-] [τα χρόνοις, κτλ, >

f

\

x

4

3

~

4

Ed

>

4

€

Ld

᾿

Gaius Caesar imperator...for the second time, greets the authorities of the Mytileneans, the Council and the people; I hope you enjoy good health; also, Land the army are in good health. Potamon son of Lesbonax..., Crinagoras son of Callippus, Zoilus son of Epigenes,... son of Dicaeus, Hybrias son of Diophantes, Istiaeus..., Demetrius son of Timaeus, your ambassadors, met me and handed me your decree and spoke to me regarding the honours...we reached, and having given thanks... I met with much munificence and in... And I praised the men for their promptness and received them with kind disposition, and gladly will I try to benefit your city both at present and in the future, etc. IG 12.2.35b, 6-8: Γράμματα) Καίσαρος Θεοῦ. [Γάϊος

Ἰούλιος

τὸ τέταρτον,

Kaisap

αὐτοκράτ]ωρ

Μυτιληναίων

ἄρχουσι

δικτάτωρ

βο]υλῇ

τὸ

δήμῳ

τ]ρίτον

καθε[στάμε-

χαίρειν

καὶ ἐρρῶσθαι

| vos

καὶ

[ὑγιαίνειν | κτλ, (14-23)

Περὶ ὧν π]ρεσβευταὶ

Μυτιληναίων

Ποτάμων

“Δεσβώνακτος,

Φαινίας

Φαινίου τοῦ Καλλίίπ-Ϊπου, Tlépdnos dois, Ἡρώδης Κλέωνος, Διῆς Marpoxdéous, Δημήτριος Κλεωνύμου | Kpwaydpas Καλλίππου, Ζωίλος Ἐπιγένους λόγους ἐποιήσαντο χάριτα φιλίαν συμμα- χίαν ἀνενεοῦντο, ἵνα τε ἐν ἰζαπετωλίῳ θυσ[ αν ποιῆσαι ἐξῇ a τε αὐτοῖς | πρότερον ὑπὸ τῆς συγκλήτου συγκεχωρημίέϊνα ἦν, ταῦτα

ἐν δέλτῳ χαλκῇ | γεγραμμένα προσηλῶσαι ἵνα ἐξῇ, κτλ. On which matters, Potamon son of Lesbonax, Phaenias son of Phaenias of Callippus, Terpheus son of Dies, Herodes son of Cleon, Dies son of Matrocles, Demetrius son of 167. For the sources of Book 14 see Buffiere, Bude vol. 12, p. 34¢f.

Cleonymus, Crinagoras son of Callipus, Zoilus son of Epigenes, ambassadors of the

Mytileneans, came to words with me, renewed the good will, friendship, and alliance, to enable them to make a sacrifice on the Capitolium and to nail up, written on a bronze tablet, those decisions which had previously been taken by the Senate, etc. IG 12.2.54,5 (fort.) Κριναγόρ]α[ς Καλλίππου.

Crinagoras, son of Callippus.

Matters of Ascription Of the fifty-one epigrams transmitted under Crinagoras’ name, some are of doubtful authorship, since Pl attributes them to other poets. These are 24 (9.562, Φιλίππου Pl), 26 (9.283, Βάσσου Pl), 47 (9.439, Ἀντιφίλου Pl). Of these, the first is the least likely to have been written by Crinagoras. See ad locc., intr, notes.

A few other epigrams found in various sources have been attributed to Crinagoras, but modern editors do not believe that they are genuine. AP 7.744, on Eudoxus of Cnidus, which is also transmitted by Diogenes Laertius (8.91), is

attributed to Crinagoras in the lemma of P (eis Εὔδοξον Kptvaydpou τὸν Κανίδιον

συγγραφέα). Ihe ascription (accepted by Huschke 214) is in all likelihood wrong, as Diogenes claims for himself the epigram’s authorship, introducing the poem with the phrase ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡμῶν eis αὐτὸν οὕτως ἔχον. Its style is

anyway not close to that of Crinagoras.’°® Anon. AP 9.65 is attributed to Crinagoras in Cod. Laurentianus XXXI 28 (depending from the manuscript of Triclinius (C): see above, Manuscript Tradition, Codex Marcianus Graecus 481

[Pl] and its apographs with note there). As Rubensohn (103) and Stadtmüller

logically assumed, the attribution may be explained by the fact that Crin. 22 (AP 9.81) is just below AP 9.65 in Pl. Huschke (219f.) accepted the attribution to Crinagoras of anon. AP 9.514, on the prayer of the comic actor Menis for the

newly wed Procilla (which follows Crin. 49=9.513, on an actor of Menander’s plays, in P); Huschke reports that the attribution was originally suggested by Jacobs.’®’ Van Herwerden

(1886, 399), in editing the epigram,

took it for

granted that it was written by Crinagoras, and Cichorius (1922, 319-22) accepted this view and in further support of it noted the occurrence of the rare name Procilla in an inscription from Mytilene (/G 12.2.375), an epitaph for a Pompeia “°° Jacobs characteristically remarked: ‘quomodo factum sit, ut hoc epigr. Crinagorae tribueretur, a cujus ingenio prorsus abhorret, ignore equidem’

*? ‘Sicut monuit etiam Jacobsius’ (Huschke 220); such an attribution cannot be found in any edition of Jacobs (the epigram appears as Paral. 66 in Jacobs). It may originate from Jacobs’ and

Huschke's personal communication. See also below, on Crin. 34,4 πρηεῖς with note there. For Huschke's and Jacobs friendship, see B. Sears, B. B. Edwards, C. C. Felton, Classical Studies: Essays on Ancient Literature and Art (Boston 1849), 383f.

Procilla and her husband. Cichorius dated the life of this couple to c.50-40 Bc, a period in which Crinagoras would have written his early epigrams. Due to the lack of any evidence as regards the poem's authorship in P, it is not included in the present edition, as is also the case in other modern editions.

About this Edition Arrangement of Epigrams

In this edition I follow the numbering of the epigrams of the edition by Gow-Page.

Abbreviations References to classical authors and their works are mostly the same as or fuller than those of LSJ.

New conjectures admitted in the text Emendations 13,5 ἀστοῖς 16,5 τοκέων

38,3 ἔπι (as a preposition) 42,5 ὑελοειδέες

Supplement 47,5 «τις εἴπη»

Loci with new conjectures discussed in the commentary but not admitted in the text 5,1; 7,3; 27,2; 33,1; 37,3; 44,3

Sigla P Codex Pa pb

Anthologiae Palatinae (Palat. 23 + Paris.Suppl. Gr. 384) epigrammatum eorum quae in P bis exarantur prima et altera transcriptio

C

codicis P corrector

J

codicis P partim librarius, alibi lemmatista

Pl

Codex Anthologiae Planudeae (Ven. Marc. 481)

Q

British Library Manuscript BM Add. 16409

ac

ante correctionem

Sigla pe

post correctionem

5.8.1.

sine auctoris nomine

apogrr.

apographa

Ap. B.

Apographon cod. Buheriani

Ap. G.

Apographon Guietianum

Ap. L.

Apographon Lipsiense

Ap. R.

Apographon Ruhnkenianum

Ap. V.

Apographon Vossianum

Coisl. 352

Parisinus Coislin. 352

edd. vett.

editiones veteres

33

Text and Commentary

AP 5.119 =1

Κὴν ῥίψης ἐπὶ λαιὰ καὶ nv ἐπὶ δεξιὰ ῥίψῃς, Κριναγόρη, κενεοῦ σαυτὸν ὕπερθε λέχους, el μή σοι χαρίεσσα παρακλίνοιτο Γέμελλα, γνώσῃ κοιμηθεὶς οὐχ ὕπνον ἀλλὰ κόπον. >

Fa

?

7

i

\

3

%

7

3

\

#

—

AP5.119 Κριναγόρου [J] eis τὴν αὐτοῦ ἐρωμένην Γέμελλαν Pl VII? 172 Kpivaydpou 1 λαιὰ CPl: AuaıP

3 Γέμελλα P: Γέμιλλα Pl

Brunck n. 3, Rubensohn ἢ. 2

Whether you throw yourself on the left, or on the right, upon your empty bed, Crinagoras, unless charming Gemella should lie down beside you, you shall experience, in your bed, not sleep but exhaustion. Crinagoras spends a restless night in the absence of his mistress, Gemella. In addition to Crin. 50, ‘a conventional meditation on a statue of Eros in chains,’ two erotic epigrams of Crinagoras survive, the present and Crin. 2, in which we have a description of how the poet fell in love while listening to Aristo singing. Parthenius wrote an elegy entitled Crinagoras, the surviving pentameter of which says ἀμφοτέροις ἐπιβὰς Apmus

ἐληΐσατο (fr. 13 Lightfoot), on which

Lightfoot (156) observes ‘Crinagoras himself may be the one represented as a victim of love. There may even be an echo of his own poetry’; see also Lightfoot 74-5. See Intr., Life and Work and Test. 1. The poem, as epigrams in general and Crinagoras’ in particular often are,

is constructed around a single sentence delaying the appearance of the main point as long as possible; see Intr., Language and Style, Structure. The skilfulness of construction of the present poem lies in the fact that its greater part consists of interwoven conditional and concessive clauses, whose common apodosis is

the pivotal information and apex of the line of the thought, and concludes the epigram forming a fine paradox (sleep will bring exhaustion instead of rest). See further below, on γνώσῃ... κόπον. ? Lightfoot 156.

Crinagoras may be thinking of an Aratean passage which describes the positions of two constellations, the Charioteer and the Twins, and in which the two are also mentioned with reference to other constellations, the Avé and

the “Epupo: (Arat. 156-61): Ei 8€ τοι Ἡνίοχον καὶ ἀστέρας Ἡνιόχοιο σκέπτεσθαι δοκέοι καίτοι φάτις ἤλυθεν Alyos

αὐτῆς ἠδ᾽ Ἐρίφων, οἵ τ᾽ εἰν ἁλὶ πορφυρούσῃ πολλάκις ἐσκέψαντο κεδαιομένους ἀνθρώπους, » 4 ? u , [4 > \ [4 αὐτὸν μέν μιν ἅπαντα μέγαν Διδύμων ἐπὶ Aad κεκλιμένον δήεις" [4

>

͵

/

3

,

The Kids watch men who toss about on the sea,’ and the Charioteer lies on the

left of the Twins: Crinagoras, another “‘Charioteer, tosses about in bed on the left and right because his own “Twin, Gemella, does not lie down beside him. As regards the poet's allusion to ‘Hyioyos, note the classical metaphor of love as

horsemanship; cf. Theogn. 1251 ἡνίοχόν re ποθῶν, Anacreon 15,4 and 72,3ff. PMG, Hermesianax 7,83f. Powell, Mel. AP 12.86=18,2 HE.” The ‘Twins, further-

more, exactly like the ‘Charioteer, also have sexual connotations; see below, on Γέμελλα. The reference to Aratus is all the more appropriate to the present occasion, since the observation of the celestial bodies fits perfectly the sleep-

lessness of the poet. This insomnia, caused by the observation of the stars, is also implied for Aratus by Callimachus with his dypumvin. Cf. Gow-Page on Call. AP 9.507=56,3f. HE. Crinagoras possible reference to the Aratean passage

is further strengthened by the reference to the catasterism of the goat whose milk Octavian tasted in relation to the goat who fed Zeus at Crin. 23,5f., which displays the same phrasing as Aratus 163, lines immediately following the passage about the Charioteer and the Twins (see ad loc.). This may be an indication

that the two poems were written together (for the dating of 23, see intr. note ad loc.). The assumption that the poet wrote both poems on the ship, accompany-

ing Octavian in his journey, accounts for the absence of Gemella as well as the implication conveyed by the maritime image of the boat tossing about in the sea. It is not impossible, therefore, that there was a copy of Aratus’ work, famous

in Rome, on the ship, if not serving as a guide to the stars and the weather, at least used by the poet for his own information and amusement.’ It is further ? As they are associated with stormy weather: see Kidd on Arat. 158. * Also Aristoph. Vesp. 501, Pax 900f., Lys. 60 and 677, ‘Ih. 153; cf. the Platonic metaphor of love as the chariot and the soul as the charioteer at Phaedr, 246a and the following. See Bowra (1961) 272, 295, Kirkwood 163f., Elliger 167-8, Gow-Page on Mel. AP 5.140=30,2 HE, Kobiliri an Hermesianax, |. 84 (p. 215), Rozokoki on Anacr. 17,4 (=15,4 PMG) ἡνιοχεύεις. * For Aratus’ popularity in Rome from the first century sc onwards and the influence of the Phaenomena on, and their translations by, Romans, see Kidd 41-3, 46-8. Proofof the popularity of the work at Öctavians court is offered by the existence of the translation of the Phaenamena by Cicero and ‘Germanicus’ (fora discussion about the identity of the author, the predominant candidate being Germanicus, the son of Antonia Minor and Drusus and nephew of the emperor ‘Tiberius, see B. Baldwin, “The Authorship of the Aratus ascribed to Germanicus, QUCC 7 (1981), 163-72.

tempting to picture the poet on the deck watching the stars and consulting his Aratus at the same time.

1; The chiasmus together with the (almost) symmetrical repetition of the two

sentences

around

the trochaic

caesura

(«7jv-verb-supplement,

«ai ἣν-

supplement-verb) stresses the uneasiness of the poet and depicts, by means of the very structure of the line, his throwing himself fo the left (left hemistich)

and to the right (right hemistich).

Lf. κἢν... καὶ qv: cf. the same structure and morphological variation in a poem

also on vain efforts, those to conceal old age with cosmetics, Antiphilus AP 11.66=51L,1ff. GP κὴν reivys.../.../

καὶ λευκὴν Baabys.../.../...Kat ἣν ἔτι

πλείονα ῥέξῃς, κτλ. Mart. 5.1,5f., 9.60,1. Stylistically similar is the construction with seu at the beginning of the two hemistichs of the hexameter in Mart. 14.11,1 and in the pentameter in 11.45,2. For the disjunction, cf. the openings of Crin. 27 and 29.

ἐπὶ Aad... ἐπὶ δεξιά: using λαιά Crinagoras achieves a variation of the Homeric ἐπὶ δεξιὰ - ἐπ᾿ ἀριστερά, Il. 7.238, 12.239-40. The poet reverses the usual order, i.e. first right and then left. ἐπὶ λαιά: Homer always has ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά; Aaids is rarer than ἀριστερός, and

frequently describes the left hand with or without χείρ, hence P’s reading λαιᾷ can be explained. Cf., for instance, Aesch. Pr. 714, Ap. Rh. 1.495, 2.678, 3.120, Paul. Sil. AP 6.84,1. Crinagoras’ expression recalls Arat. 160; see next note.

ῥίψῃς ... σαυτόν: sleeplessness is often associated with anxiety (Aesch. Ag. 891-4, Soph. Tr. 27-30, Eur. El. 617, Hipp. 375f.; see Hutchinson? on Aesch. Sept. 287). Jacobs’ compared Crinagoras’ image to the Homeric Il. 24.4f., 10f., description of Achilles’ inability to sleep through sorrow for Patroclus, echoed in Juv. 3.279-82. Jacobs further compared similar scenes of erotic uneasiness in

bed in Latin literature: Ovid Am. 1.2,1-4, Prop. 2.17,3f., 2.22b,47f. Cf. also Prop. 1.14,21 et miserum toto iuvenem versare cubili, Cat. 50.11, Juv. 13.218, Val. Flacc.

7.21. In the sense of ‘toss about, as in fever, the verb ῥιπτάζειν is used by Hippocrates, in descriptions of the patient's uneasiness in bed: the sick boy ἐῤῥιπτάζετο Epid. 4,1,31, the patient ῥιπτάζει αὐτὸς ἑωυτόν in Morb. 2.17 and

2.69. Cf. also Morb, 3.1. The movement is also frequently rendered by Hippocrates with the noun pirrracpds.°

° G. O. Hutchinson, Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas (Oxford 1985). ° Crinagoras depicts his anguish, implying perhaps the restlessness of fever, and uses medical terms (cf. also on Crin. 15,4, see ad loc.). For a discussion of love as a disease, and especially as a disease that can only be cured with the fulfilment of the desire, in early Greek poets, see M. 8, Cyrino, In Pandora’ Jar: Lovesickness in Early Greek Poetry (Lanhan, Maryland, 1995), passim, For Hellenistic poets’ use of medical terminology for the description of love as fever, see H. White, ‘The fever of love in Iheocritus, Corolla Londinensis 1 (1981), 134,

Kptvaydpn: the apostrophe of the poet to his heart often occurs in personal

poetry, especially when frustrating situations are described. Cf. Od. 20.18 τέτλαθι δή, κραδίη with Russo ad loc., Archil. 128 IEG; cf. Theogn. 695f., 877, etc.

Cf. Crin. 48,1 ἄχρι red... θυμέ. In love epigrams, poets often address their soul, especially when they confront love troubles: Mel. AP 12.117=19,3, 12.141=96,1f. HE, al. The poet's self-address by name, however, is rare in the Anthology. Cf. Asclep. 12.50=16,1 HE wiv’ AuxAymıdön.” Viansino® compares Crinagoras self-

address to the same technique of Paulus Silentiarius in AP 5.228. For this apostrophe in Latin love poetry, cf. Prop. 2.8,17. In Catullus the apostrophe occurs in powerful moods (wrath, despair, etc.): 8.1, 52.1,4, 76.5, 79.2.°

ὕπερθε λέχους: usually in erotic epigrams ὑπὲρ λεχέων or λέκτρων: Diosc. AP 5.55=5,1 HE Δωρίδα... ὑπὲρ λεχέων διατείνας, Paul. Sil. 5.275,3, 5.283,1f., AApp 6.316,2; Strato 12.210=52,1 Floridi ὑπὲρ λέχος. Ὕπερθε combined with bed goes back to Homer, where it is used for the clothes stretched over the bed or on the floor, Od. 7.336-8, 20.2f. Cf. Ap. Rh. 4.1141, description of the preparation of the wedding bed of Jason and Medea. Keveod...Aexovs: in Latin poetry the empty bed’ describes, too, an erotic

abandonment and loneliness. Cf. Ov. Am. 3.5,42 frigidus in viduo destituere toro, Prop. 2.9,16, 4.7,6 with Rothstein ad loc. In Greek poetry the ‘empty bed’ usually denotes loss and death: Soph. Ant. 424f. ὅταν κενῆς / εὐνῆς νεοσσῶν

ὀρφανὸν βλέψῃ λέχος, Eur. Alc. 945 γυναικὸς εὐνὰς εὖτ᾽ ἂν εἰσίδω kevds, Peek 1522=418,8 Kaibel (Kyrene, AD II) ὑστατίου καὶ κενεοῖο λέχους, Ap. Rh. 3.662,

Kaibel 1046,12 (Rome, Ap II). Crinagoras seems to be employing the connotations of the Greek phrase in order to allude to a suffering comparable to the state of the bereavement and loneliness he would endure, were Gemella dead.

Rubensohn emends to Aéyeus; cf. κάλλευς at Crin. 7,6, unnecessarily (cf. Intr., Language and Style, Dialect), as the poet does not consistently use the same grammatical form (cf. εἴδεος at 14,3) and the manuscript reading need not be suspected although conveying a non-epic form. 3f.: Jacobs (Jacobs? and Jacobs 1826, 146), followed by Gow-Page, took γνώσῃ

as the apodosis of εἰ un... παρακλίνοιτο; Jacobs compared Mel. AP 5.214=53,3f. εἰ δ᾽ ἀπὸ σεῦ με! ῥίψαις, οὐκ οἴσει τὰν ἀπάλαιστρον ὕβριν, 5.215=54,5f. HE ei καί με κτείναις, λείψω... ! γράμματα. Rubensohn (111) held that γνώσῃ is the ” Although we cannot be sure whether the narrator is Asclepiades or a friend who accompanies the poet's drinking, see Gow-Page and Sens on Asclep. 16, intr. note; cl. Hedylus 5,5-6 HE, ἀλλὰ κάδοις Χίου με κατάβρεχε καὶ λέγε 'παῖζε / Ἡἰδύλε'- μισῶ ζῆν ἐς κενὸν οὐ μεθύων.

* G. Viansino, Paolo Silenziario, Epigrammi (Turin 1963), 87. ? Cf. Fordyce on Catullus 68.135. 10 Cf. the occurrence of xeveds in descriptions of a mournful situation in epigrams, Mel. AP. 7,468=125,6 κενεὰς ὠδῖνας, 7.476=56,5 HE κενεὰν eis Ἀχέροντα χάριν; very common is the

epitaphs’ ‘empty grave; Perses AP 7.539=9,6 HE κενεὸν σῆμα, Marc. Arg. 7.395=20,1 GP οὗτος ὁ Καλλαίσχρου keveös τάφος, Jul. Aeg. 7.592,6 κενεῷ σήματι, etc.

n. flan... /érAdn.../... apodosisof xiv ῥίψῃς. ..Kalmv... puns, comparingCri29,1 εἶσιν (cf. above on κῆν... καὶ qv), and described εἰ + optative as enuntiato alteri conditionali (nv pins - οὐ γνώσῃ) insertum. Indeed, it seems that the ei clause

offers a further specification and limitation to the «7» clause, which is a conces-

sive clause. For two conditional clauses, the second being additional to the first (one introduced with εἰ and the other with ἄν), and one apodosis, cf. Xen. Cyr. 3.2,13 ἢν μὲν πόλεμον αἱρῆσθε, μηκέτι ἥκετε δεῦρο ἄνευ ὅπλων, εἰ σωφρονεῖτε

(cited in K-G II (2) 475). Κ- ΟῚ (2) 487-8,9, Goodwin 193-4, $ 510, and Schwyzer

2.687 list several examples of a double conditional protasis, where the second rotasis serves to define further and to clarify the first one, the ‘leading condition, all of which are introduced by the same conjunction, either ei or ἐάν. A

combination of concessive and conditional clauses (and a single main clause, constituting the apodosis of both conditional and concessive clause), such as the one in the present poem, is [Manetho} 5.326f. ei δὲ Κρόνος Παφίην ἰδίοις οἴκοισι καθεύροι, | κἢν φάσκῃ τίκτειν ἐκ νηδύος, οὔ ποτε τίκτει. For conditions with εἰ + optative in the protasis and future indicative in the apodosis, see K-G

II (2) 478, b, Goodwin 188, $ 499, χαρίεσσα: the adjective describes a woman for the first time in Hes. Th. 247 (the

Nereid Melite). In love poetry the epithet is a commonplace for the beloved, starting with Sappho fr. 108 L-P. Cf. Theocr. 18.38, 3.6, 10.26, 13.7, 14.8, Paul. Sil.

AP 5.275,1, 5.252,1, εἰς,δἰ Crinagoras uses the adjective twice more at the same

sedes to describe beautiful ladies in funerary poems: Cleopatra-Selene in 18,3 and Prote in 14,3.

got... mapaxAivorro: the verb is characteristic of love epigrams. Cf. Posid. AP 5.186=2 HE=125,3 Austin-Bastianini ὅσον map’ ἐμοὶ κέκλισαι χρόνον, Strato 12.209=50,1f. Floridiscf.anon. AP5.2,1-3rYv καταφλεξίπολιν ZBevedaida.../.../

γυμνὴν διὰ νυκτὸς ὅλης παρέκλινεν ὄνειρος. For παρακέκλιται, κεκλιμένον, etc., as regards the location of constellations, see Kidd and Martin (2.193)? on Arat. 88. For Crinagoras’ image as an allusion to Aratus, see above, intr. note. Γέμελλα: for the rare Latin name, see Prosopographia imperii romani saec I. Il. II. (Berlin 1897-8), s.v., 138-41. In the masculine form it occurs once more in the Anthology (Leont. Schol. 7.575,3 λέχος κόσμησε Γεμέλλου), also at verseend.'* Gemellus is the name of the dedicator at Kaibel 998,9 and 999,6 (ap ID); Gemella is also the name of a city, Appian Iber, 68. In regard to the present

passage Lightfoot (156) observes: ‘the absence of a Greek pseudonym for Gemella is notable; it would have rendered Gemella, presumably a libertina, anonymous among the hordes of Chloes, Lydias, Delias, and other ladies of the 1 The lover sees the beloved as favoured by the Graces. See Hunter on Theocr. 13.7.

12} Martin, Aratos, Phenomenes, 2 vols. (Paris 2002-3). "> For the possible identification of this Gemellus with a fifth-century prefect of Constantinople, see the Bude commentators ad loc.

acquaintance of Horace and others. The closest parallel for the nakedly Roman name in the epigrams of the Anthology seems to be Philodemus’ Flora (Garland 12=AP 5.132.7=12 Sider). In Crinagoras, the name Gemella probably constitutes, as we have seen, part of the allusion to a passage about the Twins of

Aratus’ Phaenomena; see above, intr. note. Moreover, the ‘Twins’ have sexual associations and they can be read as alluding

to female organs of reproduction,

i.e. ovaries in the present poem; ‘twins can denote ovaries and testicles in medical writers, and are used in playful exploitation of their double sense (pertaining both to astronomy and to the genitals) in the Anthology (Marc. Arg, 5.105=7,4, Philod. 5.126=25,6 and 11.318=28,4 GP).'* Martial is probably making a playful allusion to this sense, when he refers to an effeminate Didymus in 5.41; see

Howell (1995) 128, Vallat 561f. The Greek names of the loves of Roman poets have pastoral, mythological, or other connotations; cf. Boucher'* 515ff.

Sullivan’® 79, Lyne’’ 200 with n. 30. Following Philodemus, Crinagoras is the Greek lover ofa girl with a Latin name, and thus plays with the literary tradition and creates a contrast through his imitation of his Roman fellow-poets. γνώσῃ ... κόπον: nightcan be generating anxiety: cf. Hom. Od. 19.515-17 (Penelope lying on the bed and unable to sleep), [Theocr.] 21.2-5, Virg. Aen. 1.662, Ov. Met. 8.81f. with Bomer ad loc., [Sen.] Anth. Lat. 448-9,7 with Dingel (on 56,7f.) and Breitenbach (on 41,7-8) ad loc.; in Ovid and [Seneca] the anxiety is erotic.

Sleep is, of course, traditionally seen as relieving exhaustion (for instance, I. 23.232, Od. 5.471f., 12.281). However, it can involve toil, as well. In Bion Ad. 73

Adonis ‘laboured’ through sleeping beside a goddess, τὸν ἱερὸν ὕπνον ἐμόχθει (though Reed ad loc. notes that ἐμόχθει evokes the tossing of a body asleep). Meleager (AP 12.127=79,5-8 HE) also speaks of the paradox of sleep offering exhaustion instead of rest to the lover, but his condition is different: Avaizrovos δ᾽ ἑτέροις ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ πόνον ὕπνος ἔτευξεν / ἔμπνουν πῦρ ψυχῇ κάλλος ἀπεικονίσας;

Meleager is ‘tired’ because he falls asleep and sleep brings him the image of the beloved one, while Crinagoras is ‘tired’ because he sleeps totally deprived of the beloved one (and her image).

The two possible translations are: a) Nosces fe dormire non somnum, sed lassitudinem (the two accusatives as objects of κοιμηθείς, Dibner, Rubensohn),

b) “You shall know, lying in bed, not sleep but exhaustion, (the two accusatives as objects of γνώσῃ, Waltz-Guillon, Paton, Gow-Page).’* The first construction can be paralleled by the many occurrences of ὕπνος as the object of κοιμᾶσθαι, Il. 11.241 κοιμήσατο χάλκεον ὕπνον, ἢ. Merc. 289 ὕστατον ὕπνον ἰαύσῃς, Call. AP 4 See Sider on Philod. 22,6 and 31,4. '® J. P. Boucher, ‘A propos de Cérinthus et de quelques autres pseudonymes dans la poésie augustéenne, Latomus 35 (1976), 504-19.

ἰδ J.P, Sullivan, Propertius: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge et al. 1976). 7 ROL A.M. Lyne, The Latin Love Poets: from Catullus to Horace (Oxford 1980).

ἰδ Beckby’s translation is more free and avoids the problem: ‘Ach, du findest nicht Schlaf, müde nur wirst du im Bett.

7.451=41,1£., Mel. 7.418=3,2 HE, al. In support of the second alternative (where κοιμᾶσθαι refers to one lying in bed but not asleep), Gow-Page cite Aesch. Ag.

4 and Hom. Od. 20.4; see Fraenkel on Ag. 2 and cf. adesp. 58,4 PMG ἐγὼ δὲ μόνα καθεύδω, imitated by [Theocr.] 20.45 μώνα δ᾽ ἀνὰ νύκτα καθεύδοι. The second

construction seems more probable, but κοιμᾶσθαι should not be necessarily taken to mean ‘in bed’; the notion of exhaustion in one’ sleep is a paradox

suited to the erotic theme of the poem (see above, intr. note), which closes the

gem with a poignant image. For the pleasure of sleep with one's mate, cf. Od.

23.254£.; for the motif of restless sleep without ones lover, cf. Callimachus or Rufinus” παρακλαυσίθυρον AP 5,23, also Flaccus 5.5=1,5 GP. For the construction, cf. Aesch. Ag. 1424f. ἐὰν δὲ τοὔμπαλιν κραίνῃ θεός, / γνώσῃ διδαχθεὶς ὀψὲ γοῦν τὸ σωφρονεῖν. For the attribution of κόπος to γιγνώσκειν in the sense ‘learn, ‘experience, cf. Theocr. 3.15 νῦν ἔγνων τὸν ἔρωτα with Hunter

ad loc., comparing Ov. Met. 13.762 quid sit amor sensit. Ὕπνος scanned with ὕ, as in Attic drama, occurs elsewhere in the Anthology

in Phaénnus 7.197=2,2 HE, Ammianus 11.14,1, Lucillius 11.101,1, 11.264,1, 11.277,1.

oby... ἀλλά: the figure κατ᾽ ἄρσιν καὶ θέσιν (or ἐπανόρθωσις, or correctio) occurs in Callimachus (H. 1.70-2, 2.110f., 5.134f.). See Lapp 96 and Bornmann on Call. H. 3.33. In general, see Lausberg 347 (1). Other occurrences of the figure in the

Anthology, where an emphatic point at the end of the poem is made, are, for instance, Philod. 7.222=26 GP=33,8 Sider un βάτον ἀλλ᾽ ἁπαλάς.... κάλυκας, Antip. Sid. 7.424=29,10 HE, Antip. Thess, 9.77=111,5f. GP, anon. 11.53=15,2

FGE; see further Geoghegan on Anyte 21,3. Crinagoras uses a variation of it (od... podvoy...aAAd) in 36,1ff.; see ad loc. For more examples in the Greek

Anthology and in Martial, see Siedschlag 65-8.

!? For the attribution of the poem, see the discussion in Page (1978) 103ff., Pagonari- Antoniou ad loc. For the motif of the erotic ἀγρυπνία in New Comedy, epigram, and the magical papyri, see R. F. Thomas, ‘New Comedy, Callimachus and Roman Poetry; HSCP 83 (1979), 195-206.

AP 9.429 =2

Tov σκοπὸν Εὐβοίης ἁλικύμονος ἦσεν Ἀριστώ Ναύπλιον, ἐκ μολπῆς ὁ θρασὺς ἐφλεγόμην. Ὁ ψεύστης δ᾽ ὑπὸ νύκτα Kadnpeins ὑπὸ πέτρης πυρσὸς ἐμὴν μετέβη δυσμόρου ἐς κραδίην. AP 9.429 Κριναγόρου εἰς τὸν ἐν Ναυπλίᾳ σκοπόν caret Pl

1 Ἀριστὠ apogrr.: ἀρίστῳ radnp-P

Ρ

3 ὑπὸ apogrr.: ὑπὲρ P| Kadnpeins apogrr:

δυσμόρου P*: -pos PP*

Reiske n. 803, Brunck n. 2, Rubensohn n. 35

Aristo sang of Nauplius, the watchman of sea-beaten Euboea and by the song I was inflamed, I, the audacious lover. The cheating flame shining by night passed from the Capherean rock to my unhappy heart. The poet falls in love with Aristo, while listening to her song about Nauplius. The epigram is divided into two couplets conveying the same information in variation. Both are taken up by the two main themes of the poem: the song about Nauplius’ myth and the erotic excitement that it rouses in the poet. The hexameter of each couplet, together with the first word of the following pentameter, refers to the mythical data and mentions significant names/locations: watchman of Euboea, Nauplius (first couplet), the nocturnal deceptive torch from Caphereus (second couplet). The remaining pentameter of each couplet deals with the poet's feelings, expressed through the motif of the flame of love. The lover is qualified with one adjective in each pentameter, placed at the same metrical sedes: he is ὁ θρασύς and δύσμορος. lordanoglou (89) argues that the

adjective θρασύς here ‘suggests a certain amount of risk awareness. He [sc. the poet] should have known better than to attend, or so it is implied? The second couplet in fact offers a variation/expansion of the content of the first, as it introduces and exploits the pattern of the torch and its double function, that

is, as an element of the myth that is being sung about and representation of the poet's erotic passion. There are only three verbs in the epigram, each one

sketching the essential features of the action/situation: song (ἦσεν), fervent love (ἐφλεγόμην)» and the procedure that leads from one to the other (μετέβη). The oem reaches its climax and closes with a powerful metaphor, which is further marked by a memorable image, that of a physical flame now transformed into a symbolic one, through the key verb μετέβη. Iordanoglou (89) observes that the verb, in addition to signifying passing from one place to another, also indicates passing from one subject to another in writing or speaking, which is the case in the present epigram, where you pass from the myth of Nauplius to the theme of erotic stimulation. For this sense of μεταβαίνω, see below, on μετέβη. The alliteration of sibilants throughout the poem recalls the turmoil of the sea,

which now extends to the poet's agitated psychology. The poem is thematically similar to, and is apparently inspired by, Diosc. AP

5.138=2 HE: Ἵππον Abjviov ἦσεν ἐμοὶ Kakdv: ἐν πυρὶ πᾶσα Ἴλιος ἦν, κἀγὼ κείνῃ ἅμ᾽ ἐφλεγόμαν Τοὐδείσας Δαναῶν δεκέτη movov' ἐν δ᾽ ἐνὶ φέγγει τῷ τότε Kat Τρῷες κἀγὼ ἀπωλόμεθα.

a

3

~

Ä

>

f

5

3

\

a

2

/

x

>

3

‘

fa

/

Stadtmiiller further compares phrases in the present epigram with phrases

from Dioscorides’ epigrams (the present poem’s opening with Diosc. AP 11.195=36,1 Γάλλον Ἀρισταγόρης ὠρχήσατο, 1. 2 ὁ θρασὺς ἐφλεγόμην with Diosc. 6.220=16,11f. 6 θαρσαλεώτερος ἄλλων /... ἔδραμεν, 1. 3 ὁ ψεύστης with Diosc. 5.52=6,3 HE ἀλλ᾽ ἡ μὲν ψευδής, on the girls infidelity), and says

Dioscorides mihi videtur composuisse vel imitator Dioscoridae. However, these resemblances are not enough themselves to justify rejecting Crinagorean authorship and it seems far more likely that Crinagoras has reworked Dioscorides’ epigram.

Another epigram on the poet's feelings inspired by a girls singing and expressed through the metaphor of the erotic flame is Philod. AP 5.131=11 GP=1 Sider (the general setting and idea being the same in Philodemus and

Crinagoras, but with no specific reference of the latter to the former): WPaduos καὶ λαλιὴ καὶ kwridov ὄμμα καὶ δή Bavdinmns καὶ πῦρ ἄρτι καταρχόμενον, ὦ ψυχή, φλέξει ae τὸ δ᾽ ἐκ τίνος ἢ πότε Kal πῶς οὐκ olda' γνώσῃ, δύσμορε, Tubouern. 1

ὕ

>

λ

[4

\

tA

δ᾽

é

5

7

nv

Ed

\

m

4

The performance of Aristo should be imagined as being similar to that of Dioscorides’ Athenion, that is, probably, singing accompanied by the cithara

(see Gow-Page on Diosc. 2 HE, intr. note). As regards Athenion, Gow-Page thought in terms of a public performance rather than of a private symposium.

For a review of other suggestions (for instance, that the performance involved

a monody from a tragedy sung at a symposium), see Iordanoglou 85. For more passages presenting a woman's song (such as Theocr. 15.100-44, the hymn for

Adonis in his festival in Alexandria, or the song of Leucippe in Ach. Tat. 21), see Plastira-Valkanou 379.* See also below, on Apıorc. For the erotic element in Crinagoras’ poetry, see on ep. 1, intr. note. For the myth of Nauplius, father of Palamedes, who lit a beacon on the danger-

ous Capherean rock of Euboea to cause the destruction of the Greek fleet on its return from Troy, and so to avenge his son’s death, see Nostoi 1 EvelynWhite p. 526 ὁ περὶ ras Kabnpidas πέτρας... χειμών, Eur. Hel. 767, 1126-31,

Apollod. Epit. 6.7a. The myth was a popular subject for songs in the early imperial period; cf. Suet. Nero 39 Naupli mala bene cantitaret (the emperor),

Lucillius AP 11.185. Lucillius, like Crinagoras, exploits the correspondence between the effects of Nauplius’ deed and those of the song; Lucillius, however, does this in a humorous spirit. Ναυπλίου ὀργή was the theme of a

pantomime (Lucian Salt. 46). Gow-Page suggest that Bassus’ AP 9.289=8 GP, on the same subject (but without Crinagoras’ erotic connotations), is

inspired by the present poem. 1 σκοπὸν Εὐβοίης ἁλικύμονος: Stadtmüller cites Eur. Hel. 1128-31 μονόκωπος ἀνὴρ πέτραις | Kadnpiow ἐμβαλών, / Αἰγαίαις ἐνάλοις δόλιον | ἀκταῖς ἀστέρα λάμψας, 767 τὰ Ναυπλίου τ᾽ Εὐβοϊκὰ πυρπολήματα, Qu. Sm. 14.621f, Virg. Aen. 11.260. Σ'κοπός is Homeric: for instance, Il. 2.792, Od. 16.365.

Euboea is mentioned by Homer at Il. 2.535, 2.536, Od. 3.174, 7.321. At h. Ap. 31 and 219 Euboea is qualified with the adjective ναυσικλειτή (see Richardson on 31). Ἁλικύμων occurs elsewhere only in Mesomedes 8.21 GD πελάγους ἁλικύμονος and Orph. H. 75.2 βυθοὺς ἁλικύμονας. Cf. ἁλίκτυπος at Nonnus D, 31.113 Aygvor ἁλίκτυπον; also Soph. Ant. 953, Eur. Hipp. 754 with Barrett ad

loc., anon, AP 6.23=17,1 FGE. Also, cf. ἁλίκλυστος at Soph. Aj. 1219, anon. AP 9.325=55,1 HE, Apollon. 9.228=14,3 GP, al. Crinagoras’ Εὐβοίης ἁλικύμονος is perhaps inspired by Euripides’ λευκοκύμοσιν πρὸς Γεραιστίαις (Or. 993), Geraestus being a harbour of Euboea and λενκοκύμων used only by Euripides in this passage, and thus being parallel to the very rare ἁλικύμων, possibly first

coined by Crinagoras. Ap. B. has Εὐβοίας. ἦσεν: for the construction with the accusative, cf. 1]. 1.1 Miviv ἄειδε θεά. In a

context similar to that of the present poem, cf. Diosc. AP 5.138=2,1 HE: Ἵππον Ἀθήνιον u

Yoev, Lucillius AP

11.185,2 σαι

Ναύπλιον,

Leont.

Schol. API

287,1

κτορα μέν τις ἄεισε. 7

᾿»

* M. Plastira-Valkanou, Athenion

and the Horse, in ντιφίλησις:

Byzantine and Modern Greek Literature Papademetriou (Stuttgart 2009), 379-85.

and

Culture

in Honour

Studies on Classical,

of John-Theophanes

A.

Apıor®: the correction of P’s ἀρίστῳ to Aptorw occurs in Ap. B., Ap. R., and Ap. G. (in margine). Äpıorw occurs at Leon. AP 7.463=69,1 HE (also in the end of the first verse). Geist, followed by Rubensohn and Dübner, changed to Ἀρίστων. Geist supposed that the dancer in Lucillius’ AP 11.253 (on the dancer Ἀρίστων, the name appearing at the same sedes?) is the same person for whom, in his youth, Crinagoras had written his epigram.* Geist (10-12) argued that one should not imagine a male actor playing the role of Nauplius, and tried to

mitigate the difficulty that arises from the fact that Lucillius’ Ariston is a panto-

mime, while ἦσεν and μολπή in the present poem denote a singer, with the

suggestion that ἄδειν here can, like canere, ‘im allgemeineren Sinne von thea-

tralischer Darstellung gebraucht sein: As regards identification with Lucillius’ artist, this is almost impossible chronologically, as Weinreich (1941, 80)

observed, since Ariston, if he was eighteen or twenty in AD 15-18, at the end of

Crinagoras’ life, would have been in his sixties when he danced the Niobe mentioned by Lucillius. Furthermore, the names which appear in Lucillius’ poems

are not likely to belong to real persons; see Robert (1967) 276-7.‘ Geist’s view

(10) that only men were pantomimes until the fourth century ap and that any

exception would certainly not belong to the Augustan period has been dis-

proved.° Besides, and more importantly, although μολπή can have the sense of ‘dancing, here it is accompanied by the verb ἧσεν, which makes it clear that we are dealing with a song. See below, on ἐκ μολπῆς ... ἐφλεγόμην. The problem of deciding between Ἀρίστων and Apıorw remains, however, even without the

assumption that Crinagoras is referring to a pantomime. Rubensohn, on the basis of Lucillius AP 11.185 and Suet. Nero 39, where ‘Nauplius’ is sung by male

singers, holds that Ariston here is a singer and player of the cithara, mentioning

as regards musicians bearing the name Ariston the evidence of Strabo 6.1,9 (on a κιθαρῳδός from Rhegium) and Pantelides® 75 (inscriptional epigram on an αὐλητής from Cos); see also Weinreich (1941) 81 with n. 55. Weinreich (1941, 82) defends Ἀριστώ on two grounds: a) Crinagoras does not offer us any other 2 Aplaraw occurs at the same sedes also at Theaet. AP 7.499=4,1 HE, anon. 7.546=46,1,

Antigenes 13.28=1,7 FGE (for the author, see Page FGE, p. 11). > Lucillius lived under Nero. Cf, for instance, Weinreich (1941) 80, * Interestingly, Lucillius caustically sketches an unpleasant character, quite the opposite of the lovable personality that inspires erotic feelings in the poet in Crinagoras’ epigram. When Weinreich suggests that Lucillius’ Ariston might be a real person, although he does not accept the reading Ἀρίστων for the present epigram, he notes that it would be nice ‘daß einer ob einer Jugendleistung epigrammatisch gelobt und mit einer steifen Altersleistung von einem andern Epigrammatiker verhöhnt wird’ (1948, 85). ° For female dancers in Rome (even before the introduction

of the term pantomima),

see

Starks passim; Cicero mentions, for instance, an emboliaria (Sest. 116); see Starks 122f, A fourleenyear-old girl called Hellas is a pantomima, according to her funerary stele, dated to early imperial times. See Starks 118-22. As regards actresses, Arbuscula, Dionysia, and Cytheris were actresses of Ciceros time; Thymele was a mima contemporary of Bathyllus, See further G. Kenneth G. Henry, ‘Roman Actors, Studies in Philology 16 (1919), 379f. It is interesting that the epitaph of Eucharis (Neronian period) presents the girl as the first female to play Greek parts on stage; see ibid. 380. * S. K. Pantelides, '"EITITPABAT THE ΝΉΣΟΥ KR) BCH 2 (1887), 71-9.

examples of pederastic poetry and his 1 and 14 refer to women (14, of course, is not an erotic poem), and b) Apıora is closer to θήνιον than Aplorwv and it is not safe to suggest that Crinagoras is producing a variation of his model, Dioscorides’ poem, in accord with the literary theme of boys’ love. Although these arguments offer probability rather than certainty, it would be plausible to

maintain that, since one of the two extant erotic poems of Crinagoras (1) refers

toa girl, the other one is not likely to refer to a boy, as Crinagoras is not an erotic

poet of, say, Meleager’s type. From a palaeographical point of view, it is possible that the scribe took APIZT® to be the dative of ἄριστος; in fact cis often found in P added to nominatives and vocatives, among other words; see Finsler 29£.7 2 ἐκ μολπῆς... ἐφλεγόμην: cf, Diosc. 5.138=2,2 HE ἐφλεγόμαν, the only other occurrence of the form in the Anthology (same sedes). DAdyeıv is commonly used to describe Eros’ activity. Cf, for instance, Alc. Mess. AP 5.10=6,3 θεὸς

ἄνδρα καταφλέγει, Asclep. 12.46=15,2 ὦρωτες...τίμὲέ φλέγετε;, Mel. 5.139=29,6

HE, Philod. 5.123=9 GP=14,6 Sider, Rufinus 5.75=29,2 and 5.87=31,6 Page; also Ap. Rh. 3.773, Mus. 246. For the concept of love and erotic passion as heat/burning, as early as Sappho (cf. fr. 48,2 L-P), see further Sider on Philod. 1,2 (AP 5.131) πῦρ, Floridi on Strato 21, intr. note, and 86,2 καίομαι, and

Henderson 177f.° Although ἐκ expresses cause from Homer onwards (see LSJ s.v. II 6), the

construction of φλέγεσθαι with this preposition is uncommon. When accompanied by the cause of the burning, the verb is normally constructed with a dative of cause. Cf. Aesch. Sept. 52 θυμὸς ἀνδρείᾳ φλέγων, Aristoph. Th. 680 μανίαις φλέγων, Plato Leg. 716a, Plut. Mor. 46d. Cf. also the verb’s construction with ὑπό: Dion. Hal. AR 11.28,5 φλεγόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους, 9.66,3, Ael. NA

14.27,24. A similar construction to that in Crinagoras’ phrase is Ael. VH 14.41 ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου ὑπαναφλεγόμενος. Cf. Crin. 15,3f. ἐκ dé we μητρός / ἥρπασεν, where ἐκ is used instead of the expected παρὰ or ἀπό; see ad loc. Μέλπομαι and μολπή in Homer can indicate dancing (for instance Il. 18.606), but also singing and song (for instance Il. 13.637); for a discussion of the interpretation of μολπή, see Hainsworth and Garvie on Od. 6.101 and F. Williams on Call. H. 2.8. For a detailed analysis of the ancient discussion on the word, see

Bielohlawek passim.” ὁ θρασύς: Stadtmüller compared Paul. Sil. AP 5.300,1 ὁ θρασὺς ὑψαύχην re (the lover who is too confident; cf. Mel. 12.101=103,3 HE). Usually the adjective ” Finsler (30), however, accepted Geist’s Apiorwy and so did not regard the present instance as an example of this type of mistake. * J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy (New Haven and London 1975). ° K. Bielohlawek, 'MEATIEZOAI und MOAIIH, (1927), 1-11.

WS 44 (1925), 1-18, 125-43 and WS 45

qualifies Eros himself. At Posid. AP 5.213=4,4 HE "Ἔρωτι θρασεῖ χρώμενος ἡγεμόνι, the daring of Eros helps the poet overcome the difficulty of approaching

the girl. Crinagoras’ ‘boldness’ is more comparable to the daring nature of Eros in general: cf. Paul. Sil. 5.274,1 “Ἔρως θρασύς. Also Mel. 5.177=37,6, 5.178=38,2, 12.86=18,4 HE. 3f. ὁ ψεύστης... ἱπυρσός: πυρσός is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 18.211), as is

also ψεύστης (Il. 24.261). For ψεύστης as an adjective in the Anthology, cf. Leon. 7.273=62,6 HE ψεύστης... λίθος, Marc. Arg. 7.374=19,3 GP ψεύστην... τάφον,

Gaetul. 7.275=6,5 FGE ψεύσταν.... τύμβον. On Nauplius’ torch, cf. Bassus AP 9.289=8,3 GP πυρσὸς ὅτε ψεύστας, Eur. Hel. 1130f. δόλιον /...aorepa. For πυρσός

as the beacon with which a message is transferred, cf. Hdt. 7.183,2, 9.3,4, Ap. Rh. 4.482. Cf. also the verb πυρσεύειν: Eur. El. 694, Xen. An. 7.8,15. See further Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 1126-31. The verb is also used to describe Nauplius’ deed at Eur. Hel. 1126 πυρσεύσας φλογερὸν σέλας. For the erotic metaphor, cf. the phrase πυρσὸς Ἐρώτων at Nonn. D. 15.402,

33.247, 38.117, Mus. 90, Paul. Sil. AP 5.290,3; cf. also Strato 12.182=23,1f. Floridi Ἔρωτος ἀπέσβη / πυρσός. For mupoös as the torch of love, cf. also [Theocr.] 23.7, Asclep. AP 12.17=37,1 HE. See further Kost on Mus. 90 and Floridi on Strato 23,1-2, and below, on πυρσός ... κραδίην.

ὑπὸ νύκτα: the correction to ὑπό is found in Ap. B., Ap. G., Ap. R. (in textu) and Ap. V. (in margine). Geist (12f.) defended P’s ὑπέρ interpreting ‘die über die Nacht, mehr als die Nacht täuschende Fadel’'” and comparing Bassus AP 9.289=8,3f. GP dvodepwrepa νυκτός / ἦψε σέλα. For metrical reasons, he was forced to change the word order to νύκτα δ᾽ ὕπερ ψεύστης ὁ Kadnpeins ἀπὸ

πέτρης, which, of course, makes it highly unlikely that his suggestion is correct. Jacobs’ compared Prop. 4.1,115 Nauplius ultores sub noctem porrigit ignes. Cf. LSJ s.v. ὑπό C II 2, and Thuc. 3.80,2 ὑπὸ νύκτα αὐτοῖς ἐφρυκτωρήθησαν ἑξήκοντα νῆες Ἀθηναίων, 6.64,1, 8.35,4, al. Cf. Triphiod. 29

καὶ δολίην ὑπὸ νύκτα, same sedes; ὑπὸ νύκτα recurs at 383 and 615. At the same sedes also at Qu. Sm. 10.451. On a specific night, cf. Hom. Il. 22.102 νύχθ᾽ ὕπο τήνδ᾽ ὀλοήν.

Kadypeins ...aérpys: the south-east promontory of Euboea: Plin. NH 4.63, al. (see RE 10.1893). Cf. Posid. 19,10 Austin-Bastianini Καφηρείης. ἁλός, Bassus 9,289=8,1

GP

οὐλόμεναι

νήεσσι

Kadnpides,

Strabo

8.6,2

τοῦ

δὲ Ναυπλίου

τοσοῦτον ἀπεργασαμένου φθόρον ἀνθρώπων περὶ τὸν Καφηρέα, Eur. Hel. 1128f. πέτραις / Καφηρίσιν ἐμβαλών. Other references to Caphereus: Eur. Tr. 90 ai Καφήρειοί τ᾽ ἄκραι, Prop. 3.7,67 saxa triumphalis fregere Capherea puppes, Virg. 20 For ὑπέρ + acc. denoting excess, see LSJ s.v. BIL 1. For the ‘deceitfulness’ of the night, cf. [Opp.] Cyn. 2.28 νυκτερίους δὲ δόλους, vuxinv πανεπίκλοπον ἄγρην, Triphiod. 29 καὶ δολίην ὑπὸ νύκτα. Cf.

Peek 1522=Kaibel 418,3 (Cyrene, ad II) νύκτα μίαν ψεύστιν καὶ ἀνηλέα (in a context of lament).

u

AP 9,439=2

Aen. 11.260, Sen. Her. Oet. 804 (see Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 1128). Cape Caphereus

is perhaps referred to at Alpheus AP9.90=1,2 GP μέγαν Edpotys σκόπελον (see Gow-Page ad loc.). In Byzantine times the cape was called Sudoddyos: cf. Tzetzes on Lyc. 373. Cf. also Lyc. 1095f. vauddyor/... δυσμενεῖς ῤρυκτωρίαι with Tzetzes’ comment, τὸν περὶ τὸν Καφηρέα Yroı τὸν Ξυλοφάγον λέγει φανόν, ὅπου

πολλαὶ νῆες ἀπώλοντο. See further Horsfall on Virg. loc. cit. The correction to αφηρείης occurs in the apographs (Ap. B., Ap. V., Ap. G., Ap. R.) in textu.

4 πυρσός.... κραδίην: fire typically takes over and settles ir the heart of the lover: Philod. AP 5.131=11 GP=1,2f. Sider (see above, intr. note), 11.41=17 GP=4,6 Sider

πῦρ ἀπλήστῳ rüber’ ἐνὶ κραδίη, Paul. Sil. 5.260,6 φλὸξ κατέχει κραδίην, anon, 9.15=4,3f. FGE δεῦρ᾽ ἀπ᾿ ἐμῆς ψυχῆς ἅψον σέλας" ἔνδοθι γάρ μου / καιόμενον πολλὴν ἐξανίησι φλόγα, Mus. 246 τὸ δ᾽ Ἔρωτος ἐμὲ φλέγει ἐνδόμυχον πῦρ with

Kost ad loc. Cf. also the burning arrow of love at Ap. Rh. 3.286f. βέλος δ᾽ ἐνεδαίετο κούρῃ | νέρθεν ὑπὸ κραδίῃ φλογὶ eixeAov. With the metaphoric usage of πυρσός burning in the heart, Maccius API 198=11,7 GP (of Eros) ἐνέφλεγες ev

φρεσὶ πυρσόν, Paul. Sil. AP 5.279,3 κραδίης πυρσός, anon. 5.303,4 ὅσσοι Evi κραδίῃ πυρσὸν ἔχουσι πόθον (see also above, on ὁ etorns.../ πυρσός). Reiske (1754, 175 and 1766, 149), Brunck and Jacobs' print εἰς, unnecessarily.

μετέβη: the torch passes from the sphere of epic to the realm of Eros and also to the world of epigram, i.e. poetry of a smaller and not heroic scale. See further

above, intr. note. For the verb, in a context of a change of subject, in a similar construction, cf., for instance, h. Ven. 293, ἢ. Dian.9, and ἢ. Merc. 1] μεταβήσομαι ἄλλον ἐς ὕμνον, Plato Phaedr. 265c ἀπὸ τοῦ ψέγειν πρὸς τὸ ἐπαινεῖν ἔσχεν ὁ λόγος μεταβῆναι. In acontext with a personalized object/idea, as in the present poem, cf. Aesch. Ch. 308 ἡ τὸ δίκαιον μεταβαίνει. MeréBy occurs at Strato AP 12.187=28,3 Floridi (same sedes). δυσμόρου: δύσμορος is kept in Ap. V., Jens (353), Reiske (1754, 175 and 1766,

149), Geist, Jacobs”, Holtze, Dübner.

δυσμόρου, which appears to be P’s reading

before the correction to δύσμορος, referring to the poet himself, is elegantius, Brunck observes (without printing it): it is printed by Stadtmüller, Gow-Page, Beckby, and Waltz-Soury, and approved by Jacobs? (who does not print it, however) and Stoll (278). For a similar construction, cf. Maccius AP 5.133=5,3 GP τοὐμὸν ἐπισταμένη τάλανος κακόν. Ap. B. (in textu), Ap. G. (in margine, while the text has δύσμορος), and Ap. R. (in a correction over δύσμορος in the text) have δύσμορον, which is also printed by Brunck, Jacobs’, Paton.

The adjective, very common in Homer and tragedy, usually occurs in a context of death and mourning in the Anthology (for instance, Antip. Sid. 7.493=68,6 HE, Paul. Sil. 7.560,8 (same sedes), Diod. 7.701=10,5 GP, anon.

AP 9.429=2 9.158=56,6 FGE, al.). In an erotic context, note the use of the epithet by the love-stricken Philodemus at 5.131=11 GP=1,4 Sider (see above, intr. note), last

line and same sedes. For other adjectives attributed to the unhappy lover in the Anthology, cf. δυσάμμορος (Mel. 12.72=92,5 HE), τάλας (Maccius 5.133=5,3 GP;

see above; Paul. Sil. 5.254,3), σχέτλιος (Mel. 12.72=92,3 HE).

AP 6.227 =3

A pytpedv σοι τόνδε γενέθλιον és τεὸν ἦμαρ, [Tpdkre, νεόσμηκτον δουρατίην κάλαμον, εὖ μὲν ἐυσχίστοισι διάγλυπτον κεράεσσιν, εὖ δὲ ταχυνομένην εὕροον εἰς σελίδα, 3

5.

/

7

/

͵

Σ

\

>

ριναγόρ

πέμπει Kpivayopns, ὀλίγην δόσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ θυμοῦ

πλείονος, ἀρτιδαεῖ σύμπνοον εὐμαθίῃ. ——

AP 6.227 Kptvaydpov MuriAnvalov Suda s.v. ἀρτιδαεῖ ([:πέμπω, ἀρτιδαεῖ, «TA.) caret Pl

5 πέμπει P: πέμπω Suda | 6 ἀρτιδαεῖ Suda: -8a7 P | εὐμαθίηι P: ἐργασίηι Suda Reiske n. 477, Brunck n. 4, Rubensohn n. 4

This spear-like silver pen, newly polished, nicely carved with well-divided tips, smoothly flowing on the hurried page, Crinagoras sends you for your birthday, Proclus, a little gift but from a full heart, to accompany your latelylearnt scholarship.

Crinagoras sends Proclus a silver pen as a birthday gift. Trankle' (87-9) noted the similarity of construction of Crin. 3, 4, and 5 (an

uninterrupted sentence with the description of the present/object in the beginning and the subject at the end) with Helvius Cinna fr. 11 (haec.../ carmina...// vexi munera). Burkhard (31) aptly remarks that the main informa-

tion consists in four words, on which the whole poem is built (ἀργύρεον κάλαμον, enclosing the first couplet, and πέμπει Kpivaydpns), while the other attributes of the pen (νεόσμηκτος, δουρατίης, διάγλυπτος, ebpoos, and the

description in the central couplet) fill in the rest of the epigram. The accumulation of rare or unique words (νεόσμηκτον, ἐυσχίστοισι, διάγλυπτον, ταχυνομένην,

aprıdael) and of equally unusual expressions (xepaeaoı for the pen’s nibs, ταχυνομένην σελίδα, the page ‘hurried’ by the script) is not uncommon in 1 Ἢ, Tränkle, ‘Neoterische Kleinigkeiten, MH 24 (1967), 87-103.

AP 6.227=3

73

Crinagoras, especially in the poems where objects are described; see Intr., Language and Style, ἅπαξ λεγόμενα. Νεό-σμηκτος, for the pen, and ἀρτι-δαής, for the student, form a sort of parallelism, as the ‘newness’ of the instrument corresponds to the recent education of its user. Perhaps a self-referential allusion is to be discerned in ταχυνομένην, as the speed with which the pen writes

on the page can evoke the apparent speed with which epigram itself, a short and acute form of poetry, is written. This rapidity is, of course, hardly real, since epigrams asa rule involve painstaking effort and care, so that the allusion to the speed of the writing of the poem can be seen as suggesting a witty and teasing ‘modesty’ Here this elaboration is in accordance with, and represents the rarity and sophistication of, the item the description of which occupies the greatest part of the poem, See also below, on εὔροον. It is worth noting that the central couplet is neatly divided into two equal parts, |. 3 and |. 4. These convey proportionally a piece of pictorial detail, placed significantly at the centre of the poem, namely the description of the features and the function of the pen, that is, the form of its tip (1. 3) and its fluency (1. 4). The pen’s other important quality, the fact that it is silver, is also stressed by the adjective’s position, appearing, as it does, as the opening word. The correspondence between the two parts which form the central couplet and thus put in visual form the division of the whole epigram is underlined by the anaphora of εὖ μέν - ed δέ. This structure moreover copies, as it were, and suggests the content of 1. 3, the division of the tips of

the pen itself. The present epigram, and Crin. 5 and 6 accompany a gift, so they belong to the category ‘poems accompanying or representing a birthday-gift’ (Van Dam 450). Crin. 4 is a ‘dinner-present’; see ad loc., intr. note. 7,5 is open to conjectures

as regards the day described as ‘the holy day’ for Antonia. Elsewhere in Philips Garland, Antipater of Thessalonica offers gifts, including a book of his own verses (cf. intr. note to Crin. 11), to Piso, and Antiphilus offers presents to ladies of high rank, accompanied by poems, for instance Antipater 6.249=45 and

9,93=31, Antiphilus 6.250=1 and 6.252=2 GP; see further Müller on Antiphilus 7,7. Editors plausibly assume that the recipient here is a child who has just begun to learn to read and write. Cf. Martial’s poems on Saturnalia gifts for children: 14.19, 35, 54, 168, al. See further Leary (1996) 5 and on Mart. 14.19,2;

for Martial’s inspiration by Greek gift poems, see Salemme 10ff. In similar fashion to the present poem, in Mart. 14.38 the gift consists of bundles of

pens. A puer, perhaps a young slave but possibly a child, is the recipient of a ? R. Apostol (‘Crinagoras AP 6.227 as Pederastic Epigram, Mnemosyne 65, 2012, 463-8) makes certain lexical observations to prove that the epigram has a latent homoerotic content (supposedly, ἀργύρεον pointing to the poet's grey hair, νεόσμηκτον hinting at bodily cleanliness, δουρατίην, κάλαμον, and διάγλυπτον bearing sexual connotations). These observations reflect a subjective interpretation of the words, which is neither supported by the context of Crinagoras’ poetry (and

the context of his gift poems, in particular) nor convincing enough as regards the meaning and function of these words in the present epigram, for which see below, on the relevant loci.

74

AP 6.227= 3

graphiarium, a stylus-case, in Mart. 14.21; see Leary on 1. 2. In the Anthology, a description of a pen is also found at anon. 9.162=63 FGE. Gow-Page and Burkhard (31) plausibly assume that Proclus was the son of a person of high

social standing, deserving of an expensive gift; cf. below, on ἀργύρεον." For birthday presents, cf. Leon. Alex. 9.355=32 FGE; the latter also sends his poems themselves as presents (for a birthday, cf. 6.321=1, 325=4, 328=7, 329=8 FGE), as does Antipater of’Ihessalonica (GP 31=9.93) and Thallus (GP 2=6.235). Such

birthday poems are, for instance, Tib. 2.2, Prop. 3.10, Mart. 4.1, 10.24, 12.60. See further Murgatroyd on Tib. 1.7, intr. note, esp. p. 211, and Maltby on Tib. 1.7,1-2,

Cairns 113 with n. 14, Henriksén 2.25, Van Dam 450f., Burkhard 47-133 and passim, Nauta 105-6, Moreno Soldevila 96. Birthdays were celebrated both in Greece and in Rome. Crinagoras is our earliest extant Greek poem for such an occasion; see Burkhard 13-29.° Ovid calls the stilus ferrum at Met. 9.522; see further Bomer ad loc. A silver

pen is mentioned once more in the Anthology in anon. AP! 324,1 ἡ ypadis dpyvpen. Usually the metal pens have pointed, conic nibs, since metal pens were by rule used for writing on wax tablets. Crinagoras’ pen, however, has a split nib, as is the case for the calami made of reed (which were used for writing

on papyrus, the ink being channelled through their nibs). In fact, pens made of metal could also, though rarely, have divided tips: see Daremberg-Saglio s.v.

Calamus I, with fig. 996 (a bronze calamus; ‘on fit aussi ἃ limitation des calami de véritables plumes en metal, as Daremberg-Saglio put it), and Thompson 43.°

Furthermore, a fifth-century bronze pen with a split nib was excavated in

Athens. 1 ἀργύρεον: ἀργύριόν σοι Suda. The word's sedes is Homeric: Il. 23.741, 11.31, Od. 15.104, al. For silver pens, see above, intr. note. Silver was commonly offered at

the Saturnalia (cf. Mart. 14.97, silver dishes inlaid with gold, 120, a silver spoon, 179, a silver statuette of Minerva, al.; cf. Leary on the lemma of Mart. 14.120).

Poor people are forbidden to offer silver beyond their means by the Saturnalian law-giver in Lucian’s Sat.; see Leary on Mart. 14.93, lemma. γενέθλιον... ἦμαρ: see on Crin. 5,3 ἦμαρ... γενέθλιον.

2 vedounxrov: there is no need to suspect that the word is spurious as did

Kuster, who edited the poem in 1.339 (in his comment on Sudas entry on aprıdaei)

and

suggested

νεόγλυπτον,

σμίιλευτόν,

OF νεόκμητον;

νεόκμητον

* Rosenmeyer (2002, 140 with n. 6) suggests that Crinagoras’ pen will encourage the youth to write him letters in turn or ‘to practice general writing exercises. * For earlier evidence of the celebration of the γενέθλιος ἡμέρα, cf. the Ptolemies’ celebration of their birthday. Cf. also Ballio’s birthday in Plautus’ Pseudolus, vital for the plot and probably based on the corresponding scenes in its Greek model. Cf. Burkhard 15. ° E.M. Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography (rev. ed., Richmond 2008). ° See W. E. H. Cockle, ‘Restoring and Conserving Papyri, BICS 30 (1983), 147 and 150.

AP 6.227 =3

75

appears also in Ap. B. and Ap. R., in marginal notes (traditionally attributed to Salmasius). Νεόσμηκτος is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον: Il. 13.342. Afterwards

rarely: cf. the conjectural νεοσμήκτῳ re μαχαίρῃ in Euphorion fr. 132 Powell=133 Van

Groningen,

Call.

fr. 676,2

νεοσμήκτους

ἄστριας,

Nonnus

D. 27.17, Plut.

Aem. 32.5. Hesych. has νεοσμήκτων" νεωστὶ ἐσμηγμένων, and LSJ s.v. has ‘newly cleaned’ (σμήχω). Gow-Page remark, however, that there is no point in describing an unused object as ‘fresh-cleaned’ and suggest ‘recently polished, as in Call. loc. cit. Suda offers the meaning ‘newly sharpened’; see s.v. νεόσμηκτον᾽ νεόθηκτον καὶ νεοκάθαρτον, a sense accepted by Waltz for the present passage (‘taillée 4 neuf’). However, the pen in question seems to be made entirely of

metal, including its tip (see intr. note) and ‘newly polished’ seems the best sense.’ See also next note and on κεράεσσιν. Soupariny: critics have suggested several corrections: Sovparıov Toup (1767),°

68 and (1790), 2.483, printed by Brunck and Jacobs’, δουρατέην Ap. B., Supp. Gr. 243c and στυρακίην Ap. B. and Supp. Gr. 243c in margine (the note in Ap. B. giving ὁ xapdoowv as a parallel to orupaxins), δουρατέον (sic) Ap. R., δικρατίην Geist, Öovpariov Bothe (in Dübner), νεοσμήκτῳ δούρατι σὺν Diels

(in Rubensohn, explaining ‘calamum argenteum mittit, qui hastae ligneae levigatae infixus est’), νεοσμήκτῳ δούρατι ἐν Rubensohn, Awpiaxov Sitzler

(115), δογματίῃ Desrousseaux (in Waltz, accepted by Waltz and Conca-MarziZanetto), ἐργατίνην Lumb

(25). Geist’s suggestion δικρατίην (Ξδικρανίην),

‘double headed, ‘like a pitchfork, referring to the split nib of the pen, although far-fetched and unlikely, gives a better meaning than the other suggestions. Pezopoulos emends to douvaxinv, accepted by Beckby: ööva£ is used for ‘pen’ in Damocharis AP 6.63,5, Paul. Sil. 6.64,3, 6.66,8 (so that repetition of

καλάμους previously mentioned can be avoided). Cf. also δόναξ at Philip 6.62=11,2 GP, Paul. Sil. 6.65,5, σμίλαν... δονακογλύφον at Phanias 6.295=3,1 HE;

cf. h. Merc. 47 δόνακας καλάμοιο. As regards the formation, Pezopoulos (181) compared κάλαμος βομβυκίας, ebvovyias, cupryyias, yapaxias (Theophr. HP 4.11,1-4, 4.11,10): these terms describe various kinds of reed in Theophrastus. However, this suggestion is not satisfactory, as the present pen is made of

silver and has nothing to do with reed.

Gow- Page defend the reading given by

the codex and suggest that Crinagoras has, as he often does, coined a form dovparias, ‘spear-like, referring to Buck-Petersen 172. This formation is pos-

sible (cf. Theophrastus’ terms for the various kinds of reed in -ias; see above) and on these grounds it is possible to retain the reading of P. For two or more adjectives applied to the same noun, see on Crin. 5,1 χάλκεον ... ἔργον. 7 Without this implying, however, that pens with a point of metal were nol sharpened. In fact, even if used only on wax, the nib would become blunt and require sharpening with a stone (sce D. Sim and A. J. Ammerman, ‘Experiments to Produce Roman Styli by Forging and Machining, Antiquity 71 (1997), 1011).

® Epistola critica ad celeberrimum virum Gulielmum episcopum Glocestriensem (London 1767),

κάλαμον: pen, at this sedes also at Damocharis AP 6.63,4, Paul. Sil. 6.64,2, Jul.

Aeg. 6.68,4. Scribes’ tools appear as votive offerings in AP 62-8 and 295, most of which are from the Cycle of Agathias; see further Gow-Page on Phanias 3 HE, intr. note and Schulte 44f. (on Jul. Aeg. AP 6.67, intr. note). Dedication

of these instruments occurs first in Phanias 6.295=3 HE and then Philip 6.62=11 GP. For the descriptions of calami in the Anthology, see also Schulte 46 (on Julian 6.67,3-4).

3f. εὖ pév.../ εὖ δέ: for the anaphora of these word-groups in the beginning of two consecutive lines, cf. Theogn. 845f., Leon. AP! 182=23,5f. HE (iambic);

often elsewhere in the same or in different lines: Il. 2.382, Od. 6.318, Hes. Op. 349, Soph. Tr. 229, Call. AP 7.415=30,1f. HE, al. Cf. also the praise of the lady who uses the silver pen (see above, intr. note) in anon. AP] 324,3f. εὖ μὲν Ἀθήνη / τέχνης, εὖ δ᾽ εἴδους ἄκρα δέδωκε Κύπρις. For the figure, see on Crin. 12,1 Ἥρη... Ἥρη. For the anaphora of words in two consecutive lines in Callimachus, see Lapp 54.

The accumulation of ed- in ll. 3 and 4 (regarded as inelegant by Gow-Page) Stresses the notion of easiness and fluency (see next note). An analogous, but extreme, example of alliteration arising from the repetition of δάκρυ- and ai- is Mel. AP 7.476=56 HE. ἐυσχίστοισι: a rare word, mainly found in prose. The poet uses it again at 42,1.

The adjective is a synonym for ἐυσχιδής; Jul. Aeg. in AP 6.68,4 λίθος ἐυσχιδέων θηγαλέῃ καλάμων is perhaps reminiscent of the present passage. For the split nibs

epigrammatists

use

various

expressions:

Damocharis

AP

6.63,4

μεσοτόμους... καλάμους, Paul. Sil. AP 6.64,3 ὀξυντῆρα μεσοσχιδέων δονακήων, 6.65,5 δισσὸν ὀδόντα / θήγεται. Note the use of compounds with ed- to qualify aspects of writing and its instruments. Cf. evpoov at |. 4 which implies the idea

of smoothness and fluency; see ad loc. For the frequency of adjectives prefixed with εὐ- in Hellenistic and later poets, see H. White on Theocr. 24.8. Leonidas, representative par excellence of the dedicatory genre, likes these compounds; cf. Gow-Page on HE 1955. Typically, Crinagoras uses them in dedicatory contexts; cf. 42,7 ἐυστόρθυγγι, 43,1 εὐπίδακες, 4 εὐθήροιο, 36,4 evao. Cf. also on Crin. 42,1.

διάγλυπτον: here only. Homer has διαγλάψασα, Od. 4.438 εὐνὰς δ᾽ ἐν ψαμάθοισι διαγλάψασ᾽ ἁλίησιν, ‘scooped, ‘made hollow. Cf. Schol. διαγλύψασα, διακοιλάνασα, ἐκ τοῦ γλάφω; also Ebeling s.v. διαγλάφω, Hesych.: διαγλάψας" διαγλύψας, διασκαλεύσας. For the connection between γλύφω and γλάφω, see Chantraine (1968-70), Frisk s.v. yAadupds. For διαγλύφω in the sense ‘make

hollow, cf. Ael. NA 14.7. Rather than possessing the sense ‘divided} therefore (LSJ s.v.), διάγλυπτον should here mean ‘carved, ‘made hollow; as the tip of the

pen is indeed hollow. For διαγλύφω as a technical term, used of work on reliefs, see Blümner 2.168. Metal calami were made in imitation of reed calami. Cf. the

sketch at Daremberg-Saglio s.v. Calamus I, fig. 996 of a surviving bronze pen. Cf. Damocharis AP 6.63,4 μεσσοτόμους εὐγλυφέας καλάμους. Γλύφειν κάλαμον

as indicating the pen’ sharpening (Damocharis AP6.63,4 εὐγλυφέας καλάμους), temperare calamum, acuere, given by Daremberg-Saglio s.v. Calamus I, does

not seem to suit the procedure that results in διάγλυπτον, since this pen is made of metal.’ See also on ἐυσχίστοισι.

κεράεσσι: the form is Homeric (Il. 13.705, Od. 19.563); also Call. H. 2.62. In the

Anthology, Perses 6.112=1,1, Samius 6.116=1,3 HE. Crinagoras’ use of κέρας for the point of the writing-reed is unparalleled. Cf. the description of the work resulting to the making a pen of a reed at anon. AP 9.162=63,3f. FGE λεπτὰ τορήσας / χείλεα. ταχυνομένην: ταχύνειν is not Homeric, but frequent in Attic drama.‘ The

idea of swiftness implies liquidity. Cf. ὠκύροος for rivers, Il. 5.598, 7.133; also cf. Antip. Thess. AP 9.417=70,4 GP πίδακος ἐκ τυφλῆς οὐκ ἐτάχυνεν ὕδωρ.

The page is ‘hurried’ by the pen, as the latter runs over the surface of the former, in an image recalling the swiftness of ships on the sea. Cf. σπερχομένη used for the ship at Od. 13.115, Ap. Rh. 4.934. In Petr. 5, it is the pages that ‘run, det pagina cursum; cf. Mart. 9.77,2 facunda... pagina. See also above, intr. note.

eüpoov; as regards the practical aspect of writing, the ‘fluency’ of the pen on the page is to be connected, through the concept of for, highlighted here, with the fluency of the words the script represents (cf., for instance, the probable reading of Eur. fr. 439,3 TrGrF εὐρόοισι στόμασι with Kannicht’s note and Cyril Fr. in sanct. Paul. Epist. lad Corinth. 286,22f. Pusey" ὁ πρόχειρός τε καὶ εὔρους [sc. λόγος] καὶ ws ἀπὸ γλώσσης ἰὼν τῆς ἄγαν εὐτροχωτάτης) and/or with the liquid ink it contains. Cf. Damocharis AP 6.63,3 γραφικοῖο δοχεῖα κελαινοτάτοιο

ῥεέθρου (the inkwells). See also above, intr. note. For compounds with ed- in a similar context, see above, on ἐυσχίστοισι.

Εὔροος is a Homeric rarity for a river (Il. 7.329, 21.130). The use of imagery involving rivers and fountains in criticism of poetry’? enhances the metapoetical overtones that the pen’s adjective εὔροος conveys here: the pen is flowing on any page written by anyone and will be flowing on Proclus’ page in particular,

* Daremberg-Saglio (812) describe the manufacture of a bronze pen as ‘fabriquée avec une feuille de ce metal roulée et forgée sur un mandrin de fer’

‘© For the use of vocabulary of drama, cf. on Crin. 13,1. 1 BE. Pusey, Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis evangelium, vol. 3 (Oxford 1872).

!2 A famous instance in Greek is Call. H. 2.108-12. For Latin passages where flowing waters are used in metaphors for writing/composing poetry (like Hor. Sat. 1.4,11), see K. Freudenburg, ‘Horace’s Satiric Program and the Language of Contemporary Theory in Satires 2.1, AJP 111 (1990), 199f,

78

AP 6.227=3

but it is also flowing on the page of Crinagoras who composes poetry which flows like, say, Callimachus’ λιβάς (H. 2.112).

eis σελίδα: epigrammalists use σελίς in similar contexts: Philip AP 6.62=11,1 GP μόλιβον, σελίδων σημάντορα πλευρῆς, Phanias 6.295=3,3 HE, Paul. Sil. 5.254,6. In Crinagoras time, σελίς indicates the column of a papyrus roll rather than the page of a codex, as the codex is mainly used after AD 200; see Sider on Philod. 4=AP 11.41,2.

Sf. oAiyav.../ πλείονος: for the traditional modesty of the person offering the gift, see on Crin. 4,5 βαιόν... φρενός. Here the modesty of the poet stands in

contrast to the elaborate description of the gift, which is, in fact, rare and expensive; cf. Theocr. 28.24f. ἦ μεγάλα χάρις / δώρῳ σὺν ὀλίγῳ, in contrast to the high quality of the distaff the poet is sending Theugenis. For the expression, cf. Od. 6.208 δόσις δ᾽ ὀλίγη τε φίλη τε (repeated in 14.58): φίλη has either a passive meaning (cf. Schol. ὀλίγη μὲν τῷ διδόντι, φίλη δὲ τῷ λαμβάνοντι, ‘alms cost little and please the recipient, Gow on Theocr. loc. cit.) or an active one

(‘with love’; see Hainsworth and Garvie on Od. 6.207-8). The phrasing in Crinagoras poem supports the active sense of φίλη in the Homeric passage.

The poet is probably expressing his view here on the use of a disputed Homeric sense, as Hellenistic poets often do. The Theocritean expression is rather to be seen in this light;'? cf. also Comparatio Menandri et Philistionis 2.91f. Jaekel ἅπαν διδόμενον δῶρον, av καὶ μικρὸν ἧ, / μέγιστόν ἐστιν, «ἂν» μετ᾽ εὐνοίας δοθῇ. For the expression, cf. Agis 6.152=1,3 HE ἔργων ἐξ ὀλίγων ὀλίγην δόσιν, Jul. Aeg. AP 6.25,5 εἰ δ᾽ ὀλίγου δώρου τελέθει δόσις. For the antithesis ‘small, but... , see on Crin. 31,2f. Bacyy.../ ἔμπης. ἀπὸ θυμοῦ: self-variation with 4,5 ἀπό... φρενός; see ad loc. The phrase ἀπὸ θυμοῦ is usually found in literature meaning ‘away from one’s heart’; cf. I]. 1.562f. The sense ‘from one’s heart, like ἀπὸ φρενός, is rare (cf. Hesych. ἀπὸ

θυμοῦ: ἀπὸ ψυχῆς. ἢ ἄπωθεν τῆς ψυχῆς) and perhaps here influenced by the Latin idiom. Cf. the Latinism at Antiphilus 6.250=1,2 GP τὸν σὸν ἀπὸ κραδίης (cf. Müller ad loc., on Antiphilus 7,2); see on Crin. 4,5, See also next note.

θυμοῦ / πλείονος: θυμός, here ‘soul, is usually qualified in Greek literature by μέγας, in the sense of ‘spirit’ or ‘strength’ (cf. e.g. Il. 7.25; also μεγάλαι φρένες, e.g. Il. 9.184), ὀλίγος (cf. Il. 1.593, ‘little strength’), μείζων (cf. Eur. Med. 108,

‘greater passion’) but never with πολύς or πλείων, At Herodian Hist. 8.4,1 ὀργῇ καὶ θυμῷ χρώμενος πλείονι, θυμός is ‘anger’ (‘becoming more angry’). Crinagoras’ expression is probably influenced by the Latin equivalent. Cf. Οἷς. Ad Alt. 7.16,2

multo animo, ‘great heart, although here animus has the sense of ‘courage’; see also on Crin. 4,6 ὁ πᾶς ἐπὶ σοί. For the comparative without a second element

of comparison, see K-G II (2) 305f,, n. 7. 13 For a discussion of the difficulty of μεγάλα yd pis of 1. 24, see Gow ad loc.

AP 6.22/7=3

3

ἀρτιδαεῖ: ‘newly learnt’: here only, ἀρτιμαθεῖ given by Suda as a synonym. Other ἅπαξ λεγόμενα compounds with dpre- in the Anthology are Theocr. 9,437=4,2 Gow dprıyAudes, Heracleitus 7.465=1,1 HE ἀρτίσκαπτος, Zonas 6.22=1,1 GP dpriyavy, 1.4 apridopon, ἀρτιφνοῦς anon. 6.21=18,6 FGE; παντοδαής in ‘Diog, Laert. 7.57,2 is also a unique word, as well as πρωτοδαής in Opp. Hal. 4.323.

σύμπνοον: ‘which will follow your ...; there is no need to accept the reading of Ap. B. σύμπονον, printed also by Reiske (1754, 33 and 1766, 28), Brunck, and Gow-Page; for the word, cf. Agath. AP 11.372,1 ἀδερκέι σύμπνοον αὔρῃ, Greg, Naz. AP 8.79,6 (same sedes) Βασιλείῳ σύμπνοα ἱρὰ φέρον (Ἵ entered priesthood

in union with Basil, Paton); for the metaphorical use of συμπνέω, ‘go along with, see LSJ s.v. 1.

The association of the adjective with πνεῦμα makes its appearance in a context of learning even more appropriate; cf. LS] s.v. πνεῦμα ITI (inspiration from the Muses, inter alios); cf. also Lucian Hes. 7,3 τῶν Μουσῶν ἐπίπνοιαν.

In contrast to Ap. B., Supp. Gr. 557 retains P's σύμπνοον. εὐμαθίῃ: there is no reason to accept, as Brunck did, Sudas ἐργασίῃ; if the

objection to P’s reading is that -μαθ- repeats -δαεῖ, one can argue that εὐμαθίη can have a wider meaning than merely ‘easiness in learning. Cf. Call. AP 6.310=26,1 HE εὐμαθίην ἠτεῖτο ‘earning, Leon Alex. 6.325=4,3f. FGE Μουσῶν origon,...]...BiAins σῆμα καὶ ebualins,'* also the closing word of the poem,

where ‘learning’ can be interpreted as ‘scholarship, Apollon. 9.280=21,3f. GP Μουσάων δ᾽ ἐπὶ χεῖρα βαλὼν πολυΐστορι βίβλῳ, / εἶδεν ὑπὲρ κορυφῆς σύμβολον εὐμαθίης, Mel. 12.257=129,8 HE σύνθρονος ἵδρυμαι τέρμασιν εὐμαθίας (‘learned

work’), equal to σοφία, a term used of the poet's craft;'” cf. AApp 3.116,5f. κόσμῳ δέ / παντὶ Eis προλιπὼν σύμβολον εὐμαθίης, ‘doctrine’ (of Eucleides), at pentameter-end. In Crinagoras, it is to be observed, pleonastic expressions do occasionally occur; see Intr., Language and Style, Pleonasms. For the formation of εὐμαθίη, cf. Cramer Anecd. Gr. 2.229,24 Ta παρὰ τὸ παθεῖν καὶ μαθεῖν διφοροῦνται καὶ προπαροξύνονται" ὁ δὲ πολιτικὸς διὰ τοῦ ı, οἷον... Εὐμάθεια καὶ Εὐμαθία.

4 Cf. the same pair of notions in Leon, Alex. AP 9.353=30,1f. FGE καὶ λόγον ἱστορίῃ κοσμούμενον ἠκρίβωσας / καὶ βίον ἐν φιλίῃ, Πάππε, βεβαιότατον, where ioropin is ‘learning,

‘scholarship. 15 For Meleager in particular, see the discussion of K. Gutzwiller, ‘Learning and Love in the Epigrams of Meleager, in 5. Eklund, D. Searby et al. (eds.), Svyydppara: Studies in Honour of J. F. Kindstrand (Uppsala 2006), 67-85, esp. 68-9, 76, 83-5.

AP 6.229=4

Aietot ἀγκυλοχείλου ἀκρόπτερον ὀξὺ σιδήρῳ γλυφθὲν καὶ βαπτῇ πορφύρεον κυάνῳ, nv τι λάθῃ μίμνον μεταδόρπιον ἐγγὺς ὀδόντων "Ψ

5.

[A

/

/

5

%

IS

7

κινῆσαι πρηεῖ κέντρῳ ἐπιστάμενον, βαιὸν ἀπ᾿ οὐκ ὀλίγης πέμπει φρενός, οἷα δὲ δαιτός δῶρον ὁ πᾶς ἐπὶ σοί, Λεύκιε, Kpwvayöpns.

AP 6.229 Κριναγόρου caret Pl 1 ἀγκυλοχείλου Salm.: ἀγκυλό χειλος P [hyphen C] Ap. L.in marg.:öeöamosP

5 φρενός Ὁ: -vas P | δὲ δαιτός

6 ὁ πᾶς Hecker: daca’ P

Reiske n. 478, Brunck n. 5, Rubensohn n. 5

The pointed tip of the feather of a crooked-beaked eagle, carved with the knife and dyed with purple cyanus, able in removing with gentle spike whatever remains hidden about the teeth after supper, Crinagoras, your devoted friend, sends you, Lucius, a small token of a large affection, as a dinner-gift. Crinagoras sends a toothpick made of an eagle's feather as a gift to Lucius. The toothpick (for which no Greek word existed in the poet’s times; see

below) is described in a periphrasis dominated by the terms αἰετός and σίδηρος, ie. words rich in epic connotations of magnificence and might. ‘The eagle is accompanied by its Homeric adjective (see below, on ἀγκυλοχείλου) in a phrasing marked by assonances of consequent vowels (a, at, ov) and alliterations of x, A, p. The idea of ὀξύτης is juxtaposed with the σίδηρος, and, although it does not qualify it, ὀξύς next to the ‘iron, brings to mind the Homeric ‘sharp swords.’ Thus, two epic symbols, Zeus’ royal bird and the sword of the battle, open the poem with clearly heroic overtones only to prove, in the next lines,

that they are actually totally detached from any context of bravery and simply serve to define the instrument of a quite insignificant everyday occupation. * Cf. the common

iunctura ὀξές χαλκῷ (Il. 4,540, 5.132, 5.558, 5.675, 5.821, 10.135, 13.212, 13.338,

13.561, 14.12, al.) and, e.g., σίδηρον ὀξύν at Eur. Supp. 590.

Γλυφθέν, πορφύρεον, βαπτός, and κύανος then denote meticulous craftsmanship expected for formidable and impressive artefacts, while the artistic skill

implied by the reference to them here is in fact exploited only for a miniature, however elegant and fanciful this may be. The triviality of the object, together

with the grandiloquent description of its manufacture, which is in comic contrast with its humbleness (even if one accepts that Crinagoras’ toothpick is of a respectable size, the unimportance of the object is hard to deny), can suggest

a deliberately teasing pleasantry on the poet's part towards his addressee: cf. below, on ἣν τι. This tone of self-irony is moreover made apparent by the correspondence of the design of the present poem to that of Crin. 3, the epigram on a present which as regards value is the complete opposite, the precious silver pen, It consists of four lines of description, followed by the final couplet expressing the giver's conventional modesty and the use of the gift/reason of the offer. The poet seems to make a playful use of the correspondence of form between his two gift poems to undermine his own pomposity here with reference to his really splendid present, or vice versa, if the pen poem was written

after this one. The humorous spirit of the toothpick poem, however, rather suggests that the pen poem was composed first. In any case, one has the feeling that Crinagoras designed the two poems as a congruent-antithetical pair. Cf. Rosenmeyer (2002) 140. No Greek equivalent word for the Latin dentiscalpium is attested before Byzantine times. Clemens expresses his dislike for the cleaning of the teeth with a toothpick (Paed. 2.7,60,4 Harl et al.) using the verb διαγλύφω, but no noun to describe the object; in much later times, in a document of 1255, a silver

ὁδοντογλύπτης is mentioned.’ In the eighth to ninth centuries ap Theodorus Studites mentions an ὀδοντογλύφιον (Mag. Cat. 20.144).

For poems accompanying presents, see on Crin. 3 and 5, intr. notes. NisbetRudd mention the present poem in the context of poems dealing with ‘transformations of one object by craftsmanship into another, together with Philip AP 6.99=15 GP (an image of Pan, made from oak-wood) and Simias 6.113=3 HE (a bow made from the horns of a goat); see further Nisbet-Rudd on Hor. Od.

3,11,5-6. Martial mentions toothpicks, inter alia, as presents exchanged during the Saturnalia in 7.53,3. Cf. also 14.22, a description of a toothpick as a present at the Saturnalia. It is very possible that the Saturnalia were the occasion of the present gift, as gifts were exchanged on these days; see Howell on Mart. 5.18,1, Canobbio 227, Galan Vioque (2002) 320, For Saturnalian gifts associated with

dinner in connection with the hosts’ practice of offering guests the utensils they had used during the banquet of the festivities, see Leary on Mart. 14.93, lemma. Gifts for the Saturnalia in the Anthology are Antip. Thess. 6.249=45 GP (a candle), Leon. Alex. 6.322=2 FGE (the epigram itself: cf. Mart. 5.18 with Howell and ? Koukoules 4.392 with nn. 4 and 5. Clemens says: of δὲ διαγλύφοντες τοὺς ὀδόντας αἱμάσσοντες τὰ οὗλα σφίσι τε αὐτοῖς εἰσὶν ἀηδεῖς Kai τοῖς πλησίον amex Geis.

AY 6.229=4

Canobbio ad loc., intr. note and Leary 1996, 5).? It is noteworthy that, while other gifts Crinagoras makes are rare and costly (3, a silver pen; 5, an oil-flask, probably made of Corinthian bronze; cf. ad loc.; 6, a garland of winter roses),

the present gift is trivial. Cf. Mart. 14.22 lentiscum melius: sed si tibi frondea cuspis / defuerit, dentes pinna levare potest, and 7.53,1ff., where the poet tells us

of how ‘a stingy patron sent him seven of them in a miscellaneous exchange of cheap Saturnalian presents, as Mohler put it.” Mohler commented that ofa δὲ δαιτὸς δῶρον (Il. 5f.) is an ‘apology, as it were, for the quality of the gift. Rosenmeyer (141, n. 8), however, suggests that Crinagoras’ gift was probably not cheap, as the eagle feather was rare and the dye luxurious. For toothpicks, see RE s.v. dentiscalpium. They were made of mastic-wood (Mart. 6.74,3) or feather (Martial mentions both in 3.82,9 pinnas rubentes cus-

pidesque lentisci, probably also in 14.22; cf. Leary ad loc., Grewing on 6.74,3; for Martial’s possible reminiscence of Crinagoras, see Salemme 12). It is interesting to notice that both Crinagoras and Martial draw the reader's attention to the toothpick’s colour, although in Martial it is naturally red, rather than an artificial blue as here (cf. below, on πορφύρεον). The rubentes pinnae of Mart. 3.82,9 are the feathers of the flamingo, the φοινικόπτερος, a bird to whose colour Martial is making an etymological allusion in 3.58,14 also; see Fusi 382 and 490. In Petronius 33, we have a pinna argentea, a silver toothpick. Bronze examples have also been found: see RE s.v. dentiscalpium, Daremberg-Saglio 2.102, Galan Vioque (2002) 321. For dental care in Rome, see Leary on Mart. 14.22, lemma, and Galan Vioque (2002) 321.

If. αἰετοῦ ἀγκυλοχείλου: the correction of P’s reading ἀγκυλόχειλος (retained in the text by Brunck, Reiske (1754, 33 and 1766, 28), Jacobs’, Jacobs’, Geist,

Holtze, Rubensohn) to ἀγκυλοχείλου is traditionally attributed to Salmasius (ἀγκυλοχείλου or -ov appears in Ap. L., Ap. G., and Ap. B., in a marginal note in

all; Ap. R. reads dy«vAdyetAcos and has ‘lege ous’ supra lineam). Desrousseaux (printed in the Budé edition) corrects to ἀγκυλόχειρος, accepted also by ConcaMarzi-Zanetto. AyxvAoyetAns is most probable; cf. Il. 16.428, Od. 22.302, Hes. Sc. 405 αἰγυπιοὶγαμψώνυχες ἀγκυλοχεῖλαι, Od, 19,538 μέγας αἰετὸς ἀγκυλοχείλης. For the Homeric text the reading -χειλ- is preferable to -xnA-, since in Il. 16.428 and Od. 22.302 ἀγκυλοχῆλαι would actually constitute a repetition of yapyavuyes, as Eustathius observed (on Il. loc. cit., 1068); cf. also Stanford and Fernandez-

Galiano on Od. loc. cit.’ The reading -ynA- can be explained as a mistake, since both -xeıA- and -xnA- were written

XEA in Attic and Ionic script; see Janko on

* Books 13 and 14 of Martial’s epigrams consist of series of poems, each designed to accompany a particular gift for the Saturnalia; see further Leary (1996) 1M., (2001) Mf.

* §. L. Mohler, ‘Apophoreta, CJ 23 (1927-8), 255. * Of course, the use of synonyms is often found in Homeric formulae; these synonyms, however, form expanded expressions, such as θάνατος καὶ μοῖρα, πόλεμόν re μάχην re (see Hainsworth 1968, 82f.), and are not similar to the present case.

AP

O.Z2Z7=4

Il, 16.428. As Janko observes, ἀγκυλοχῆλαι is right in Bair. 294, where the curved claws of the crabs are described. As for Aristoph. Eg. 197, the reading is, of course, Bupoaieros ἀγκυλοχήλης. Cf. the explanation given at 204f.: τί δ᾽ ἀγκυλοχήλης ἐστίν; Αὐτό mov λέγει, / ὅτι ἀγκύλαις ταῖς χερσὶν ἁρπάζων φέρει.

Aristophanes might have had - χηλ- in his Homeric text (cf. Bechtel 1914, 7), or be playfully altering his Homeric text (-xe(Ans) to make his pun. For χεῖλος as the bird’s beak, cf. Eur. Jor: 1199, Call. fr. 194,82, Mnasalcas AP 9.333=15,4 HE, Opp. Hal. 3.247. Ἀγκυλοχείλης as the reading accepted in a later period can be supported by Alciphron 3.23,3 γαμψώνυχα καὶ μέγαν ἀετόν, γοργὸν τὸ βλέμμα καὶ ἀγκυλοχείλην τὸ στόμα. For the confusion between χηλή and χεῖλος, cf. also

Empedocles where the Strasbourg papyrus has the correct xnA- for Porphyry’s yetA-; see Martin-Primavesi® 297-8 with n. 5 and 301. A most useful contribution to the problem is the discussion by the second-century AD grammarian Herodian, who summarizes the ancient debate on the matter and explains that even with the spelling ἀγκυλοχειλ- the word was still (wrongly) derived by some from χηλή (Gr. Gr. 3.2,361,18ff.): τινὲς θέλουσι τὸ ἀγκυλοχείλης εἶναι σύνθετον ἀπὸ τοῦ χηλή τοῦ θηλυκοῦ ὀνόματος, ὅπερ σημαΐνει τὸν ὄνυχα, ἵνα ἡ ἀγκυλοχήλης διὰ τοῦ ἢ καὶ κατὰ τροπὴν Βοιωτικὴν τοῦ ἢ εἰς τὴν εἴ δίφθογγον γίνεται ἀγκυλοχείλης διὰ τῆς εἰ διφθόγγου, ἔθος γὰρ ἔχουσιν οἱ Βοιωτοὶ πολλάκις

τὸ ἡ εἰς τὴν εἰ δίφθογγον τρέπειν.7 Herodian goes on to prove the fallaciousness of this interpretation: the ἡ of χηλή is turned to a in Doric, in which case, he notes, the Boeotian change to εἰ does not apply, and concludes: οὐκ ἄρα οὖν τὸ ἀγκυλοχείλης σύνθετόν ἐστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ χηλή, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι παρασύνθετον ἀπὸ τοῦ

ἀγκυλόχειλος συνθέτου ἀπὸ τοῦ χεῖλος; cf. also Gr. Gr. 3.2,683, 4.1-2,166f. Herodian (3.2,683) also explains the grammatical form of ἀγκυλοχείλης, in

answer to the possible objection that a first declension adjective, such as ἀγκυλοχείλης, is likely to be a compound of χηλή, rather than χεῖλος (as held also by modern scholars; cf., for instance, Bechtel 1914, 7): ra ἀπὸ ets os eis ns γινόμενα Baptrova, εἴτε ἁπλᾶ εἴτε παρασύνθετα, eis τὴν ὃν δίφθογγον ἔχει THY

γενικὴν οἷον Apufos Ἀράξης Ἡράξου, Admıdos “απίθης “απίθου, (...) οὕτως καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀγκυλόχειλος ἀγκυλοχείλης ἀγκυλοχείλου γέγονεν, καὶ εὐλόγως εἰς τὴν Ou δίφθογγον ἔσχε τὴν γενικήν. ἀκρόπτερον: elsewhere only in [Opp.] Cyn. 4.127 and (frequently) in Cyranides. The poet uses another compound with dxpo- in 18,1, ἀκρέσπερος, also at the same sedes, for which see ad loc. The word seems to indicate that the toothpick is made not from the entire feather, but from its end; cf. other ἀκρο- compounds ° A. Martin, O. Primavesi, L’Empédocle de Strasbourg: P. Strasb. gr. Inv.1665-1666 (Berlin 1999). 7 Eustathius, as his comment on ἀγκυλοχείλης (on Il. 16.428) shows, clearly knows and refers to the explanation of the word’s spelling with -e- from χηλή brought about by the phonetic change

in the Boeotian dialect, but ignores Heradian’s discussion and arguments, and dismisses the derivation from χηλή on the ground of meaning, since (1) χηλή should be used of πεζά animals and

(2) ἀγκυλοχήλης would be a repetition of γαμψώνυχες; see prev. note. For the change of secondary ἢ to εἰ in a group of Doric dialects, see Sens (2004) 69.

designating the edge of something, e.g. axpoppiviov, the tip of the nose. See LS} S.V. aK po-.

ὀξύ: there is ambiguity here about whether the adjective refers to the ἀκρόπτερον

before or after the carving (for the latter interpretation, cf. the translation of Waltz, ‘une plume... aiguisée avec un fer’; cf. also Paton’s translation). Gow.

Page avoid the decision by offering a faithful translation of the Greek text: ‘this pointed wing-tip...carved with the knife. It seems reasonable to assume that the point of carving is to sharpen the wing-tip, cf. for the phrasing Hdt. 7.69 λίθος ὀξὺς πεποιημένος, Kaibel 790,5 (III Bc) ἔγχος ὀξ]ύνας σιδήρῳ. Πρηεῖ

κέντρῳ in |. 4 continues to play with the ambiguity in regard to sharpness; see ad loc. σιδήρῳ / γλυφθέν: cf. ἢ, Merc, 41 γλυφάνῳ πολιοῖο σιδήρου, Jul. Aeg. AP 6.68,7 γλυπτῆρα σιδήρεον, AApp 3.148,1 ἔγλυψέν με σίδηρος. The possibility of an

intentional etymological play between the Latin scalpo (>dentiscalpium) and its Greek equivalent γλύφω (see Lewis & Short s.v. scalpo I) cannot be excluded. In epigrams, the participle occurs in two passages in the extant Posidippus, on a chariot carved on stones: 8,4 Austin-Bastianini (with Gasser in F. Angio et al,

Der Neue Poseidipp, ad loc.) and 20 HE=15,3 Austin-Bastianini. βαπτῇ... κυάνῳ: enallage for Bamröv πορφυρέῃ κυάνῳ; for the figure, cf. Kost

49, Lausberg 306 (2). In the Anthology, cf. Mel. 5.166=52,3 HE στοργῆς ἐμὰ λείψανα, with Gow-Page ad loc., citing also Mel. 12.68=112,7 HE γλυκὺ δ᾽ ὄμμασι νεῦμα δίυγρον, the latter adjective ‘logically’ qualifying the eyes, rather than the νεῦμα. See also next note.

Barry: literally ‘dipped, hence ‘dyed’: cf. Dunbar on Aristoph. Av. 287. GowPage compare Eur. Hipp. 122 βαπτὰν κάλπισι... mayday, with a similar use of enallage. Βαπτός is happily combined with the adjective πορφύρεος, as the former together with πορφύρα forms compounds referring to the act of purpledyeing, as πορφυρόβαπτος, mopbupoßadns, πορφυροβάφος. See LSJ s.v. πορφυρόβαπτος. Cf. also Aesch. Eum. 1028, Antip. Sid. AP 6.206=6,4 HE with

Gow-Page ad loc. In a dense expression, Crinagoras produces an interesting antithesis between the dark-red crimson which βαπτός with πορφύρεος implies,

and what is actually the blue cyanus which completes the phrase. πορφύρεον: purple as a colour appears in Hellenistic art somewhat late, although

it is mentioned very often in literature and suggests status and luxury; see Bruno” 48. Πορῴφύρεον is usually translated as ‘purple, but in antiquity its meaning was not specific. In Homer, it has a wide range of applications, qualifying textiles (φάρεα, χλαῖνα, πέπλος, τάπης, Il. 8.221, 9.200, 24.796, Od. 4.115, al.; see Handschur 128, n. 4), blood (Il. 17.361 with Edwards ad loc.), clouds, the

* V.J. Bruno, Form and Color in Greek Painting (New York 1977).

AP 6.229=4

85

sea (Il. 16.391, 21.326, Od. 6.53), also death (Il. 5.83, 16.334, 20.477); cf. Hesych.

s.vv. πορφύρεος θάνατος" ὁ μέλας καὶ βαθὺς καὶ ταραχώδης. Related to πορφύρεος is also ἁλουργής and φοῖνιξ; cf. Hesych. s.v. ἁλουργές. For a discussion of the various meanings attributed to πορφύρεος (‘red, ‘shining, ‘colourful’) in epic

and in literature in general, see Handschur 127ff. In the chromatic spectrum, πορφύρεος can designate several nuances of red, as well as of violet, blue, even black (Handschur 128, Blum? 29-30, Bradley 195f. (referring to Pliny’s account about purple in book 35); cf. RE s.v. ‘purpura, 23.2,2003). For a further discussion of purple and its connotations in Rome, see further Bradley 189-211. As in the present poem any shade of red is in fact to be excluded, since κύανος produces blue pigment (see next note), it can be plausibly suggested that πορφύρεος indicates some shade of blue. In 6,2 Crinagoras uses the adjective for a shade of red, to describe rose buds. κυάνῳ: in Homer we have τοῦ δ᾽ ἤτοι δέκα οἶμοι ἔσαν μέλανος κυάνοιο, / δώδεκα

δὲ χρυσοῖο καὶ εἴκοσι κασσιτέροιο (of Agamemnons breastplate, I. 11.24f.) and περὶ δὲ θριγκὸς κυάνοιο (Od, 7.87), Hainsworth comments on Il. 11.24 that the

word can indicate ‘the natural mineral lapis lazuli, its imitation in glass paste, or the blue-black alloy known as niello, the latter being the ‘most likely in the decoration of a breastplate’; see also Irwin 80-4 for a discussion of both passages. For lapis lazuli, cf. Theophr. De lap. 31 with Caley-Richards ad loc. (126). Theophrastus categorizes the kinds of cyanus, all of which produce pigments, thus (De lap. 55): γένη δὲ kudvov τρία, ὁ Αἰγύπτιος, καὶ ὁ Σκύθης, καὶ τρίτος 6 Κύπριος. Βέλτιστος δ᾽ ὁ Αἰγύπτιος εἰς τὰ ἄκρατα λειώματα, ὁ δὲ Σκύθης εἰς τὰ

ὑδαρέστερα. In this passage the (natural) lapis lazuli*® is to be identified with the Scythian cyanus, the (natural) azurite with the Cyprian one and the (artificial) blue frit with the Egyptian cyanus (see Caley-Richards 183f.). The cyanus pigment, like all ancient pigments, was available and used only in the form of powder (see Caley-Richards 184) and its colour varied from very dark to very light blue." For κυάνεος, see the discussion of Irwin (79-110) and Stewart’? (327-40). The toothpicks made of feathers in Mart. 3.82,9 are red, pinnas rubentes. For the gender of xvavos, occasionally feminine, see LSJ s.v. Crinagoras is perhaps playfully echoing Mel. AP 4.1=1,40 HE, where the flower κύανος is also feminine: πορφυρέην κύανον.

9 H. Blum, Purpur αἷς Statussymbol in der griechischen Welt (Bonn 1998).

15 To be clearly distinguished from azurite, which is a carbonate of copper; cf. R. J. Forbes, Metallurgy in Antiquity (Leiden 1950), 295. 11 See Theophr. De lap. 55 with Caley-Richards ad loc. (186); cf. also Irwin 80 and Handschur 160f.

12 § Stewart, "The “Blues” of Aratus, in M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, G. C. Wakker, Beyond the

Canon (Hellenistica Groningana 11, Leuven et al. 2006), 319-43.

5D

AP 6.229=4

3 ἦν τι: a very frequent phrase in drama. Here it has a humorous nuance, as it occasionally does in the Anthology. Cf. Nicarchus AP 5.40,7, 11.73,7, Archias 9.27=25,2 ΟΡ." The light-toned opening of the third line is in contrast to the pompous first couplet; comparable is Crin. 33, where the solemn first couplet is

followed by the humorous request for the safety of the poet's new house. μίμνον: remaining, as in Crin. 27,3f. ἄχρι κε μίμνῃ /... θαρσαλέη. The poet uses the verb in the sense of ‘wait’ in 6,6 μίμνειν ἠρινὸν ἠέλιον. In Homer,

cf. II,

24.382=Od. 13.364 ἵνα περ τάδε τοι σόα μίμνῃ. μεταδόρπιον: a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Od. 4.194, same sedes). In Homer, it

means ‘during, ‘in the middle’ of the supper (as Eustathius interprets it: cf. West ad loc.), while in its rare occurrences afterwards it has the sense ‘after the supper. Cf. Pind. fr. 124,4, Strato AP 12.250=92,1 Floridi.

ἐγγὺς ὀδόντων: Hecker's (Hecker 1852, 243) conjecture ἐντός, accepted by Rubensohn, Diibner, Stadtmüller, Paton, Beckby, and Waltz, perhaps improves the sense, but is unnecessary. The difference between ‘in’ and ‘near’ the teeth is not very important here. Usually ἐντός in this context is used to indicate the area of the mouth defined, restricted by the teeth. Cf, for instance, Hesych. κνάπτειν κελεύω γλῶσσαν" συνέχειν ἐντὸς τῶν ὀδόντων κελεύω THY γλῶτταν,

Aristot. PA 682a12f. τοῖς δὲ μὴ ἔχουσιν ἔμπροσθεν τὸ κέντρον ἐστὶν ἐντὸς τῶν

ὀδόντων τοιοῦτον αἰσθητήριον. At Dion, Hal. De Comp. 14.91 the tongue is described as going close to the teeth in its effort to pronounce the p: τὸ δὲ p τῆς γλώττης ἄκρας ἀπορριπιζούσης τὸ πνεῦμα Kal πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐγγὺς τῶν ὀδόντων

ἀνισταμένης. The opposite correction is also attested: Aristarchus has unnecessarily changed the ἐντός of Il. 1.432 (λιμένος πολυβενθέος ἐντὸς ἵκοντο) to ἐγγύς. 4 κινῆσαι: Valckenaer’s (in L. C. Valckenaer and P. Wesseling, Herodoti Halicarnassei Historiarum libri IX (Amsterdam 1763), 617, on Hdt. 7.239)

emendation ἐκκνῆσαι, ‘scrape off, or eradere (according to Valckenaer’s inter-

pretation), accepted by Brunck, a very rare word (cf. Hdt. loc. cit. τὸν κηρὸν αὐτοῦ [sc. τοῦ δελτίου] ἐξέκνησε), is very tempting, as it describes the act of cleaning the teeth with a toothpick after dinner better than κινῆσαι, and the Latin scalpo (cf. dentiscalpium) is equivalent to ξέειν which ἐκκνῆσαι also means (cf. Lewis & Short s.v. scalpo I). Kvaw is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 11.639) and a mainly prosaic word; see Hatzikosta on Theocr. 7.110.

πρηεῖ κέντρῳ: an oxymoron,'* as κέντρον is expected to be qualified by ὀξύ; cf. Theogn. 847f. κέντρῳ / ὀξέι, Aristoph. Vesp. 225f. kevrpov.../ ὀξύτατον, Call. fr.

380,1f,,anon. AP6.45=43,] HE, cf. Nonnus D. 5.511, 11.236, al. For other oxymora 15 For the authorship see G-P GP on Archias 25, intr. note. ** For the figure, see l.ausberg 358, § 807. In poetry, cf., for instance, Mus. 237 εὐνῆς κρυφίης τηλεσκόπον ἀγγελιώτην, 263 νυμφοκόμοιο... παρθενεῶνος with Kost ad locc. and p. 16; also Wifstrand 81,

AP 6.229=4

87

in Crinagoras, see on 35,3f. ödp’äv.../... ns. Note the playful antithesis with ἀκρόπτερον ὀξύ in]. 1, the ‘gentle sting’ of the toothpick coming from a ‘pointed’ ἀκρόπτερον. Waltz remarks: ‘Parce que ce cure-dents est en plume et non en métal (or, argent ou bronze) comme

les cure-dents plus luxueux;

peut-étre

aussi, le bain de κύανος en avait-il amolli la pointe’ ἐπιστάμενον: for ἐπίστασθαι used of objects, cf. Philip AP 6.38=10,6 GP (of the flint, dedicated by a fisherman to Poseidon) σπέρμα πυρὸς σώζειν πέτρον ἐπιστάμενον,

Nicarchus

6.285=2,6

HE

(of the housewife's

gear)

ἔργα,

νέον

τήκειν ἄνθος ἐπιστάμενα.

5f. βαιόν... φρενός: self-variation with 3,5f. In both phrases the smallness of the gift being emphatically contrasted with the magnitude of the giver’s feelings (see also next note). The expression ὀλίγη φρήν is unattested in Greek in this

sense (‘small affection’) and it is presumably coined by the poet as the opposite of θυμὸς πλείων, which seems to be a Latinism. See on Crin. loc. cit. and Intr.,

Language and Style, Latinisms. βαιόν: the adjective is post-Homeric, often occurring in poetry. In Crinagoras again at 31,2, as an adverb at 16,4. For the poet's modesty in regard to the quality of the gift, cf. Antip. Thess. AP 9.93=31,1f. GP. Cf. Leon. Alex. 6.321=1,4 FGE, Mart. 9.54,11. Comparable is the expression of Antiphilus’ modesty of circum-

stances in 6.250=1 GP, contrasted to his feelings; cf. below on 6 πᾶς ἐπὶ cot. The toothpick is indeed a modest gift, by contrast to the silver pen of Crin. 3 (cf. ad

loc., 1. 5£.). Quoting Crin. 3 and 7 (a book of lyric poetry for Antonia), Laurens (327) remarks that ‘le cadeau est modeste mais utile ou approprié a la person-

nalité du destinataire. Comparable is the modesty of the dedicator of an offering to a god: see on Crin. 42,8. For the epigram accompanying a gift as a

modernization of the dedicatory epigram, see Intr., Life and Work. οὐκ ὀλίγης: for the figure of litotes, see Lausberg 268f., § 586-8; cf. Crin. 15,2, 40,3. ἀπ᾽... «φρενός: φρὴν here means ‘heart’ as often in Homer, and lyric and tragic poetry. Cf., for instance, Il. 10.10, 9.186, al., Pind. P. 1.11f. Rubensohn (25) sug-

gested that both ἀπὸ φρενός and ἀπὸ θυμοῦ in Crinagoras are Latinisms and render the phrase ‘ex animo. The expression ἀπὸ φρενός, however (leaving aside ἀπ’ ὀλίγης φρενός, for which see above, on βαιόν... φρενός) is not unattested in Greek (as was observed by Sitzler, 113). It occurs mainly in Aeschylus. Cf. the similar phrasing Ag. 805 οὐκ ἀπ᾿ ἄκρας φρενός (cf. Fraenkel ad loc.) also Ag. 1491 φρενὸς ἐκ φιλίας ti mor’ εἴπω,

Ch. 107 ὁ ἐκ φρενὸς λόγος, Sept. 919[. ἐτύμως

δακρυχέων / ἐκ φρενός.

οἷα δέ: ‘as, often in the neuter plural and strengthened by particles; see LSJ s.v.

V 2. Employing a different meaning, Crinagoras uses the expression in 8,2 οἷα Προμηθείης μνῆμα πυρικλοπίης; see ad loc. See also next two notes.

AP 6.229=4

δαιτός / δῶρον: the reading, offered in a marginal note in B. P G. 34 B and its

copy, Ap. L., restores the best possible sense, ‘a dinner-gift} ‘a gift suitable for the dinner. The Homeric ἀναθήματα δαιτός (Od. 1.152, 21.430) probably mean ‘proper accompaniments of feasting’ (see 5. West on Od. 1.152). Ap. B. has in marginal notes δεδοικώς and ὀπάσσαι σοι, printed by Brunck; Ap. G. and Ap. ἃ, have δεδοικώς and ὅπασσαι σοι in notes. Reiske (1754, 33 and 1766, 28) prints

ola δὲ Arrös / bap’dv ὀπάσσοι σοι. Other (too far-fetched) suggestions are

listed in Stadtmiiller’s apparatus. ὁ πᾶς ἐπὶ σοί: Hecker’s (1843, 134) correction restores the meaning (the corrup-

tion can be easily explained by the context, as ὀπάζειν is frequently used for presents and dedications in the Anthology; for instance, Euphorion Ap 6.279=1,2, Antip. Sid. 6.118=49,4 HE, Philip 6.103=18,7 GP), However, Hecker

accepts οἷα re λιτός / δῶρον in the previous phrase; Rubensohn was the first to combine οἷα de δαιτός / δῶρον with Hecker’s conjecture, to produce a plausible result. The expression is probably a Latinism. Cf Οἷς, Fam. 15.7 et sum totus vester et esse debeo. Cf. above on βαιόν... φρενός. Rubensohn compares this with another phrase, also influenced by the Latin idiom, Antiphilus 6.250=1,2 GP τὸν σὸν ἀπὸ kpadins. See also Intr., Language and Style, Latinisms. For ἐπὶ aol=aés, cf. also Crin. 14,6 τῶν ἐπὶ σοὶ χαρίτων; see ad loc. “Δεύκιε: it has been suggested that the recipient of the gift might have been Lucius Julius Caesar, son of Agrippa and Julia (17 Bc-apD 2). Waltz remarked

that the feather of the eagle is particularly fitting for a member of the royal family. Being a common praenomen, however (cf. A. Mécsy et al., Nomenclator, Budapest 1983, 168), Lucius is not necessarily to be connected with this person. The Latin Lucius and Lucullus are sometimes spelt Aeö«- in Greek. In the Anthology, the other occurrences are Apollonides 10.19,4= 26 GP, Polystratus 7.297=2,3 HE. The spelling Aoux- occurs in later epigrammatists; see Gow- Page on Apollon. loc. cit. Although Aevxıos is also a Greek name (cf., for instance, occurrences from Samos in VI sc and IV-Ill sc, from Sounion in V ΒΟ, from Orchomenos in ΠῚ Bc: see LGPN I, II and IIIB respectively s.v.) and the poem does not offer us any information about the recipient's nationality, the very nature of Crinagoras present, the fact that it is a toothpick the usage of which is unattested in Greece (see above, intr. note), suggests that he is Roman and the poem was written in Rome.

Kpivayopns: see on Crin. 5,4.

AP 6.261=5

Χάλκεον apyupew με πανείκελον Ἰ᾿σθμικὸν ἔργον, ὄλπην, ἡδίστου ἕείνιον eis ἑτάρου,

ἦμαρ ἐπεὶ τόδε σεῖο γενέθλιον, υἱὲ Σίμωνος, πέμπει γηθομένῃ σὺν φρενὶ Κριναγόρης. AP 6.261 Κριναγόρου Suda s.v. ὄλπη (om. υἱὲ Σίμωνος) caret Pl

In marg. sinistro paginae C notavit λήκυθον: öAmıs: οἰνοχόη: λήκυθος δέ ἐστιν ἐλαιοδόχον ἀγγεῖον ἢ οἰνηρόν. In marg. dextro J notavit ad v. 2: ζήτει ὄλπιν: λήκυθον

1 Ἰσθμικὸν Geist: Ἰνδικὸν CSuda, εἰδικὸν P fortasse

Reiske n. 508, Brunck n. 8, Rubensohn n. 10

Me, an Isthmian work of bronze, very much like a silver one, an oil-flask, a gift to a sweetest friends house, since this is your birthday, son of Simon, Crinagoras sends you with a rejoicing heart. Crinagoras sends a bronze oil-flask as a birthday present to Simons son. The structure of the epigram is very similar to the dedicatory Crin. 8, also a single-sentence poem of four lines. The object offered opens the poem, the first three lines add more detail, the recipient comes at the end of the third line, the

verb which denotes the offer (πέμπει, θῆκ opens the final line, and the poem closes with the name of the person who offers the gift. Similar is the structure of the longer (six-lined) 3 and 4 (two poems which anyway seem to copy structurally one another; see on 4, intr. note.), with slight variations. The object is described in the beginning, and the giver (Kpivaydpys) and the act (πέμπει) appear in the final couplet in all three poems. The opening of the present epigram recalls that of Crin. 3. Both poems begin with the crucial information

about the gift, that it is made of valuable material. In terms of style, Crinagoras’ gift poems resemble dedicatory epigrams (for the structure of dedicatory epigrams, see further on 43, intr. note). As is the case here, in dedicatory epigrams the object offered is the speaker of the poem. Cf., for instance, Call. AP 6.310=26 and 6.351=22 HE, Antip. Thess. 6.93=32, Philip 6.107=20, Apollon. 6.239=3 GP,

etc, For the convention in poetry of objects as speakers, see Cairns 216. For gifts as speakers, see below, on με.

AP 6.261=5

For oil-flasks as presents cf. Mart. 14.52-3; these are made of horn. Cf. Leary ad loc., lemmata. For the poet's gifts accompanied by epigrams, see Intr., Life and Work and (especially for birthday presents) on Crin. 3, intr. note.

1: the line is encased by χάκλεον and ἔργον, an adjective and a noun in agreement, a feature attested from Homer to Nonnus. See Wifstrand 133-8, Kost 52f,

McLennan on Call. H. 1.60. In Crinagoras, cf. 6,5 καλλίστης... γυναικός, 10,] ἑσπερίου... πολέμοιο, 13,1 Τυρσηνῆς ... σάλπιγγος, 48,4 Kryröv...abröuaror.

χάλκεον... πανείκελον ... ἔργον: for the phrasing, cf. Antip. Thess. AP9.238=83,] GP τόδε χάλκεον ἔργον ‘Ovard, anon. 9.785,1 and 9.810,2 χρύσεον ἔργον, Critias

fr. 2,1 IEG κότταβος ἐκ Σικελῆς ἐστι χθονός, ἐκπρεπὲς ἔργον. For χάλκεος quali-

fying a domestic vessel, cf. Aesch. Ch. 686 (λέβης). For the application of two or more adjectives to the same noun, cf. Crin. 3,1f, 25,1, 23,1f. 19,2. For this feature in epic diction, see W. Bühler, Die Europa des Moschos (Wiesbaden 1960), 212ff.

apyupéw ... πανείκελον: Gow-Page observed the difficulty inherent in a bronze

oil-flask being ‘very like’ a silver one and suggested that Crinagoras means a flask of litharge, comparing Achaeus fr. 19,1f. TrGrF λιθάργυρος {54 7 ὄλπη, a com-

parison already made by Jacobs! together with Stesich. 11 PMG λιθαργύρεον ποδανιπτῆρα; λιθάργυρος, however, is a lead monoxide,’ and it seems very unlikely that the poet would describe this item as ‘brazen resembling silver’ in such a confusion between copper and lead. H. White? suggested that the bronze oil-flask shone like silver, comparing Triphiod. 98 dpyupoßivei χαλκῷ. For Triphiodorus passage ὀρείχαλκος has been suggested, which could in fact constitute a possible candidacy for the present poem as well: öpeiyaAxos, which Suda describes as ὁ διαυγὴς χαλκός, ὁ δόκιμος, is a metal difficult to identify.? The problem, however, can be offered a more convincing solution if the present poem is seen in the light of Pliny’s description (already observed by Rubensohn, ad loc.) of the three kinds of ‘Corinthian bronze’ i.e. alloys of copper with silver, gold, or both, the bronze resembling in colour the predominant metal in each case, NH 34.3,8 eius aeris tria genera: candidum argento nitore quam proxime accedens, in quo illa mixtura praevaluit, etc.; cf. NH 37.12,49.* For Corinthian bronze, its great For this and other ores of lead in antiquity, see J. Ramin, La technique miniere et métallurgique des Anciens (Brussels 1977), 145f.

* "Language and Style in the Garland of Philip, MPhL 9 (1992), 63. * Gerlaud on ‘Triphiod. ad loc. (accepting Merrick’s alteration to ἀργυροειδέι) comments that the expression probably denotes orichalcum which is, according to Theopompus, an alloy of ψευδάργυρος and χαλκός (FGrHist 5 F112; cf. also Strabo 13.1,56). See also U, Dubielzig, Τριφιοδώρον Ἰλίον ἅλωσις (Tübingen 1996) ad loc. For the metal, see Allen-Halliday-Sikes on h. Hom. ΝῚ 9, Bulloch on Call. H. 5.19, Gow-Page on GP 2260=Erycius 10,5 (6.234). * Cf. A. R. Giumlia-Mair and P. Craddock, Das schwarze Gold der Alchimisten: Corinthium Aes (Mainz am Rhein 1993), 6f. According to a widespread story dating to the first century aD onwards, these alloys became fashionable by accident when, during the destruction of Corinth by Mummius

AP 0.Z01=5

value and its popularity in Rome, see Henriksén on Mart. 9.57,2, Leary on Mart. 14.43, lemma, Van Dam on Stat. Silv. 2.2,68-72. It is reported that Octavian also treasured a collection of Corinthian bronzes, Suet. Aug. 70,2. Gifts made of this material are Mart. 14.43 (a candelabrum), 172, 177 (statu-

ettes), all presented by Martial as expensive presents of high quality. Cf. the silver pen Crinagoras sends to Proclus; see on Crin. 3, intr. note. The exact nature of this alloy has been the object of investigation. For the

view that Corinthian bronze, rather than containing precious metals, held only a high proportion of tin (which, moreover, made the vessel significantly resistant to corrosion), since manufacturers were able to produce golden or silver

colour without any use of these metals in the alloy, see Emanuele’ 352. Pliny’s account of the production of the alloy, however, has been recently proven by experiment. See Jacobson 6lff. and Jacobson-Weitzman 241ff. A parallel passage in regard to the ambiguity of the description of the metal is Mart. 8.50,5f.

vera minus flavo radiant electra metallo / et niveum felix pustula vincit ebur. Electron was perhaps an alloy of silver, gold, and copper; see further Schöffel

428f. and Harder on Call. fr. 75,31. For the adjective πανείκελον, cf. Call. fr. 1,31 (here as an adverb) with Harder ad loc. The adjective is frequent in Nonnus and Oppian.

με: Cf. the speaking roses in Crin. 6 and the books of Anacreons poetry in Crin. 7. Gifts are often the speakers in epigrams; cf. Antip. Thess. 6.241=43, 6.249=45, 6.335=41, 9.541=44, Antiphilus 6.252=2, Diodorus 9.776=18, Philip 9.778=6

GP. See also above, intr. note. The earliest speaking present in extant poetry is

probably the apple of ‘Plato’ or Philod. AP 5.80=“Plato’ 5 FGE and Philod. 2 Sider. Rosenmeyer (2002, 142) discusses the ambiguity of ‘me’ indicating both the flask and the letter accompanying the flask, and reaches the conclusion that the poet envisions a script inscribed on the flask, so that ‘me’ can be understood as representing the flask itself. Of course, the situation does not differ dramatically if we take the ‘voice’ of the object speaking in the first person as expressed in an epigram simply put with the gift, the recipient naturally being able to imagine that the poem on the attached inscription represents the ‘words’ of the flask. Ἰσσθμικὸν ἔργον: as the fame of Corinthian bronze is well attested (Pliny NH 34.3, Schol. on Theocr. 2.156),° Rubensohn and Stadtmiiller accept Geist’s in 146 πα, a building containing gold, silver, and huge quantities of copper caught fire and the three metals fused together, see Plut. Mor. 395c, Pliny NH 34.3.6; cf. Van Dam 237, JacabsonWeitzman 238f., Jacobson 60 with ἢ, 5. ‘Trimalchio gives his own ridiculous interpretation of the alloy’s provenance in Petr. 50. 5. D, Emanuele, ‘Aes Corinthum: Fact, Fiction, and Fake? Phoenix 43 (1989), 347-57,

° For bibliography on evidence of metalworking in Corinth from as early as the fourth century BC see Jacobson- Weitzman

237, n. 1.

Ἰσθμικόν,

while

almost

all

other

editors

accept

C’s

and

Sudas

Ἰνδικόν,

Commercial relations between Rome and India certainly existed during the imperial period;’ Indian gems and pearls were famous (cf. Dio Cass. 72.17,3, 59.17,3, 74.5,1, [Lucian.] Amor. 41.11) and there is evidence for other precious

stones and minerals from India.* However, metals were more often imported to than exported from India.’ Geist’s Ἰσθμικόν (for the word, cf. Strabo 8.6,20 ὁ Ἰσθμικὸς ἀγών, Paus, 5.2,1 Ἰσθμικαὶ σπονδαΐ; cf. Moretti 1953, n. 60,9f.,12, al. Ic.

AD 5] παῖδας Ἰσθμικούς, frequently in agonistic inscriptions)'® suits the poet's plausible reference to Corinthian bronze. For the use of Isthmus in a reference

to Corinth, cf. Nonnus D. 41.97 Ἴσθμιον ἄστυ Κορίνθου. Cf. also Statius’ Isthniacus=Corinthiacus with reference to Corinth’s fire which resulted in the production of the alloy, which agrees with Pliny’s account, Silv, 2.2,68 aeraque

ab Isthmiacis aura potiora favillis (with Van Dam ad loc., on Isthmiacus). For the ‘Corinthian metalworks, cf. Athen. 11.488c. Waltz prints Ἐνδίκου, a genitive indicating the manufacturer of the work.

Alan Griffiths suggests that a possible solution, which would explain the corruption more easily, would be to change P’s εἰδικόν to a vocative, perhaps “Evite (Euboea, V ac; see LGPN I s.v.) or the more common Evdcxe (among

its many occurrences also in Mytilene, AD III; see LGPN I s.v.):'' the corruption might have in this case occurred because of the influence of πανείκελον.... ἔργων. Thus we have the name of the addressee together with his

patronymic as is the norm.”” For the poet's tolerance of hiatus, see Intr. Metre, Hiatus.

” See RE 9.2.1321; see also the next two notes. * For ivory, cf. Mart. 5.37,5. Bahr (386) observed that the content of the vessel (vil, nard) rather than the vessel itself would be more aptly called Indian. For vessels of myrrhina and onyx of Indian origin in Rome see Warmington 239. For a detailed discussion of precious items from

india known to the ancient world see ibid. 235ff. ° Although India is rich in gold and bronze; cf. Paus. 3.12.4. Warmington assumes that Crinagoras’ poem refers to ‘Chinese 'Tutenague or white copper’ (see Warmington 257), but the

fact remains that the amount of metals imported to India was greater than thal exported; see ibid. 256-72. For the exportation of steel from India, see ibid. 257-8. Gold was bath imported and exported from the country; see ibid. 258, As far as copper is concerned, although the existence of Indian copper is attested (ibid. 257), the Indians mostly required it from Europe for coinage. The main source of European/Roman copper were the mines of Cyprus: see ibid. 268-9. We have archaeological evidence for the export of bronze objects from Rome to India (bronze statuettes, vessels, and medallions found in Kolhapur). See R. D, De Puma, “The Roman

Bronzes from

Kolhapur, in V. Begley, R. D. De Puma (eds.), Rome and India: the Ancient Sea Trade (Wisconsin, London 1991), 82-112.

δ A playful Homeric allusion is alsa formed with this reading: the poet might be playing with

the Homeric ἔσθμιον (from loduss=neck), a necklace offered as a present by the suitors to Penelope, Od. 18.299f. ἐκ δ' ἄρα Hewcdvdpoto Πολυκτορίδαο ἄνακτος / ἴσθμιον ἤνεικεν θεράπων, περικαλλὲς ἄγαλμα. "" Also in anon. AP 7.298=49,6 HE, unnecessarily altered to Θεύδικε or Κλεύδικε. 12 Cf Dion. Cys, AP7.78,3-6 'Eparöoßeves .../.../ AyAaod vie (the name of the father appears

two lines after the vocative Wpardafeves), anon. 7.338, Ἀρχίου vie Περίκλεες; the name of the

2 ὄλπην: cE. Suda s.v. ὄλπη" ἡ λήκυθος. Cf. Od. 6.79 and 6.215, δῶκεν (-av) δὲ

χρυσέῃ ev ληκύθῳ ὑγρὸν ἔλαιον. On Theocr. 2.156 rar Awpida...dAmay, the scholiast states that the ὄλπῃ is usually made of leather, but the epithet ‘Dorian’ may indicate that it is made of bronze, as the Corinthian χαλκώματα were famous; for a discussion of the epithet in Theocritus, see Gow ad loc. For a metallic oil-flask, cf. Theocr. 18.45 (silver ὄλπη). Ὅλπαι contained the oil that

men carried with them to the gymnasium; see Gow on Theocr. locc. citt.

Corinthian bronze was used for the manufacture of small domestic items, such as plates, bowls, lamps, washing basins, which, due to their material, were

harder than those made merely of bronze and whose depletion-gilded (not simply gold-/silver-coated) surface, moreover, protected them from corrosion. See Jacobson- Weitzman

238.

ἡδίστου.... ἑτάρου: perhaps playing with the Homeric κήδιστος ἑτάρων (Od. 10.225). Ἡδύς of persons is post-Homeric, frequent in Sophocles: ‘kind; ‘welcome. Cf. Ph. 530 ἥδιστος δ᾽ ἀνήρ, OT 82, El. 929. For later poets’ use of meanings of words found in tragedy, see on Crin. 13,1. ξείνιον: gift of friendship, hospitality, usually in plural in Homer; in singular,

Od. 9.356, 9.365, 20.296, always in the corresponding sedes of the hexameter. In the Anthology the form always occurs in the plural and at the same sedes as in Crinagoras; cf. Mnasalcas

6.9=3,4, anon. 5.200=36,4

and 5.205=35,6 HE,

Theaet. Schol. API 233,6. eis ἑτάρου: for the elliptical use of eis + gen. (sc. δόμον, οἶκον), cf. Il. 24.482 ἀνδρὸς es ἀφνειοῦ, Od, 2.195 és πατρός. See Chantraine (1963) 105, LSJ s.v. 14 c Crinagoras uses ἑταῖρος in 32,1f, and Era pos in 36,3f see ad loc. 3 Hap... γενέθλιον: cf. Crin. 3,1 γενέθλιον és τεὸν ἦμαρ, 6,3f. γενεθλίῃ... τῇδε /

jot. Similarly Leon, Alex., AP 9.349=26 9,.355=32,1 FGE.

γενέθλιον ἦμαρ; cf. 9.353=30,3,

ἐπεί: at the same sedes and phrasing, with omission of ἐστί, Leon. Alex. 9,345=22,3 FGE ζῆλος ἐπεὶ pavins μεῖζον κακόν. Cf. Antip. Thess, 11.23=38,6 GP.

oeio: for the Homeric genitive form, see Chantraine (1958) 243. Cf. Crin. 19,4 Geld TOT ἐσσομένη. vie Σίμωνος: Gow-Page suggest that the expression might be a paraphrase of Σιμωνίδη, though this could have been easily accommodated to the verse,

comparing Theogn. 469. For the possibility that the name of the addressee dedicator of an offering appears also in the first line in Anyte AP 6.153=HE 2,1f. 6 δὲ θεὶς Ἐριασπίδα vids | KiedBoros (cf. Geoghegan 33f.), Anacreon’ AP 6.139=10, 140=11, 144=15,1 FGE, Theodoridas 155=1,1-4 HE, Rhianus 278=8,1f. HE, al.

appears in the first line, see above on Ἰσθμικὸν ἔργον. The absence of the addressees name is unusual, but not impossible if the recipient of the present is a youth. Cf. Phaedimus 6.271=1,1 HE, where the infant appears as a co-dedicator

together with his mother; see Gow-Page on Phaedimus loc. cit. Σίμων is the name of Sappho’s father, according to the Suda. The name is well attested all

over Greece, from Thrace and Macedonia to Magna Graecia; for the islands, among which Chios and Samos, see LGPN I s.v.*® 4: cf. similar endings of other gift-accompanying poems of Crinagoras, 3,5f, 4,5f. For the expression hoc tibi mittit, cf. Mart. 3.1,1, 5.1,7, 6.1,1, 7.80,4. See fur-

ther Siedschlag 7, Fusi 106f. γηθομένῃ.... φρενί; cf. the Homeric γέγηθε... φρένα: Il. 8.559 with Kirk ad loc., 11.683, Od. 6.106; cf. also h. Cer, 232, Ven. 216, Ap. Rh. 4.93. For φρήν with an adjective, see further on Crin. 34,1. Here φρήν has the sense of ‘heart’; see on Crin. 4,5.

Κριναγόρης: also last word of the poem in Crin. 4; see also above, intr. note. In all instances that Crinagoras cites his name in the nominative (3, 4, 5) or in the vocative (1), he uses the Ionic form.

Geist’s change to A(Bwvos is totally unnecessary: cf. Cichorius (1888) 3.

AP 6.345 =6

Εἴαρος ἤνθει μὲν τὸ πρὶν ῥόδα, viv δ᾽ ἐνὶ μέσσῳ χείματι πορφυρέας ἐσχάσαμεν κάλυκας σῇ ἐπιμειδήσαντα γενεθλίῃ ἄσμενα τῇδε ἠοῖ νυμφιδίων ἀσσοτάτη λεχέων. in

5

F

3

7

,

Kaddtorns στεφθῆναι ἐπὶ κροτάφοισι γυναικός

λώιον ἢ μίμνειν ἠρινὸν ἠέλιον. —

AP 6.345 rot αὐτοῦ [sc. Kpıvayöpov] caret Pl

3

γενεθλίῃ Ap. L.: γενέθληι

Ρ

4 ἀσσοτάτῃ apogrr.:-ry P

5 καλλίστης apogrr: -arn P

Reiske ἢ. 542, Brunck n. 9, Rubensohn ἢ. 12

Roses used to bloom in spring; yet now in midwinter we opened our purple cups, smiling gladly on this day, your birthday, very near to your bridal bed.

Better is it to be wreathed on the temples of a beautiful lady than to wait for the sun of spring. Crinagoras is sending winter roses as a birthday present to a lady who is soon to get married. For poems accompanying presents as well as for the genethliacon in Roman poetry, see on Crin. 3, intr. note; see on 5 (on pe) also for gifts as speakers. In

the present poem Love, ‘a standard feature of elegiac genethliaka, and associated with birthdays in real life’ (Cairns 113), is happily combined with Antonia’s

birthday, both through the actual temporal connection between her birthday and her marriage, and through the erotic overtones of the roses and their significance in bridal occasions. Cf. also the attribution of roses’ colour to the blood of Eros; see below, passim. For the relevance of the rose here, as a symbol of beauty and grace, as an accessory of festive occasions, such as birthdays, and as an agent of erotic connotations, since it is the flower of Aphrodite, see also Szczot

413. The accumulation of forms of comparison in the second half of the epigram creates the impression of distinction and proximity to perfection for both lady and flowers, in beauty (καλλίστης) and in appropriateness of time and fulfilment of destined goal (ἀσσοτάτῃ for the lady’s marriage, λώιον for the roses).

The poem displays ring composition (albeit not as strict as that of 13 and 34; see ad locc., intr. notes), since it opens and closes with two antithetical pairs, of one couplet each, expressing a ‘paradox’ and surrounding the central couplet, which offers the information about the occasion of the poem (birthdaymarriage): roses usually bloom in spring—these bloom in winter (first couplet); roses like the sun of spring—these prefer the beautiful lady’s temples and, by implication, to die before seeing the sun of spring (last couplet). The epigram is actually enclosed in the idea of spring: εἴαρος - ἠρινὸν ἠέλιον; cf. Intr., Language

and Style, Structure. For the common theme of winter roses, cf. Martial 4.29,4; as presents, 6.80, If, 13.127. Martial offers his friend Caesius Sabinus a wreath of flowers, which he

does not name, in 9.60; he also sends a wreath of roses as a gift in 7.89. For winter roses, cf. also Lucian Nigrin. See Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. Od. 1.38,4,

who describe them as ‘an extravagance admired by court-poets and deplored by moralists’; cf. Senecas disapproval at Ep. Mor. 122.8. See also Hehn 257, Grewing

on Mart. 6.80, intr. note, Leary (2001) 194, Moreno Soldevila 255, Salemme 12, For the popularity of the wreath as a present which symbolized mutual friendship in antiquity, see Henriksén 2.52. Crinagoras is in the habit of offering

expensive presents; see on 4, intr. note.’ Similar is the theme of Antiphilus AP 6.252=2 GP, on a quince preserved in

winter and offered to a lady; cf. Gow-Page ad loc., Garzya 131 with n. 25. The preservation of liquids, usually wine, in a cool environment, achieved by means of snow or ice, was a common practice in ancient Greece which also continued at Rome; see R. I. Curtis, Ancient Food Technology (Leiden-Boston-Köln, 2001), 296, 419. Cf. Mart. 14.116-18, poems on flagons for iced water. For winter species of fruits or vegetables normally grown in summer, cf. the winter mushroom; see

D. and P. Brothwell, Food in Antiquity (London 1969), 86. As the lady’s name is not mentioned, the case is open for speculation.

Cichorius (1888, 57) suggested that the lady is Antonia Minor, daughter of M. Antonius and Octavia, born on 31 January 36 Bc, and that the poem was

written when she was about to marry Nero Claudius Drusus. This probably took place in the early spring of 18 Bc; see Bowersock (1965) 36, Syme (1986) 37, 141, Kokkinos 6-11. For Antonia, see further on 12, intr. note. In the Palatine

codex, the poem is preceded by Crinagoras’ poem on Marcellus’ depositio barbae on his return from the Cantabrian war of 25 Bc, a repetition of AP 6.161, which does not appear between AP 6.344 and 6.345 in any of the modern edi-

tions. Alan Cameron observed that Crinagoras’ 6.345 is isolated from any Philippan context and that the second occurrence of 6.161 before 6.345 offers a better text (cf. réAca for the τέρμα of the first occurrence in line 2). He therefore went on to assume that the two poems were juxtaposed in Philips Garland

(granted, moreover, that they both begin with e), and that the lady of 6.345 is * Laurens (327) comments apropos the present of winter roses from both Crinagoras and

Martial that Tesprit courtisan adopte tout naturellement les formes de lesprit précieux’

Julia Major, Octavian’s daughter, who was born in the last weeks of 39 Bc and married Marcellus in 25 or 24 Bc (see Fantham 21, 29), as ‘in addition to the

preliminary alphabetical arrangement of his material, Philip also juxtaposed poems on related themes.’ Since both Julia and Antonia were born in winter, they are both eligible candidates. The candidacy of Antonia, again, can be supported by the fact that Crinagoras wrote for her two more epigrams, 12, on her birth-giving, and 7, accompanying a book of poems as a present to her on

a festive occasion. Cf. also Hemelrijk 110 and 295, n. 54. If. εἴαρος... ῥόδα: the rose is so closely associated with spring that Hesychius cites edprovas a synonym for ῥόδον; see Hesych. s.v. ed prov. Cf, Pind. P 4.64 φοινικανθέμου ἦρος axud; also anon. AP 9.383,8, Rhianus 12.58=2,3f. HE, Peek 1595=570,3f. Kaibel (Ap II?), Peek 1482a=544,1 Kaibel (An III-IV?), Οἷς. Verr. 2.5,27 cum

rosam viderat, tum incipere ver arbitrabatur; see further Bulloch on Call, H. 5.27-8, Grewing on Mart. 6,80,2. Autore (10) noted the similarity of the present

phrase with Mart. 13.127,2 quondam veris erat; cf. also Leary ad loc. The lengthened first syllable of the genitive and dative of &ap is post-Homeric, first at [Hes]. fr. 70,13, although Homer uses εἰαρινός. See Wyatt? 150f., Reed on Bion fr. 2,1, where εἴαρος also opens the hexameter, as in Euphorion fr. 40,3 Powell=44,3 Van Groningen. In Hellenistic poetry the genitive also occurs at

Theocr, 7.97, 13.26. Ῥόδον, which does not appear in Homer, first occurs at ἢ. Cer. 6; see

Richardson ad loc. The rose is the plant most frequently mentioned by Sappho; see Waern 4. For the association of the rose with Eros, see Joret 52, Gow on

Theocr. 10.34, and Gow-Page on Mel, AP 5.136=42,5 HE. Roses (and other flowers) often crown the beloved. Cf. the garlands Meleager plaits for Heliodora, AP 5.136=42,4f,, 5.147=46,4 HE; also 5.143=45 HE. Ῥόδον, the most beautiful of all flowers, is also the plant sacred to Aphrodite. ἤνθει μέν: ἠνθοῦμεν Ap. G., Ap. B., and Ap. R. (printed by Brunck), regarding which Jacobs observed that there is no reason to reject P’s reading, as the poet

can perfectly well say olim rosae verno tempore florebant: nos autem nunc calices media hyeme reclusimus (the phrasing of Jacobs’). The change of P’s reading ἤνθει to ἄνθει, proposed by Gow-Page, is unnecessary, as the use of the unaugmented form is not general in Crinagoras; cf., for instance, 10,3 βούλετο, 18,5 κοινώσατο, and 6 pigev, but also 25,3 ἐκοινώσασθε, 27,3 ἐκόμιζεν. Cf. also Intr.,

Language and Style, Dialect.

2. See A. Cameron, ‘Crinagoras and the Elder Julia: AP 6.345, LCM 5-6 (1980), 129-30; for the

thematic connection of the epigrams, alongside the external framework of the alphabetical arrangement of the Garland by Philip, see A. Cameron, “The Garlands of Meleager and Philip, GRBS 9 (1968), 339f., (1993) 40-3.

? ΜῈ

Wyatt, Metrical Lengthening in Homer (Rome 1969),

AP 6.345 =6 For the expression, cf. Theocr. 5.131 ὡς ῥόδα κισθὸς ἐπανθεῖ, Strato AP 12, 234=74,]

Floridi ῥόδον ἀνθεῖ; for the schema Atticum in a similar context, cf.

Theogn. 537 ῥόδα φύεται." μὲν τὸ πρίν: for three long monosyllables in succession cf. Crin. 15,1 [9 μεῦ kai,

35,1 ei καί σοι. Ihe lengthening of three consecutive short monosyllables by position is unusual, but cf., for instance, one by nature and two by position in Leon. AP 6.289=42,3 HE a μὲν τόν.

The expression τὸ πρίν is common in Homer and tragedy. For the contrasting pair with the present, viv, cf. Il. 6.125, 13.105, Od. 4.32, Archil. 172,3 [EG,

Glaucus 12.44=L,1ff. HE, Antiphilus AP 7.176=25,3 GP, Agath. 6.76,2f., anon. 11.297,3f. See further Siedschlag 30. For μέν preceding τὸ πρίν, though not

immediately, cf. 1]. 6.124f., Od. 4.316. Evi μέσσῳ / χείματι: cf. Antiphilus AP 6.252=2,5 GP ὥρης χειμερίης σπάνιον

γέρας. The paradox of flowers blooming in the winter occurs at Aristoph. fr. 581,1f. K-A. With evi μέσσῳ χείματι, Crinagoras may have intended a variation of the phrase χείματι μέσσῳ, which occurs at the end of the hexameter at Theocr. 7.111 ἐν ὥρεσι χείματι ueoow.” Note the adjective-noun enjambment, here laying stress on the paradox of roses blooming in winter instead of spring, as it places χείματι at verse-opening,

at a sedes corresponding trast between the usual enjambment occurs also dative that denotes time

to that of the efap: of the previous line; thus, the conand the exceptional is emphatically highlighted. An in the next couplet, τῇδε / ἠοῖ, which places again the (102) at verse-opening: thus, spring, the natural season

for roses, winter, their season on this occasion and this (birth)day, the actual

occasion for the gift, are stressed as markers of the existence of roses in general as opposed to the present role of roses in particular. For enjambments in Crinagoras, see Intr., Language and Style, Enjambments. πορφυρέας.... κάλυκας: the phrase recurs at Rufinus AP 5.48=19,2 Page (same sedes); cf. Leon. Alex. 6.324=3,2 FGE ῥόδων... κάλυκας, Cyrus 7.557,3 podwv... καλύκεσσιν. Red is the typical colour of the rose; see Clementi on Perv. Ven. 22.° The rose owes its birth and/or colour to the blood of Adonis (Bion Ad. 66), or

to that of Aphrodite herself (Geop. 11.17, Claudian Rapt. 2.122f., Perv, Ven. 22f.). Philostratus at Epist. I mentions both versions; see Joret 47ff., Gow on Theocr. 10,34, Reed on Bion Ad. 66.

* For examples of this schema in both poetry and prose, see K-G II (1) 64. In Hellenistic

and later poetry, cf., for instance, Theocr. 6.11 ra δέ viv καλὰ κύματα φαίνει, Antip. Sid. AP 12.97=65,5 HE, Paul. Sil. 5.255,11, Strato 12.3=3,1f. Floridi. In Crinagoras again at 28,1f. τὰ Νέρωνος / epya...tkeTo,

° For the expression, cf. Theocr. 12.30 εἴαρι πρώτῳ. ° C. Clementi, Pervigilium Veneris (Oxford 1936).

AP 6.345=6

οὐ

Crinagoras uses πορφύρεος again at 4,2. For the various shades described by

πορφύρεος from Homer onwards, see ad loc. As the adjective here designates a rose, its meaning can be hardly any other than red; cf. Rufinus AP 5.35=11,6 Page πορφυρέοιο ῥόδου, Mel. (perhaps) 9.363,2, Triphiod. 96.’ For its association with festivity, cf. Sappho 983,4 L-P πορφύρῳ κατελιξαμεῖν, the purple head-

band recurring in Theogn. 828, since purple colour symbolizes splendour and happiness; see Van Groningen ad loc. In the adjective πορφύρεος Crinagoras

combines the natural colour of the roses with the colour suiting the lady’s elegance and the luxury appropriate to her royal status.® ἐσχάσαμεν: the only other known occurrence of the verb in the sense ‘relax’ (without any force exercised) is Lyc. 28 σχάσασα βακχεῖον στόμα. Its frequent use by medical writers in the phrase φλέβα σχάξειν, or even without φλέβα, as ‘bleed’ (see LS] s.v. 1), is perhaps being playfully exploited here,

with its juxtaposition to πορφυρέας, as an allusion to the blood-like redness of the rose, closely related, as we have seen, to the flower's origin (see previous note).

For gifts as speakers, see above, intr. note. The first person here, with the roses’ spontaneous desire to participate in the celebration of the lady's birthday, further emphasizes the importance of the occasion and the significance of the lady herself. 3f. ἐπιμειδήσαντα.... ἄσμενα: the verb ἐπιμειδιᾶν only here in the Anthology;

the participle occurs at the same sedes in Homer (Il. 4.356, 8.38, 10.400, Od. 22.371). The metaphor of ‘laughing’ plants is Aristophanic. At Pax 596-9, plants are ἄσμενα as well: ὥστε σὲ τά τ᾽ ἀμπέλια / καὶ ra νέα συκίδια / τἄλλα θ᾽ ὁπόσ᾽ ἐστὶ φυτά / προσγελάσεται λαβόντ᾽ ἄσμενα. Meleager also likes this metaphor: ΑΡ5.147--46,2 τὰ γελῶντα κρίνα, 5.144=31,5 HE. Cf. also Nonnus D. 3.15, 11.498,

Opp. Hal. 1.458f.; also h. Ap, 118 μείδησε δὲ γαῖ᾽ ὑπένερθεν." ” For red roses in lyric poetry, see H. Stulz, Die Farbe Purpur im frühen Griechentum (Stuttgart 1990), 181ff.

° For the association of purple with high political, social, and economic status in antiquity, see

M. Reinhold, History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity (Brussels 1970), passim; for the Hellenistic world: 29ff. See also Bradley 197-201 especially for Rome. Bradley (200) observes that ‘Augustan poetry exploited this colour and its associations (particularly in metaphors of fruit, flowers, beauty, etc.) to evoke contemporary prosperity and imperial cornucopia, citing as an

example Hor. Od. 1.35,12 purpurei tyranni. ” Aristophanes was the first to use the verb ‘to laugh’ for plants, though it is found in earlier poetry as a metaphor for objects: for instance, for χθών» in Homer, Il. 19.362. See ‘Taillardat $ 37. ‘The basic meaning of γελᾶν is ‘to shine. See Edwards on Jl. loc. cit., Richardson on ἢ. Cer. 14, Allen-Halliday-Sikes on h. Ap. 118, West on Hes. Th. 40, W. ἢ. Stanford., Greek Metaphor: Studies in

Theory and Practice (Oxford 1936), 115ff. Stanford observed that Demetrius’ condemnation of the phrase ἐγέλα πον pddov ἡδύχροον on the grounds that γελᾶν implies a sound (loc. 188) is not

justified, as ‘laughter’ has a primarily visual, not auditory, sense. This can be further demonstrated by Crinagoras’ ‘smiling roses’: cf. μειδιᾶν at h. Ap, 118,

100

AP 6.345=6

Ap. L., has σοί, printed by Reiske (1754, 64 and 1766, 53), Brunck and Jacobs!

unnecessarily. Ihe phrase stresses further the roses’ willingness. See prev. note.

γενεθλίῃ.... ἠοῖ: cf. Crin. 9,1 ἠοῖ em’ εὐκταίῃ; see on Crin. 5,3 ἦμαρ γενέθλιον. The correction to -¢y is first found in B. P G. 34 Band its copy, Ap. L. (see Intr,, Manuscript Tradition, Apographs of P, Apographon Lipsiense), in margine. νυμφιδίων ... λεχέων: Eur. Med. 999 νυμφιδίων.... λεχέων, Alc. 885f. νυμφιδίους / εὐνάς, Ap. Rh. 1.1031, Diosc. AP 7.407=18,6, Leon. 9.322=25,8 HE.

Apart from a birthday present, the garland, and especially the garland of

roses, is not irrelevant to the lady’s forthcoming wedding: at Bacchyl. 17.114-16 Maehler, Aphrodite sends Amphitrite a crown of roses for her marriage. Inter alia, garlands of roses are also cast upon the newly-wed couple Menelaus and Helen in Stesich. 10 PMG; see Maehler on Bacchyl. 17.114-16. Cf. the γαμήλιον στέφος at Bion Ad. 88, Colluth. 30, Nonnus D. 47.326 (here γάμιον); see Reed

on Bion loc. cit. Furthermore, the wreath of roses symbolizes youth and joy, and is thus appropriate for festive occasions; see Galan Vioque on Mart. 7.89, intr. note.

ἀσσοτάτῃ: see on (τίη. 48,2. The correction to -n appears in Ap. B. and Ap. L.

5f.: for other poems of Crinagoras ending with a gnome, see on 30,5 ὦ kaköv... ἀγαθόν and Intr, Language and Style, Structure. For concluding the poem which accompanies a gift to a lady with reference to her physical, social, and intellectual qualities, cf. Crin. 7,6; cf. also Leon. Alex AP 9.355=32,4 FGE. The

roses’ wish to crown the lady is comparable to the desire of Berenice’s Lock to remain on her head, Cat. 66.39f. The wish to be close to the lady’s body is a common motif in love poems, expressed by the lover who longs to be an object

worn by the lady, and it is first attested in Attic drinking-songs; cf. Carm. Conv. 18 PMG εἴθ᾽ ἄπυρον καλὸν γενοίμην μέγα χρυσίον / καί we καλὴ γυνὴ φοροίη καθαρὸν θέμενη νόον, anon, AP 5.83=9, anon. 5.84=10 FGE, Strato 12.190=31

Floridi, Anacreont. 22 West. See further Page FGE 318f., Bömer on Ov. Met. 8.36-7.

καλλίστης... γυναικός: the rose is appropriate for crowning a beautiful lady, as it is the favourite flower ofthe goddess ofbeauty; see Hehn 254f., Joret 50f. The

goddess is occasionally represented crowned with roses; see RE 6.2463. The rose is thus the prettiest of flowers (cf. Anacreont. 44,6 West, Rhianus AP 12.58=2,4 HE) and the beauty of a person is often compared to it, as for instance at Mel.

AP 5.144=31,3f. HE, Mac. Cons. 11.374,7, Cyrus 5.557,3. Ap. G., Ap. B., and Ap. R. correct to καλλίστης, generally accepted by editors,

of course. Ap. ἵν. has καλλίστῃ. The line is encased by an adjective and a noun in agreement. See on Crin. 5,1.

AP 6.345 =6

στεφθῆναι: Ap. G., Ap. B., and Ap. R. have ὀφθῆναι, accepted by Brunck, Jacobs (as elegantior), Holtze, Dibner, Waltz, Paton, and Conca-Marzi-Zanetto, but

there is no need to change στεφθῆναι. Cf. Il. 5.739 ἣν περὶ μὲν πάντῃ Φόβος

ἐστεφάνωται, 15.153, Od. 10.195: for the use of the passive verb (always in the perfect tense) in Homer, see Worthen 3f.,'° Hainsworth on Il. 11.36-7, Edwards on Il. 18.485. Jacobs? compared Ap. Rh. 3.1214f. πέριξ δέ μιν ἐστεφάνωντο /... δράκοντες, [Opp.] Cyn. 2.379 λάχνη πορφυρόεσσα δ᾽ ἐπὶ χροὸς ἐστεφάνωται.

ἐπὶ κροτάφοισι: the phrase is a Homeric rarity at the same sedes: Od. 18.378, 22.102. Temples are often crowned with flowers: cf. Mel. AP 5.147=46 HE, Antiphanes 11.168=8,3, Philip 11.33=58,4 ΟΡ. For the girls’ practice of decorating their hair with flowers, cf., for instance, Sappho fr. 98,8f. L-P. Wreaths,

however, also adorned necks; see Waern 8. λώιον: an epic word, always in the neuter form in Homer; see Chantraine (1958) 255 with n. 2. For the phrase λώιον (ἐστί) + inf., see K-G II (2) 76,31. μίμνειν: for the poetical form of μένω in the sense of ‘wait, cf. Il. 8.565 ἐύθρονον Ἠῶ μίμνον, 9.662, Hes. Op. 630. Cf. also Eur. Rh. 66 ἡμέρας μεῖναι φάος. ἠρινὸν ἠέλιον: cf. Nonnus D. 1.357 εἰαρινῷ Φαέθοντι, anon. AP 9.384,4 elapıyns...

ἀγλαΐης, Asclep. 5.169=1,2 HE εἰαρινὸν Στέφανον; see Guichard and Sens ad loc. for more instances. For the contracted form ἠρινός, cf. Solon 13,19 IEG, Pind. P 9.46, Aristoph. Av. 683, Eur. Supp. 448; see Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 77.

15. Τὶ Worthen, "The Idea of “Sky” in Archaic Greek Poetry, Glotta 66 (1988), 1-19. 4 For the habit of men placing garlands of flowers on their heads during a symposium, see Joret 996, Pagonari-Antoniou on Call. 43,3f.

AP 9.239 =7

Βύβλων ἡ γλυκερὴ λυρικῶν Ev τεὐχεῖ τῷδε πεντὰς ἀμιμήτων ἔργα φέρει χαρίτων

tAvakpeiovros, ἃς 6 Τήιος ἡδὺς πρέσβυς 5.

ἔγραψεν ἢ παρ᾽ οἶνον ἢ σὺν Tuepoist. Δῶρον δ᾽ εἰς ἱερὴν Ἀντωνίῃ ἥκομεν ἠῶ

κάλλευς καὶ πραπίδων ἔξοχ᾽ ἐνεγκαμένῃ. ——

AP9.239 [C] Κριναγόρου eis βίβλον λυριιςὴν Ἀνακρέοντος caret Pl 47 ow Ἱμέροις C (idem ἰαμβικόν addit): caret P 5 Ἀντωνίῃ apogrr.: τὸ P 6 ἐνεγκαμένῃ Dorville: -vnv P Reiske n. 670, Brunck ἢ. 14, Rubensohn n. 29

The sweet quintet of books of lyric poetry in this box carries the work of inimitable graces—Anacreons, which the pleasant old man from Teos wrote

by wine or with the Desires’ help. On a holy day we come as a present to Antonia, excellent in beauty and wisdom. Five books of lyric poetry are presented to Antonia as a gift on a special

occasion. See below, on eis iepyv... ἠῶ). The first and the last couplet of the poem are devoted to the description of the gift and of the recipient (and the circumstances in which the gift is offered), respectively, Each one is described in terms denoting charm (γλυκερή and χαρίτων, the books; κάλλευς, Antonia) and distinction (ἀμιμήτων, the books;

ἔξοχα, Antonia) or exceptionality (depyv, the day). Thus, the gift is presented as particularly appropriate for the recipient and for the occasion, as they all share

similar characteristics, mutatis mutandis: a sophisticated and excellent present is suitable for a sophisticated (πραπίδων) and excellent lady, and is all the more appropriate when it is offered on a special occasion. If it is genuine, the central couplet comprises a description of the author of the present, Anacreon, the first line picturing his personal features (he is from ‘Teos and he is old) and the sec-

ond one picturing his work (poetry written in a sympotic milieu, dealing with sympotic motifs and being inspired by Love, and dealing with erotic themes).

The festivity of the occasion on which the present is offered is congruent with the merriment, described in the central couplet, in which the author referred to (Anacreon) composed his poetry in the first place. Szczot (412) remarks that feast, love, and joy, indispensable features of a Greek symposium, collaborate here to create the ‘unique atmosphere of this birthday song, and Bowie (2008,

231f. and 2011, 187) observes that with this poem Crinagoras integrates himself into the Greek sympotic tradition.

Paton, Waltz, and Marzi-Conca omit the central couplet, as did Reiske (1754, 120 and 1766, 101f.). For this problem, see below, on 3f. These lines would be

iambic, if in the first line Avaxpetovros as well as the words following Τήιος were not unmetrical; moreover, the last part of the second line, σὺν Ἱμέροις, is added by the Corrector. Most editors regard the central couplet as a later inter-

polation. Reiske (1754, note on n. 670), remarked that they are ‘miserabile scholium novi Graeculi’, Rubensohn (59) found the style and content of the lines unsatisfactory, and the Budé commentators observed that the iambic lines do

not suit the rest of the poem. Certain scholars take the revras λυρικῶν βύβλων to refer to five unnamed poets, rather than to five books by the same poet. An

early supporter of this view is Pauw (4f.)’ and it is also suggested later by Paton, who translates the phrase as ‘the sweet company of the five lyric poets.

Stadtmüller supposed that Crinagoras offers Antonia five books of various lyric poets, ‘lyricorum selectorum, quorum sylloga versibus inscripta fuisse videtur Crinagoreis. Cf. further the note of the commentators of the Bude edition, who

mention ‘un recueil de poétes lyriques’; see also Acosta-Hughes (2010) 163. There are testimonies for Anacreons first, second, and third books of poetry (cf. Rozokoki 24*f., Acosta-Hughes 2010, 162 with n. 76). Gentili (xxviii)? maintained that Anacreon’s work consisted of nine or ten books. The present epi-

gram is our only testimony to the existence of five books if the information given in the central couplet is correct. Defending the number given in the present poem, Gow-Page observe that, whether the central couplet was written by Crinagoras or not, it attests that the number of Anacreon’s books was evidently simply a matter of common knowledge; cf. also Rozokoki 24*f.

For metres other than the elegiac distich in the Garland of Philip, see GowPage GP 1 xxxvii-xxxviii. For a mixture of Archilochean and iambic metre, cf. Theocr. AP 7.664=21 Gow=14 HE, on Archilochus, which is mentioned

by Hecker (1852, 91) as a parallel to the present epigram for its combination of iambic with another metre in the Anthology. Mixture of elegiac with iambic verse,” though in all likelihood pre-Hellenistic, is ‘Simon? AP 13.14=35 FGE=417 " J.C. Pauw, Anacreontis Teii Odae et Fragmenta (Trajecti ad Rhenum 1732). Pauw also sug-

gested that the poem, in its present form, is perhaps mutilated and that the names of the other poets might have followed that of Anacreon in the poems original form. 2 B. Gentili, Anacreon (Rome 1958).

> Which does not occur, as Gow-Page observe, in any of the Garland authors; cf., however, Philip AP 13.1=62 GP, written wholly in pentameters, ‘a metrical experiment’ (Gow-Page ad loc., intr, note). See also Siedschlag 132 with ἢ. 18.

1U4

AP

¥YZS9Y=7

Peek, an epitaph for an athlete.* It is possible that the epigram is a copy of the inscription on the tomb of the athlete mentioned in it (Dandis of Argos, Olympic victor in 476 and 472 Bc). Eugenes’ AP! 308=1 FGE on Anacreon is iambic, as is also Leon. AP! 307=90 HE (iambic version of his AP! 306=31 HE),

Anacreon did write iambic poems (Anacr. amb. 1* West is in iambic trimeters, 2, 3, 4, West are in tetrameters), inter alia, although his predominant extant

metres are lyrical, such as ionics and glyconics; see West (1982) 57, Rozokokj 20*, Suda also reports that Anacreon ἔγραψεν ἐλεγεῖα kat ἰάμβους. Cf. also the fact that the hemiambic metre (together with the anacreontic) is the metre of the Anacreontea. See West (1993) xiv (hemiamb is also found in Anacr. 84 and

85 PMG).° Gow-Page observe that, since Antonia lived from 36 Bc to AD 37, the poem cannot be dated to any specific year. Cichorius (1888, 57, n. 1) made the reasonable assumption that the poem was probably written after Crinagoras’ return from Spain (26-25 Bc; see on 1], intr. note). On Antonias education, from the

age of six, see Kokkinos 10f. Crinagoras sends Marcellus Callimachus’ Hecale with Crin. 11. On poems as gifts, see ad loc., intr. note. Five papyrus-rolls in a box, which seems to be the present here (see below, on ἐν reöxei), is a costly gift (on the high cost of ‘deluxe’ copies of, e.g. the poems of Martial, and for Martial’s reluctance to offer free copies, see Moreno Soldevila 475f.). It is comparable to the silver pen (Crin. 3) and the oil-flask (Crin. 5). 1: cf. the similar openings of Crin. 3,1f. ἀργύρεόν oot τόνδε...!]... κάλαμον and

11,1 Καλλιμάχου τὸ τορευτὸν ἔπος τόδε. Note the alliteration of A in the first line,

of

in the second, and of τ in both.

βύβλων ἡ yAvcepy.../ mevras: γλυκερός in Homer usually qualifies φάος or

ὕπνος. In association with the art of poetry and song, cf. I]. 13.637, Hes. Th. 97, Pind. fr. 152. See West on Hes. Th. 83. The adjective describes Anacreons lyre in Antip. Sid. 7.29=16,2 HE. Crinagoras uses an adjective attributed to lyric poetry in its original form (describing the sound effect of the poems performed to musical accompaniment), to qualify lyric poetry as it was received by a later audience (that of Crinagoras’ own era), when lyric verses were intended for reading only. Cf. anon. AP 9.184=36a,5 FGE 7 re Σιμωνίδεω γλυκερὴ σελίς and Marc. Arg. 10.18=29,2 GP γλυκεραὶ γράμμασι ITrepises.

* Page comments that ‘there is no obvious reason for the eccentricity of the metre, unless it be that the composer found iambics easier for his colourless enumeration of victories at the four Great Games. ° Cf. also Trichas De Nov. Metr. 369 τοῦτο τὸ καταληκτικὸν δίμετρον καὶ ἡμίαμβον map’ ἡμῖν ὀνομάζεται- ἐπίσημον δέ ἐστι καὶ Tots παλαιοῖς Ἀνακρεόντειον λέγεται, ὡς πολλῷ αὐτῷ κεχρημένου τοῦ Ἀνακρέοντος.

For the phrasing, cf. Agath. AP 6.80,1 δαφνιακῶν βίβλων Ayabla ἡ évveds εἶμι, where, too, βίβλος describes a book of poetry. Cf. also Laurea 7.17=1,6 GP ἄνθος ἐμῇ θῆκα παρ᾽ évvedd& (the nine books of the Alexandrian edition of Sappho). See Viansino on Agathias and Gow-Page on Laurea locc. citt. Cf. also Antip. Thess. AP 9.186=103,1 GP βίβλοι Ἀριστοφάνευς,

θεῖος πόνος, Aceratus

7.138=1,1 FGE, Antiphilus 9.192=36,1 GP.

Following Reiske (1754, 120 and 1766, 101), Dübner and Paton print βίβλων, unnecessarily. In the Anthology both spellings occur and the scribes are occasionally differentiated from one another: in Aristo 6.303=3,5 HE P’s BuBA- appears as BıßA- in Pl, and the same happens in Marc. Arg. 9.161=15,1

and 3 GP; in Leon. Alex 6.328=7,1 FGE, P and Pl have βιβλ- and C has corrected P to BußA-. BußA- unanimously appears in Flaccus 9.98=5,4 GP and Leon. Alex AP 9.350=27,1 FGE; βιβλ- (for instance) in Antip. Sid. 7.26=14,2 HE, Antip. Thess. 9.93=31,1 and 9.186=103,1, Antiphil. 9.192=36,1 GP, Aceratus 7.138=1,1 FGE. Homer has örAov.../ BößAıvov in Od. 21.390f., ‘a cable of byblos. This plant was used as a writing material and the Attic form βιβλίον was created by assimilation from βυβλίον; see Stanford ad loc. For the etymology of the family of BußA- words, probably related to the Phoenician city Βύβλος, and for the spelling βιβλ- which is later, but already found in manuscripts of Herodotus (for instance, at 2.38, 3.40, al.) and of Aeschylus’ Prometheus (1. 811), see further Fernandez-Galiano on Od. 21.390. Βίβλος designated a

papyrus-roll and, later, the codex as well (see LSJ and Lampe’® s.v.). See also below, on ἐν τεύχεϊ, For Anacreon’s books of poetry, cf. Antip. Sid. 7.26=14,2 HE ei ri τοι ἐκ βίβλων ἦλθεν ἐμῶν ὄφελος (Anacreon speaking). For wevrds, a rare word in poetry, cf. Gaetulicus 6.190=2,3 FGE, Strato 12.4=4,4 Floridi, Nonnus P. 6.50. For the number of Anacreon's books, see above, intr. note.

λυρικῶν: as Gow-Page comment, this is the earliest occurrence in literature of the term λυρικός. Cf. Cic. Or. 55.183 poetarum qui λυρικοὶ a Graecis nominantur, anon. AP 9.184=36a,9f. FGE πάσης Ι!. λυρικῆς (of uncertain date, not later than the period covered by Philips Garland: see Page ad loc., intr. note), and Laurea AP 7.17=1,8 GP τῆς λυρικῆς Σαπφοῦς (for the dating of the poet, probably a libertus of Cicero, see Gow-Page GP 2.462). Commenting on Cic. loc. cit., Sandys observed that λυρικός designated specifically the poets who composed poems accompanied by the lyre only and that the term was probably introduced by the Alexandrian scholars.’ ἐν revyei: Gow-Page plausibly maintain that the poet means a box for holding the papyrus-rolls (LSJ s.v. IV), and not a ‘volume’ (Paton) or a ‘manuscript’ 6 G.W.E. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford 1961). 7 J. E, Sandys, M. Tulli Ciceronis, Ad M, Brutum,

Orator (Cambridge 1885), 202. See also

O. Tsagarakis, Self- Expression in Early Greek Lyric: Elegiac and lambic Poetry (Wiesbaden 1977), 1,

LUU

AP

Y¥.239=7

(Waltz-Soury). This box was called capsa in Latin,® and τεῦχος can be a syno. nym of capsa; see Birt (1907) 21f., n. 2, where the scholar held that in the present poem the term can have the sense either of ‘box’ or of ‘book-roll’” In the similar phrase of Agathias (AP 4.3,9f.) ὄλβιοι ὧν μνήμη πινυτῶν ἐνὶ τεύχεσι βίβλων | ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐς κενεὰς εἰκόνας ἐνδιάει, Birt suggested that the sense of τεῦχος is the post-classical ‘codex’ (Birt 1882, 91, n. 2). However, perhaps in Agathias and certainly in Crinagoras, the τεῦχος contains books, therefore the sense of ‘box’ containing book-rolls or codices (see above, on βύβλων ἡ γλυκερή....1 mevrds)

seems more reasonable. Furthermore, the plural ἥκομεν of the present poem indicates that the ‘books’ are physical entities, so the assumption that the poet offers papyrus-rolls in a box becomes certainty. τῷδε: see above, on If. 2άμιμήτων.

.. χαρίτων: forthe homoeoteleuton, see Intr., Metre, Homoeoteleuton

and agreement between pentameter ends. The same phrase at the same sedes at Crin. 14,6; cf. ad loc. The lady of that poem (Prote) is described in terms similar

to these applied to Antonia; see further below, on κάλλευς.... ἐνεγκαμένῃ. Ἀμίμητος occurs very rarely in poetry, mostly in Nonnus: cf. D. 8.265, 29.200, 36.412, 43.402, Par. 9.114, 10.149. The characterization of Anacreon’s verses as ἀμίμητοι χάριτες is all the more apt here and maximizes the praise of

Anacreon’s compositions: ‘inimitable’ means ‘insuperable’ but also plays with the notion of poetry as mimesis (cf. e.g. Plut. Mor. 26a μίμησιν εἶναι τὴν ποίησιν ἠθῶν καὶ βίων) extending it, as it were, since the phrase in Crinagoras can be read as implying that poetry, defined as pure ‘grace, poetry whose role is to imitate, cannot be imitated. Crinagoras employs the word χάριτες to describe the grace of Bathyllus’ dance at 39,4; see ad loc. For χάρις in regard to poetry/ music, cf. Pind. O. 10.94F, anon. AP 9.184=36a,2 FGE (see above, on λυρικῶν);

cf. also Pind. P.5.107 μέλος χαρίεν with Giannini ad loc. A similar expression to that in the present epigram and at the same sedes is the account of Antipater of Thessalonica of the books of Aristophanes, which are φοβερῶν πληθόμενοι χαρίτων (AP 9.186=103,4 GP with Gow-Page ad loc.). In regard to Anacreon, cf. ‘Simon. 7.25=67,3 FGE ὃς Χαρίτων πνείοντα μέλη, κτλ, φέρει: cf. Leo Philos. AP 9.202,2 βίβλος πόλου τε καὶ χθονὸς φέρει μέτρα.

® See G. Casanova, ‘Biblioteca: Conservazione e trasporto dei libri, Aegyptus 81 (2001/2002), 235f.

° ‘Entweder waren sie in eine große Rolle zusammengeschrieben, oder aber τεῦχος hat hier eine zweite Bedeutung, die die ursprünglichere war, nämlich, “Gefäß”; the τεύχη could be wooden boxes for transportation of the book rolls. Earlier Birt had also inclined towards the meaning ‘box’ in the present poem (then, however, ignoring the meaning ‘papyrus-roll, as he noted in 1907, 21, n. 2). See Birt (1882) 89-93, Tor a discussion of the meanings of τεῦχος (box, book-roll, codex) and

the occurrences of the term in papyri, sce further P Sanger, "Überlegungen zur Semantik von τεῦχος in der Verwaltungssprache der Papyri und Inschriften, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 53 (2007), 15-30.

AP Y,239=7

1U7

ἔργα: for an author's work, cf. Agath. AP11.354,8 τὸ περὶ ψυχῆς ἔργον Ἀριστοτέλους (same sedes), Dion. Hal. De Comp. 25.64 ἔργα συνταττόμενος αἰώνια.

3f. we have the following possible solutions for the central couplet: a) We have two iambic lines, in which the only real problem are the two final words of the first line, which are unmetrical. So, the iambic pair should be Ἀνακρέοντος, as 6 Τήιος N

EN

„=

Na

ἔγραψεν ἢ παρ᾽ οἶνον ἢ σὺν

1

,

Ἱμέροις.

Gow-Page rightly reject the supplement proposed by Jacobs (Jacobs' and Jacobs’, not printed, however) «κύκνος», since ἔγραψεν is not appropriate for describing the singing of a swan. Anacreon is called ἀοιδός in [Mosch.] Bion 90, ὁ Τήιος μελῳδός in Anacreont. 1,2 West, ἀοίδιμος μελιστής in Anacreont. 60,31 West. A possible supplement for the foot is γέρων (proposed by Boissonade in Dübner’s note). Ἡδὺς πρέσβυς could be a gloss on γέρων. See below on ἡδὺς πρέσβυς. Cf. Anacreont. 7,2 West Ἀνάκρεον, γέρων el. This is a plausible suggestion, which solves the problem ata relatively small cost. Moreover, if yépwy is accepted, the repetition of the notion of sweetness (γλυκερή, of the books, and ἡδύς, of their writer) is avoided. Edmonds"? (132f.) suggested ὁ Τήιος δόναξ (‘the Teian pen‘),

explaining P's ἡδὺς πρέσβυς as a correction of δ᾽ ἄναξ, a mistake for ddvaé. Needless to say, even if we accepted that δ᾽ ἄναξ could appear in this pos-

ition despite being problematic both syntactically and as regards meaning, it is almost impossible to explain how 240s πρέσβυς could be a gloss on it. Ὁ) The third line can be restored as Avaxpeovros, ds ὁ Τήιος πρέσβυς, which

means that the line is a choliamb (U -

U- |

U-

U- |

- - -). Although

the choliamb is particularly associated with Hipponax, the metre is

generally connected with the Ionian tradition to which Anacreon also belongs. It was revived by Hellenistic poets, such as Callimachus and

Herondas (see West 1982, 160f.), and it occurs in epigrams of the imperial period; cf. Apollonides AP 7.693=9 GP, Peek 246 (Thrace, ap II-III), Peek 538=276 Kaibel (Amorgos, AD II-III), al. See West op. cit. 175. The second

line may be a choliamb as well, 1ΕἹμέροις is changed to ἱμερτοῖς: then, we would have ἢ σὺν Ἱμερτοῖς / ἱμερτοῖς, ‘with the Desired Ones / the desired things. For the word, cf. the possible reading in Plut. Mor. 3940 φωνὴν ἐφ᾽

ἱμερτοῖσιν ἀφιέναι. If Ἱμέροις is right, then we have one choliambic and one iambic line. Cf. the inclusion of iambic lines in the choliambic Peek 1935 (Alexandria, AD II). 10 Antip. Sid. 7.30=17,1 HE ὁ Τήιος ἐνθάδε κύκνος, imitated by Eugenes AP! 308=1,2 FGE. Leonidas uses the term of Alcman at AP 7.19=57,1f. and Christodorus of Pindar at AP 2.382,1.

4 Lyra Graeca, vol. 2 (London, New York 1924).

c) More radical change is to be accepted as regards the third line, including alteration of the word order, if we are to have an iambic trimeter. Ap, B, has in margine ὁ πρέσβυς

ἃς Ἀνακρέων

ὁ Τήιος, D’Orville (1737, 187)

suggested ἃς πρέσβυς ἡδὺς Ἀνακρέων ὁ Τήιος, printed by Brunck and Jacobs’, Harberton printed by Beckby, Τήιος, Hecker (1843, πρέσβυς ἡδὺς Τήιος,

(322) corrected to Ἀνακρέοντος πρέσβυς ἃς ὁ Τήιος, Heringa (194) suggested ἃς Avaxpéwv ὁ πρέσβυς ἡδὺς 317) suggested the slightly different Avaxpéovros ἃς ὁ and Schneidewin'* Ἀνακρέοντος, ἃς ὁ πρέσβυς Τήιος͵

In all these cases, the confusion in the word order is difficult to explain,

Heringas, Hecker’s, and Schneidewins proposals, furthermore, create a

text that is highly unnatural Greek. d) The couplet is written in lyric metre. Birt (1882, 89, n. 2) suggested: ‘man wird mit leiser Aenderung beliebte melische Formen, zwei Glyconeen und einen Dimeter, herzustellen haben. It is difficult, however, to see how

the third line would fit into the pattern of the glyconic (OO-

UU-U-),

It is also extremely hard to accommodate the central couplet in any other lyric metre. From all the above it can be gathered that the solution offered by a), involving the adoption of γέρων in the place of ἡδὺς πρέσβυς, seems the most convincing and easiest at the smallest cost.

The expression of the couplet bears similarities with Crin. 49,1f. For the disjunction, cf. also Crin. 20,3f. ἢ ἐπὶ Νείλῳ / «ἢ ἐν Ἰου»δαίοις ὧν περίοπτος

ὅροις. Anacreons fondness of wine and his love affairs are the main subject of his poetry (cf. Rozokoki 15*f.) and a commonplace in the Anthology; cf. the constant reference to these features in the fictional epitaphs for the poet, AP 7,23-33. See also below, on παρ᾽ οἶνον and ἢ σὺν Ἱμέροις. Τήιος... πρέσβυς: for the common attribution of Τήιος to Anacreon, see Kobiliri on Hermesianax 7,50 Powell (Kobiliri on |. 50). Similar phrases in Callimachus are Ketos γαμβρός (Acontius, fr. 75,32f.), Δύκιος γέρων (Olen, H. 4.304), Aaxedayzdviot ἀστέρες (Castor and Pollux, H. 5.24f.), etc.; see Lapp 27.

ἡδὺς πρέσβυς: both adjective and noun are suitable to Anacreon; this could explain the replacement of γέρων by the phrase (see above, on 3f., a). Cf. Anacreont. 20,1 West ἡδυμελὴς Ἀνακρέων. For the ‘sweet wine’ appropriate for Anacreon, cf. Antip. Sid. 7.23=13,4 and 7.27=15,7 HE. Cf. also Critias fr. 1,5

Diels-Kranz'* (=Anacr. 155 PMG) ἡδὸν Avaxpetovra. The poet is called πρέσβυς at adesp. 35,4 PMG, Leon. API 306=31,1 and 307=90,1 HE, anon. AP! 309,1}

‘2 EW. Schneidewin, rev. of A. Hecker, Commentatio critica de Anthologia Graeca, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 182-3 (1844, 3), 1815f.

15 Ἢ, Diels, W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. 2 (Berlin 1952°).

Πρέσβυς is found rarely in epic, but frequently in drama. Cf. Posid. 25,1, 61,2, 105,1 Austin-Bastianini, Call. fr. 75,76, Theocr. 1.41 and [Theocr.] 25.47 with

Chryssafis ad loc. In the Anthology, for instance, Alcaeus 7.55=12,6 (of Hesiod), 7.536=13,1 (of Hipponax), Diosc. 7.708=24,5 (of Machon), Mel. 7.419=4,1 (of

himself) and 7.470=130,7 HE, Antiphil. 7.634=19,1 GP. For the attribution of this term to authors of the past, see Harder on Call. loc. cit. (where the word designates the Cean author Xenomedes); cf. also Marc. Arg. 9.161=15,4 GP

γέρον Ἡσίοδε. In Homer only the comparative and superlative occur, as well as the feminine πρέσβα (HH. 5.721 with Kirk ad loc., al.); see Cunliffe and Ebeling S.VV. πρέσβα, πρέσβυς.

παρ᾽ οἶνον: for Anacreon’s love of wine, cf., for instance, Anacr. Il and 28,2 PMG; also Anacr. Eleg. 4 IEG οἰνοπότης δὲ πεποίημαι. On Anacreon, cf. further ‘Simon. AP 7.24=66,5 oivoBapys, anon. 7.28=35a,2 FGE, Antip. Sid.

7.26=14,3f, and 7.27=15,7f., Dioscor. 7.31=19,5 HE. For the expression, cf. Hedylus 6,3 HE παρ᾽ οἶνον (ona wine-drinking poet; see Gow-Page, intr. note), Damagetus AP 7.355=8,3 HE rap’ οἴνῳ (on Praxiteles, who also combined being an artist with being a wine-drinker). For the poet-drinker, cf. also Call. AP 7.415=30 HE with the note of Gow-Page. Cf. also Anacreont. 42,13 West στυγέω μάχας mapoivovs. Suda reports s.v. Avaxpéwy that the poet συνέγραψεν mapoivıd τε μέλη καὶ ἰάμβους, κτλ. For Anacreon’s love of revels, cf. H. White

(1985) 60f. ἢ σὺν ‘Iuépois: in regard to Anacreon, cf. ‘Simon! 7.25=67,4 γλυκύν... παίδων ἵμερον, Eugenes AP] 308=1,1 FGE τοῖς μελιχροῖς Ἱμέροισι σύντροφον; also Anacreont. 57,26 West "Epos Ἵμερος γελῶν te. Ἵμερος, with a capital J, first appears in Hes. Th. 201, as a companion of Aphrodite, τῇ δ᾽ Ἔρος wuaprnoe καὶ

Ἵμερος ἔσπετο καλός; cf. West ad loc. The word occurs in the plural very rarely; in poetry, Eugenes loc. cit., Theocr. 18.37 πάντες ἐπ᾿ ὄμμασιν ἵμεροι Evri (where-

on Gow comments that it is perhaps modelled on the common épwres),** Mesomedes 5.12 GD οἱ Κύπριδος Ἵμεροι.

The phrase is an addition of C; for C’s exemplar (Michael Chartophylax), see on Crin. 14,3 ὦ χαρίεσσα γύναι. 5 eis ἱερήν.... ἠῶ: cf. Crin. 9,1 ἠοῖ em’ εὐκταίῃ, 6,3f. τῇδε / ἠοῖ. P’s Ἀντωνίη is corrected to -n by D’Orville (1737, 185), as is ἐνεγκαμένην (corrected to -n) in]. 6. Apographs, however, already had Avrwvin (Ap. B., Ap. G., Ap. R.). The occasion is probably Antonias birthday (Jacobs’, Geist 26). Her wed-

ding day (Rubensohn oscillates between birthday and wedding day) is not a probable occasion, because, as Gow-Page observe, this would have been clearly mentioned:

cf. (πη.

6,3f. yevedAin.../

ἠοῖ νυμφιδίων

ἀσσοτάτῃ

λεχέων.

‘4 Cf. the comment of Ap. G. and Ap. R. (in margine) on the σὺν Ἱμέροις of the present poem: abv ἔρωσιν. See Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Apographs of BR Apographon Ruhnkenianum.

110

AP 9.239=7

Stadtmiiller suggests the Saturnalia, because on this day Romans sent presents to each other.'* The Matronalia, or Martial Kalendae (first day of March), was a festival on which women received presents mainly from their husbands or

their loved ones (for a humorous allusion to this custom, cf. Mart. 10.24,3, 10.29,3, 5.84,11

with

Canobbio

589;

see also Henriksén

2.133), while

the

Saturnalia were a celebration mainly for men and children, though this convention was not always kept, and women were also offered Saturnalian presents

directly, at least in Martial’s time; see Leary (1996) 5. It is suggested by passages, such as Juv. 9.53, that women in general were offered gifts during the Matronalia; see Henriksén 2.133, n. 1, Nisbet-Rudd on Hor. Od. 3.8,1. However, the phrasing of the present poem implies that a day of more personal significance for Antonia is meant. If the dative Avrwvin is governed by iepyy, the occasion must be Antonias birthday; the word order suggests this construction rather than

ἥκομεν Ἀντωνίῃ (although ἥκω τινί is also possible; see the example of LSJ s.v, ἥκω II 1), given, furthermore, that eis ἠῶ is already an adjunct to ἥκομεν and the dative is more suitable to ἱερήν rather than to this verb.'® For eis with an

accusative denoting a period of time, cf. LS] s.v. I] 2; cf. Aristoph. Pl. 998 eis ἑσπέραν ἥξοιμι. Antipater sends Piso a volume of his poems for his birthday (AP 9.93=31 GP). Leonidas of Alexandria occasionally sends epigrams as

birthday presents: cf. AP 6.321=1, 6.325=4, 6.329=8, 9.353=30 FGE. See further on Crin. 5, intr. note.

Crinagoras’ ἱερὴ ἠώς recalls the Homeric formula ἱερὸν ἦμαρ (Il. 8.66, 11.84, Od. 9.56). Ἱερός in Homer is further applied to nouns that denote natural elements or institutions (city, night, sea, river) conceived as divine because they convey a sense of superior power. Likewise the very soul and power of a human,

thanks to its supernatural nature, is ἱερὸν μένος; see Leaf on Il. 1.366.'7 Crinagoras is describing Antonia’s day as ἱερή (which implies further emphasis,

if Avrevin is indeed governed by the adjective) to stress the special importance of this particular day for the lady, by contrast to the Homeric stereotypical phrase, which uses the term to describe sunlight in general. ἥκομεν: the gift speaks about itself; see on Crin. 5,1 με. 6 κάλλευς.... ἐνεγκαμένῃ: for the Epic-lonic contracted forms in eu(=eo), see on Crin. 41,7 kakooknveös; for the neuter genitive in -eus in Homer,

see Van

15. Gifts for the Saturnalia in the Anthology are Antip. ‘Thess. 6.249=45 GP, a candle for Piso, and Leon. Alex. 6.322=2 FGE, an epigram to a Marcus; see further on Crin. 3, intr. note.

© Bor ἥκειν with two adjuncts, one denoting the person to whom the movement is directed and one denoting the period of time, cf., for instance, Aristoph. Pl. 1201 ἥξει yap ὁ νεανίσκος ὥς a’ εἰς ἑσπέραν. The construction of Crinagoras’ poem, however, is not similar to that of the

Aristophanic passage.

7 J, B Locher (Untersuchungen zu ἱερός hauptsächlich bei Homer, Bern 1963), 61 disagreed with the connection of ἱερός in the syntagmata ἑερὸν ἦμαρ and κνέφας ἱερόν with some divinity and

explained the adjective as expressing the strong impression that the light of the day and the night's darkness made on people of the Greek South.

AP 9.239 =7

111

Leeuwen 222. Πραπίδων usually occurs in the corresponding sedes of the hexameter in Homer: Il. 11.579, 13.412, 17.349, 24.514; also in Opp. Hal. 1.682, 5,95.

The noun is rarely found in the singular: see LS] s.v. 2.

Πραπίδες at the corresponding sedes of the hexameter at Hom. 11. 11.579, 13.412, 17.349, 24,514. For a woman's excellence both in beauty and in wisdom, cf. I.

13.431f.,, Od. 20.70f. As far as intellectual ability is concerned, a royal lady exceeds also all women in wisdom at Theocr. 17.34 ἐν πινυταῖσι περικλειτὰ Bepevixa | ἔπρεπε θηλυτέρῃς. Cf. also the qualities of the dead child at Peek 810,6 (Paros, ADI) κάλλει καὶ πινυταῖς τερπόμενον πραπίσιν; see also on Crin. 14,3f. Antonias excellence in beauty and wisdom is attested by Plut. Ant. 87 τὴν δὲ σωφροσύνῃ καὶ κάλλει περιβόητον Ἀντωνίαν; for Antonias virtue, cf. also Jos. AJ 18.180. For the link between Antonia and Venus and Juno, see Kokkinos 28 with n. 81] and

116ff. Praise of Antonia involving a parallel between her and Juno in literature is [Ov.] Cons. ad Liv, 303ff.

The phrase in the present poem is a self-variation of Crin. 14,3f. és εἴδεος ὥρην | ἄκρα καὶ eis ψυχῆς ἦθος ἐνεγκαμένη (see ad loc.), the poet here condensing his expression (eideos ὥρην: κάλλευς. Yuxns ἦθος: πραπίδων). The self-

variation continues: Crinagoras finishes this poem with Antonia’ excellence in beauty and wits, having referred previously to Anacreon's poems as ἀμιμήτων ἔργα χαρίτων; in 14 he finishes the poem with ἀμιμήτων.... χαρίτων, describing

the lady herself, previously praised for her beauty and character (ἄκρα... ἐνεγκαμένη). On a womans beauty, cf. Crin. 6,5 καλλίστης ... γυναικός (perhaps on Antonia; see ad loc.) and 18,5 καὶ κάλλος... φωτός (on Cleopatra-Selene).

ἔξοχ᾽ ἐνεγκαμένῃ: Crinagoras replaces ἄκρα of 14,4 (see prev. note) with ἔξοχα. The word is Homeric: the neuter plural usually functions as an adverb (JI. 5.61,

Od. 15.70, 24.78, al.). The participle éveyxapev- always at the end of the pentameter in the Anthology: cf. anon, 6.48=38,6 HE, Archias 6.207=9,8, Marc. Arg. 7.403=32,4 GP, al. Rubensohns &veıx- is not necessary; see on Crin. 14,4.

AP 6.100 =8

“αμπάδα, τὴν κούροις ἱερὴν ἔριν, ὠκὺς ἐνέγκας ola Προμηθείης μνῆμα πυρικλοπίης νίκης κλεινὸν ἄεθλον Er ἐκ χερὸς ἔμπυρον Ἑρμῇ θῆκεν ὁμωνυμίῃ παῖς πατρὸς Ἀντιφάνης. f

4

»

Μ

>95

4

μὲ

€

m

AP 6.100 Kpivaydpou ἀνάθημα Ἑρμῇ παρὰ Avripdvous caret Pl 1 λαμπάδα C: -δι ut videtur P | ἐνέγκας apogrr.: ἐναγκάς P

2 πυρικλοπίης P: πυροκ- C

3 ér’apogrr.: om. Ρ] χερὸς apogrr.: xerp- P Reiske ἢ, 411, Brunck anon. ἢ. 123, Rubensohn ἢ. 3

The torch, object of the boys’ holy strife, which he bore swiftly as a memorial of Prometheus’ theft of the fire, a glorious prize of victory, Antiphanes, son of a like-named father, dedicated from his hand, still alight, to Hermes. Dedication to Hermes by Antiphanes, winner in a torch race.

The whole poem consists of a single sentence and its structure is similar to that of Crin. 5, also a four-line epigram; see ad loc., intr. note. As in 5 and in the gift poems 3 and 4, the object appears at the opening of the poem, and the act

(here dedication, θῆκεν) comes at the final line. The idea of brightness recurs throughout, as all four lines contain a word related to fire/flame: λαμπάδα (1), πυρικλοπίης (2), ἔμπυρον (3), Ἀντιφάνης (4), λαμπάδα and Ἀντιφάνης, the ‘pro-

tagonists’ of the victory, in fact enclosing the whole epigram. See Intr., Language

and Style, Structure. Reflecting this enclosure, the two central lines are also enclosed in the names of the deities associated with the race and involved in this occasion, Prometheus and Hermes. Attributes of the object occupy the greater part of the epigram, as also happens in the gift poems, thereby underlining its importance: the torch is κούροις ἱερὴ ἔρις, Προμηθείης μνῆμα πυρικλοπίης, and νίκης κλεινὸν ἄεθλον, terms which render its functions in the

race (‘object of the youths’ strife’ and ‘prize of the victory’), and offer an explanation of its role (remembrance of Prometheus’ act’), The image of the runner and his act is presented with condensed elaboration; this, combined

with the fact that the four lines form only one sentence, represents the swiftness achieved by victorious Antiphanes. For the winners of competitions dedicating their prize to the god who is the patron of the particular contest (or art), cf. Hes. Op. 656-9, where the poet dedi-

cates to the Muses the tripod he received as a prize for a musical competition. See West on 658 and below, on λαμπάδα. Other dedications by victors in the Anthology are anon. 6.7 (to Apollo, after a victory in boxing), anon. 6.49 (Delphi, horse race), Philip 6.259=23 GP (Hermes, boys’ contest), Asclep. 6,308=27 HE (Muses, boys’ school contest for handwriting), ‘Simon. 13.19=43 FGE (a multiple victory; see Page FGE 262-4). In 6.7 the object is only called περικαλλὲς ἄγαλμα and not further specified; in 6.49 it is a tripod, in 6.259 and

in 13.19 statues, in 6.308 a comic mask. IG 2? 2995, 2997, 2998, 2999, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3013, 3164 from Attica, IG 12.9.946 from Chalcis, Moretti 1953, ἢ. 57 from Delos (see further ad loc.) are

dedicatory inscriptions of the Roman period from victors of the λαμπαδηδρομία. For Aegean islands, see [G 11.4.1555-62 (Delos, III Bc). See also inscriptions from Syros, Chalcis: see further Jüthner in RE s.v. λαμπαδηδρομία (RE 12.1.570) and Ebert (1979) 6ff. A victor in a torch race is attacked by Dioscorides in AP 11.363=37 HE, because of his low social origin. The torch race was held at Attic festivals, such as the Panathenaea, the Hephaestia, and the Promethea (cf.

Deubner 211-13), but it was also widely spread throughout Greece and was popular in Roman times, too; see Sitlington Sterrett 417-18, Gardiner (1910)

292f. For torch races at festivals in honour of Hermes and attestations of the god's cult in Lesbos, see below on Ἑρμῇ. The gymnasiarch was responsible for the equipment of the competitors in the torch race; see Delorme 5, 254 with

n. 8. For inscriptional evidence of the function of gymnasia in Lesbos in the imperial period, cf. IG 12.2.134, 208, 211, 258. For Eresos in III Bc, see Delorme 12]; for Mytilene, in I Bc, see Delorme 211-12. It is reasonable to assume that the

poem was written in the period when Crinagoras was in Lesbos. The youth is likely to have won in a local torch race. In Italy torch races were held in Naples in honour of Parthenope; see Sitlington Sterrett 417-18 with n. 11. Another event during which the poet may have had the opportunity to meet Greek ath-

letes was the Sebasta Romaia, again in Naples, in which, however, the torch race is not attested: see Geer 211ff., 217-18.° ! But also in the Bendideia, Anthesteria, Epitaphia (see Sitlington Sterrett 402ff.). The races were further related to the cult of Pan, Theseus, Nemesis, and chthonian deities, see ibid. 397-400, Frazer 2.392, O. Broneer, ‘Hero Cults in the Corinthian Agora, Hesperia 11 (1942), 149f., Parke (1977) 171f£., Simon 53-4, Kephalidou 50, n. 52. * For Sebasta Romaia, see Geer passim, L. Robert Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris 1937), 144,

M. Gough, ‘Anabarzus, Anatolian Studies 2 (1952), 85-150, 128f,, Z. Newby, Greek Athletics in the Roman World (Oxford 2005), 27 with ἡ. 33, and 33. Its importance was so great that emperors

occasionally attended them: the games were instituted in honour of Augustus and his presence at the festival in AD 14, shortly before his death, is well attested; see Geer 214 with n. 28, and 216. Cf.

Suetonius’ information that Augustus had participated in a banquet with young athletes in

114

AP 6.100=8

Since here the dedicator appears to be a single runner, Gow-Page suppose that the race here is between individuals rather than a relay. In the case of a team race, the whole team was regarded as the victor, in Athens the competition held

between the phylae.” Our evidence records both tribal and individual victories,‘ It has been assumed that the single person described as the winner of the race was not an individual runner, and was, instead, merely the last one of his team, who represented the others.” As Gow-Page (on Alc. Mess. HE 7,2=12.29,2 AP) observe, however, it is impossible to imagine the contest described in Paus,

1.30,2 as a relay (cf. also Parke 1977, 45). It is therefore reasonable to maintain

that there were torch races both as relays and as single runners’ contests,° and that Antiphanes of the present poem was a winner of a single runners’ race,

Comparing Crinagoras’ phrasing with that of a Coan inscription (M. Segre, Iscrizioni di Cos (Rome 1993), ED 145,31, II Bc: τὰν ἔριν τᾶς λαμπάδος), Gauthier

has put forward the assumption that ἱερὰ ἔρις indicated a specific torch race in

honour of Hermes, run by a single runner (see also below, on ἱερὴν Epıv).’ This assumption was made for the Alseia of Cos in particular; however, if it is valid, it could apply to other festivals and regions as well.

1 λαμπάδα: also at the opening of the poem in Moschus AP! 200=1 HE, Antip. Thess. AP 6.249=45 GP, anon. 14.107. The word denotes an offering and also appears without the demonstrative pronoun in Antip. Thess. loc. cit., Kaibel 943,2; see below.’ “αμπάς does not occur in Homer. For the λαμπαδηδρομία as

a memorial of Prometheus’ act, see below, on ITpopyfeins... πυρικλοπίης.

For the traditional dedicatory offering of the victor’s prize, see Rouse 151-60. For the λαμπαδηδρομία, see also Kephalidou 88-9, the dedication of the prize

often accompanied by the sacrifice of a bull. A usual prize in the Attic torch race, as well as in other contests, was a hydria. See Kephalidou 31 and 102f., Capreae before attending the contest in Naples, Aug. 98,3. For “Romaia’ taking place in several Greek cities during the imperial period, see Moretti 1953, 137-8. * Cf. Kephalidou 31 with n. 12. * Ὁ, Kyle, Athletics in Ancient Athens (Leiden 1987), 191. For artistic representations of team

torch-racing, see Harris’ plates 24-8, Kephalidou 31 with n. 10. 5 Jüthner 2.152f. (for the opposite view, i.e. that when the inscriptions mention one dedicator, then we have individual runners, see Frazer 2.392); Jiithner (2.152f.) suggested, however, the pos-

sibility of a simplification of the contest over the course of time, which resulted in single runners. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 314 firmly denied the possibility of individual runners. ° This logical conclusion is reached by Sitlington Sterrett (405f; for the relay torch race on horseback, see ibid. 402f., Harris 181); cf. Gardiner (1910) 292f., (1930) 143, Frazer 2.391-3, Parke

(1977) 45, 150, 171. See also prev. note.

” Ph. Gauthier, ‘Du nouveau sur les courses aux flambeaux d’apres deux inscriptions de Kos, REG 108 (1995), 576-85, esp. 581f.

® Dedicated objects appear quite frequently without τόνδε, τοῦτον, and the like in the Anthology. Cf., for instance, Leon. 6.200=38,3, 6.204=7,1ff., Antip. Sid. 6.174=5,3-6 HE, Archias 6.195=11,2 GP (here a single offering), Flaccus=[Phalaecus] 6.165=1,1-6 FGE. Crinagoras sometimes uses the demonstrative pronoun, as in 3,1ff., and sometimes does not, as in 4,1-5, 5,1-5. Cf. also on 43,2 σκολιοῦ ... mpedvos.

AP 6.100=8

115

Simon 64, Delorme 368, Parke 1977, 46; sometimes a shield (cf. Sitlington Sterrett 414); we also have a bronze herm from Delos (Delorme 373). A λαμπάς

as a dedication at first appears to be the instrument of the victory (for this category of offerings, see Rouse 160-3, Harris 145): a torch is dedicated after a victory in the torch race in AApp 1.149=IG 2? 3005 “αμπάδα νικήσας σὺν ἐφήβοις τήνδ᾽ ἀνέθηκα | EdruxiSns, παῖς ὧν Εὐτυχίδου Aobpoveds. Torches

made of bronze were dedicated for victories in λαμπαδηδρομία in Delos; see Delorme 152, 368 (for λαμπάς as a metonymy for λαμπαδηδρομία, see Galan

Vioque on Diosc. 40.1-3 (p. 385-6)). The torch is called the ἦθλον of the victory also in Kaibel 943=1G 2? 3164 (Attica, AD II). See Rouse 153. The prizes recorded in a third-century Bc inscription from Ceos (IG 12.5.647,27) are similar. The

inscription concerns arrangements for a festival. Here the prizes for archery are a bow and a quiver (first), a bow (second); for the javelin, three spears and a helmet (first), three spears (second). See also Gardiner (1910) 151, Golden? 112.

Likewise the torches mentioned in the present epigram and in the Attic inscription are prizes which are the same as the instrument of the victory.'® See also below, on ἔτ᾽ ἔμπυρον.

κούροις: Antiphanes is presumably an ephebe, roughly between eighteen and twenty (cf. Gardiner (1930) 90, König 48''); cf., for instance, IG 2? 3006 [zo]as ἐφήβους λαμπάδα] | νικήσας. See also Ebert (1979) 12. There were torch races for boys, ephebes, and men (Gardiner 1910, 247f.;'? cf. for instance, IG 2? 2998

τὴν λαμπάδα τῶν ἀνδρῶν). Those of the lesser age groups were the most typical. The torch race is especially connected with the ephebes: cf. Gardiner (1910) 293, Sitlington Sterrett 410. The training of the teams of boys and ephebes for the torch races was the duty of the gymnasiarch, who often offers dedications to the gods and participates in the victory of his team. See RE s.v. λαμπαδηδρομία (12.1.575); also Sitlington Sterrett 414ff., Gardiner (1910) 501, Sekunda'? passim,

esp. 153-8.

Koöpos can indicate a boy or even a baby. See Hesych. s.v. κοῦρος: παῖς, νέος, υἱὸς ἄρρην, νεανίας, νήπιον; Cf. Theodoridas AP 6.155=1,2 κῶρος ὁ Terpaerns,

° M. Golden, Sport and Society in Ancient Greece (Cambridge 1998).

1% Although the prize for the winner of the torch race mentioned in the inscription from Ceos is a shield.

" However, in post-classical limes, youths admitted to the ephebeia in certain cities could occasionally be younger. Cf. S. Hin, ‘Class and Society in the Cities of the Greek East: Education during the Ephebeia, Anc. Soc. 37 (2007), 143ff. For bibliography on the ephebeia, see König 48 with n, 2. ® For the flexibility of the term ‘boy! which can denote, according to the festival, the age 12-18, or a subdivision of it, ie. a lower part, the other(s) being ephebes (or, furthermore, younger, middle, older ephebes), see ibid. 271f., also P. Frisch, ‘Die Klassifikation der (14/4 22 bei den griechischen Agonen, ZPE 75 (1988), 179ff.

3 N. Sekunda, ‘IG iil250: A decree concerning the Lampadephoroi of the tribe Aiantis, ZPE 83 (1990), 149-83.

116

AP 6.100=8

Mel. 9.331=127,1, HE al. It can be a synonym of ἔφηβος, Eust. Od. 1788,56;" cf, Diod. 9.219=1,5 κοῦρος ἔτ᾿ ἀρτιγένειον ἔχων χνόον and 9.405=8,3 GP, anon. AP] 344,1.

ἱερὴν ἔριν: the torch race is called ἱερὰ λαμπάς at Plut. Solon 1.7.'° The adjective here perhaps underlines the religious character ofthe contest and its association

with ritual festivals. For Gauthier’s suggestion about a particular contest called ἱερὰ ἔρις, see above, intr. note. If it is not used as a technical term, ἔρις is to be interpreted as the ‘subject of strife’; Gow-Page compare Crin. 47,4 εἰνόδιον δάκρυ and Antip. Thess. AP 7.705=50,5 GP Αἰγείδαις μεγάλην ἔριν. Cf. also the

friendly rivalry of the three girls in working on a piece of embroidery at Leon. 6.286=40,6 HE τὴν τριπόνητον ἔριν.

ὠκύς: always as an adjective in Homer. As a predicate adjective, cf. Antiphilus AP 9.14=30,3 GP μάρψας δ᾽ ὠκὺς ἔριψεν ἐπὶ χθόνα, Moschus 2.110 ὠκὺς δ᾽ ἐπὶ πόντον ἵκανεν, [Opp.] Cyn. 1.523, Nonnus D. 11.197.

ἐνέγκας: Rubensohn unnecessarily changes to ἐνεικ- as he does with all other occurrences of this Attic form; see Intr., Language and Style, Dialect. Ap. L., Ap.G., Ap. B.,and Ap. R. correct P’s ἐναγκάς to ἐνέγκας.

Aap radydd por

were the runners (Aesch. Ag. 312, Lex. Seg., Gl. Rh. 227,24f. Bekker λαμπαδηφόροι δὲ καλοῦνται, ὅτι τὰς λαμπάδας ἔφερον; also πυρσοφόροι; see Hesych. s.v. πυρσοφόρος), as well as the victors; see Hesych. s.v. λαμπάς. Φέρειν suits the deed of Prometheus, who is Πυρῴφόρος (Aesch. fr. 208 TrGrF): cf., for instance, Soph. OC 55 ὁ πυρφόρος θεὸς. Also see below, on IIpoumdeins... πυρικλοπίης.

2 ofa: Gow-Page remark that ofa is superfluous, since we have μνῆμα and do not need a comparison, and compare Crin. 4,5f. ola δὲ δαιτός δῶρον and Philip AP 4.2=1,4 GP ὡς ἴκελον στεφάνοις, Patons translation ‘as if mindful of

how Prometheus ... is not satisfactory, because the lampadedromia is, in fact, a memorial of Prometheus’ act; see next note. Οἷον, however, can be a syno-

nym of ws, ἅτε; see LS] s.v. ΠῚ 3. For the omission of the participle dv, see K-G I] (2), 102. Cf, for instance, Hdt. 1.66 ola δὲ ἔν τε χώρῃ ἀγαθῇ καὶ πλήθεϊ οὐκ ὀλίγῳ ἀνδρῶν, dvd te ἔδραμον, αὐτίκα καὶ εὐθενήθησαν, ‘since their land was good and their men were many, very soon they flourished and prospered. Crinagoras seems to be saying that Antiphanes “bore the torch swiftly, as it isa

memorial of Prometheus’ theft, i.e. swiftness naturally suits an act like the theft of the fire. * Ancient commentators tended to identily the epic κοῦροι with the ephebes, but the word in the epic bore quite different connotations; in Homer κοῦρος can describe all ages of young male people, from infancy (Il. 20.124) to manhood (Penelope's suitors, Od. 21.30, al); see Ebeling s.v.

The term designates members of the social elite in the epic. See H. Jeanmaire, Couroi et Courétes (Lille 1939), 31f. '® For other names of the contest, see Sitlington Sterrett 418f.

AY

0.LUU=6

IIpoumBeins ... πυρικλοπίης: in poetry, cf, for instance, Nic. Al. 273 Προμηθείοιο κλοπὴν

ἀνεδέξατο

φωρῆς,

Strato AP

12.220=63,1

Floridi τὸ πῦρ

κλέψας...

Προμηθεῦ. For the adjective, cf. Ap. Rh. 3.845 φάρμακον... Προμήθειον, Call. fr. 192,3 with Pfeiffer ad loc. Hellenistic poets are fond of such formations (adjective in -ecos + abstract noun which often denotes the act of the great man

whose name formed the adjective in -ecos); for instance Mel. AP 5.179=7,7 HE Καδμεῖον κράτος. See A. Griffiths, “Notes on the Text of Theocritus, CQ 22 (1972), 106.

“αμπαδηδρομία is performed mainly in honour of Prometheus (Men. fr. 508,2{. K-A) to commemorate his action. Cf. Hyg. Astr. 2.15 praeterea in certa-

tione ludorum cursoribus instituerunt ex Promethei similitudine ut currerent lampadem iactantes; see Sitlington Sterrett 394f., Jüthner 2.135f., West on Hes. Th. 567. Prometheus steals the fire from Zeus and conceals it ἐν κοίλῳ νάρθηκι at Hes. Op. 518. and Th. 566f. The god is often represented with a torch in his right hand;’* cf. Philostr. VS 2.602 ἰὼ Προμηθεῦ δᾳδοῦχε καὶ πυρφόρε, Eur, Ph.

1121f,, Jul. Aeg. API 87,1.

Ap. L.,'’ Ap. G., Ap. B., Ap. R., anon. in Misc. Observ. 1735, 3.18 (see below, on ér’,.. ἔμπυρον), Reiske (1754, 8 and 1766, 6), Brunck (the poem appears as anon. 123), Jacobs’ (in v. 4, as anon. 123), Geist, Rubensohn, Holtze, Diibner, and Paton

accept the Corrector’s wupo-, while Stadtmiiller, Waltz, Beckby, and Gow-Page print P’s πυρι- (Jacobs? prints wupo- but approves also rupı-). Defending P’s reading, Gow-Page remark that the huge frequency of compounds with πυριcould have influenced the formation of this word which is a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, even if πυρι- has here a genitive rather than the usual dative sense; πυρι- takes this function in later epic. Cf. πυρίπαις, the ‘son of fire’ for Dionysus in [Opp.] Cyn, 4.287, πυρίπνοος at Lycophron 1314 but πύρπνοος at Eur. El. 472 and Med.

478, πυριτρόφους τε ῥιπίδας at Philip AP 6.101=16,2 GP. See A. Debrunner, Griechische Wortbildungslehre (Heidelberg 1917), 18, Schwyzer 1.446. For for-

mations with « instead the expected o in the stem, see further Schwyzer 1.447. μνῆμα: the noun, typically designating the tomb in the epigrams,'” has here the sense of ‘remembrance, in accordance with its Homeric meaning: Od. 15.126 (δῶρον) μνῆμ᾽ Ἑλένης χειρῶν, 21.40 μνῆμα ξείνοιο φίλοιο, Il, 23.619 τάφου μνῆμ. As in Homer, in the present poem the μνῆμα is an object, ἃ λαμπάς: cf. Theogn. 1357f. Cuydv.../...dpyaddov μνῆμα φιλοξενίης. See Van Groningen on Theogn. 112: ‘il a toujours le sens plus concret de lobjet qui garantit le souvenir (...) Mais

de temps en temps la nuance saffaiblit’; cf. Aesch. Pr. 841 (Ἰόνιος κεκλήσεται) τῆς σῆς πορείας μνῆμα, Pind. 1, 8.62f. Νικοκλέος / μνᾶμα πυγμάχου κελαδῆσαι. 3 viens... ἄεθλον: ἄεθλον, a prize, is Homeric; cf. Il. 23.262, 413, 620, 640, al. In

Homer the word denotes a variety of prizes, such as women, horses, armour, 16 See Jebb on Soph. OC 55.

17 Where we read the careless mistake rupomAoxins.

18 For instance, Diosc. AP 7.450=26,1, Diot. 7.475=5,8, Leon. 7.478=73,3 HE, al.

118

AP 6.100 =8

and tripods. In Hesiod prizes are tripods (Op. 654-7), while in Pindar they can be vases of metal (O. 9.90, N. 10.43f.), or clothes (P 4.253, N. 10.44); see further

Kephalidou 66. For the expression, ‘prize of victory, cf. AApp 1.207,2 νίκης ἄεθλον ἔλαβεν. Ihe phrase occurs often in Nonnus: D. 10.389 viens δ᾽ ἦεν ἄεθλα; cf. also 19.119 and 197, 33.69, 37.116 and 706 ἀέθλια (-ov)... νίκης. κλεινόν: for κλέος in a similar context, cf. Pind. P 9.69f. πόλιν 7... κλεινάν 7" ἀέθλοις, Bacchyl. 8.32 Maehler κλεινοῖς ἀέθλοις (=games), Soph. El. 681f. κλεινὸν

Ἑλλάδος | πρόσχημ᾽ ἀγῶνος deAdırav ἄθλων χάριν.

ἔτ᾽... ἔμπυρον: the torch must be still alight at the end of the contest, as Pausanias emphasizes; see above, intr. note. The torch Antiphanes held while

running is also given to him as a prize; for the identity of the instrument of victory with the prize, see above on λαμπάδα. The sentence should not be taken

literally, i.e. we should not imagine that the torch was hung up while still alight in the temple. The expression serves to stress the winner's speed in dedicating

the torch and also endows the image with vividness and tension. Cf. Philip AP 6.38=10,2 GP κώπην, ἅλμης τὴν μεθύουσαν ἔτι, dedication by a fisherman of his oar, among other instruments of his work, to Poseidon. For an opposite idea, the dedicated object seen as having lost its previous quality, cf. Anyte 6.123=1,If, HE. Cf. also Moero 6.119=1,3 HE; see Geoghegan on Anyte 1,1, Seelbach on Mnasalcas 7=AP 9.324=16 HE, intr. note. P’s χειρὸς was corrected to χερὸς in Ap. L., Ap. G., and Ap. B.; in Ap. R. the ı of the diphthong seems to have been erased in the text. It appears as χερὸς also in anonymous in Miscellaneae Observationes in auctores veteres et recentiores 5 (1735), 3.18.’? Paton

and Gow-Page

prefer to take ἐκ χερὸς with

ἔμπυρον rather than with θῆκεν and render ‘alight in his hands’ (in the trans-

lation; in the commentary they render the phrase with the unintelligible ‘flaming from his hand’). While the attempt to detect a difference between the two meanings is rather pedantic, syntactically the first phrasing is difficult, as ἐκ involves the sense of movement and its interpretation as ‘in’ seems a forced

effort; ‘from one’s hand, however, suits the act of dedicating something to a god very well. In a similar context, Aesch. Sept. 700 ὅταν ἐκ χερῶν θεοὶ θυσίαν δέχωνται; cf. Eur. Ba. 495 θύρσον τόνδε παράδος ἐκ χεροῖν. This construction

again does not obscure the impression that the torch is still alight in Antiphanes hand when he offers it: ‘cest de sa propre main, tandis qu'il brülait encore, que [ἃ consacré ἃ Hermes Antiphan&s’ (Waltz). Moreover, it

underlines even further the notion that the torch has just arrived at the temple from the dedicators hands, thus preserving its previous condition. Cf. 15. Editors (for instance Stadtmüller, Waltz, Beckby, Gow-Page) report D’Orville as the author of the correction. Miscellaneae Observationes was edited by Burman between 1732 and 1741 and by D’Orville between 1741 and 1751; see Hutton (1946), 276.

AP 6.10U=8

110

Mnasalcas AP 9.324-:|6, ΗΕ & σῦριγξ...! τίπτ᾽ ἀπὸ ποιμενίου χείλεος ὧδε

πάρει;

The elided €r, added in the apographs (Ap. L. in margine, Ap. G., Ap. B., and Ap. R. in textu), occurs again at the same sedes in Crin, 9,3. "Eumvpos is not Homeric, but in 1, 23.702 we have τρίποδ᾽ ἐμπυριβήτην,

‘made for standing on fire. “Euzupos usually occurs in the sense of ‘burning’: cf. Leon. AP 9.24=30,2 HE ἔμπυρος ἥλιος. For the sense ‘alight, as here, cf. Archias 10.7=27,7 GP (βωμόν) θυόεντα καὶ ἔμπυρον. Ap. B. has ἔμπλεον.

Ἑρμῇ: the inscriptions [Ὁ 11.4.1156-7, 1159-62 (see above, intr. note) are also dedications to Hermes by winners of the torch race. Cf. also A. Lajtar, Die Inschriften von Byzantion (Bonn 2000), 1] Ὀλυμπιόδωρος Μενδιδώρου στεφανωθεὶς τᾷ λαμπάδι τῶν ἀνήβων ra Βοσπόρια τὸ ἀῦλον Ἑ ρμᾷ καὶ Ἡρακλεῖ

(cf. Rouse 153, n. 12). Gow-Page observed that the offering of a torch-race victor to Hermes may be related to his cult,? or to the fact that the god was regarded as the patron of athletics in general, comparing Kaibel 943 (see above on λαμπάδα), ‘Anacreon’ AP 6.143=14,3f. FGE. For Herms in the stadium, cf. Philoxenus AP 9.319=1 HE; see Gow-Page on HE 3036. For Hermes (together

with Heracles) as patron of the gymnasia and the numerous dedications to him by victors, see RE s.v. Hermai, 3.6 (8.1.701f.), Enagonios (5.2.2544), Delorme 339-41. A collection of ancient passages referring to Hermes and other ἐναγώνιοι θεοί

(as well as further bibliography on these gods) is given by Kephalidou, 85f., n. 25. For attestations of the cult of Hermes in Lesbos, see RE s.v. Lesbos (12.2.2124),

Hermes (8.1.752); for evidence of the cult of Hermes Enagonios specifically in Mytilene in I Bc, see Delorme 211f. Gauthier suggests that Hermes was specifically honoured in a torch race termed ἱερὰ ἔρις: see above, intr. note. 4 θῆκεν ὁμωνυμίῃ.... Ἀντιφάνης: for ὁμωνυμίη, a rare word in poetry, see on

Crin. 17,2. OjKe(v) at verse-opening in dedicatory epigrams: Call. 6.301=28,3 HE, Quintus 6.230=1,5, Zonas 6.22=1,6, Philip 6.62=11,6 GP, al.; see also on Crin. 42,8 ἀντίθεται.

To avoid the peculiarity of the construction of θῆκεν with the simple dative ὁμωνυμίῃ, Critics tried to emend the line. Some scholars prefer the change of © Cf, the inscriptional evidence of a torch race at Hermaia, the internal athletic contests of the gymnasia; see Sitlington Sterrett 404, Frazer 2.391f. The more recent discovery of the Gymnasiarchic Law of Beroia (mid-second century Bc) offers information for a lampadedromia at

the Hermaia in this city (Side B, 45-68). See Ph. Gauthier-M.B. Hatzopoulos, La loi gymnasiarchique de Beroia (Athens 1993), 22 and 109f. with n. 2, and König 65. Hermes, after all, is the runner par excellence, For his function as the gods’ messenger and his protection of wayfarers, see, for instance, RE s.v, Hermes (8.1.777, 781), Farnell V 20-2. Cf. on Crin. 43,6. The god appears on Attic vases with depictions of contests running ahead of the chariot’s horses: see Kephalidou 155, 159 with n. 37.

the verb: Boissonade’s θῆκ᾽ ev (in Dübner’s note) is accepted by Rubensohn, Stadtmiiller, Beckby, and Waltz. Such an alteration, however, does not offer any help, as the dative function is not eliminated (the interpretation of Waltz ‘ey

inscrivant le nom de son pére, qui est aussi le sien’ can be hardly drawn from θῆκ᾽ ἐν ὁμωνυμίῃ) and the simple dative can anyway stand for ἐν + dat.; see K-G II (1) 441-3, Other critics preferred the change of the dative: ὁμωνυμίης was

suggested by Salmasius (the correction appears in Ap. G., Ap. B., and Ap. R., in

marginal notes) and printed by anon. in Misc. Observ. 1735, 3.18 (see above, on ἔτ᾽ ἔμπυρον), Brunck (anon. 123), and Jacobs’ (anon. 123). Ὁμωνυμίης

is sup-

posed to be another word for ὁμώνυμος, but this is an unnecessary neologism,

Ἀντιφάνης is changed to Ἀντιφάνους, again unnecessarily (Ap. L., Ap. G., Ap. B,, Ap. R., anon. in Mise. Observ, 1735, 3.18, Reiske [1754, 8, and 1766, 6], Brunck

and Jacobs.’ Jacobs? conjectured (without printing) ὁμωνύμιος, and Hecker (1852, 138) suggested öuwvuuiov. However, as Gow-Page observed, P's ὁμωνυμίῃ is defended by Peek 1931,6 (Laconia, AD II) [Tparedvixos / οὔνομά μοι, τοὐμοῦ

πατρὸς ὁμωνυμίῃ. ἴῃ ἃ different construction, cf. Eusebius Vita Const. 4.40,1 τῇ τοῦ πάππου κοσμούμενος ὁμωνυμίᾳ.

The father’s name frequently occurs with the name of the victor in dedicatory inscriptions. Cf. IG 2? 2997 Ἀντίοχος Φαιδρίου, 2° 2998 Ἐράτω[ν) Ἐ[ρ]άτωνος, 2 3005 Edruxiöns παῖς ὧν Evtuy Sov (dedications for victories in

the λαμπάς). In a sophisticated expression Crinagoras avoids the straightforward repetition of the father’s name. Cf. Anyte AP 6.153=2 HE=Geoghegan 2,3f. Ἀριστοτέλης δ᾽ ἐπόησεν | KAerröpıos, γενέτᾳ ταὐτὸ λαχὼν ὄνομα, Antip. Sid. 6.206=6,9 ΗΕ πατρὸς Ἀριστοτέλους συνομώνυμος, Archias 6.207=9,8 GP, Kaibel 821,3 (ap II or II), 963,2 (AD 160), 967,2 (Ap II or IIT), Peek 710,2 (I ap), 717,2(ADII), 964=Kaibel 274,4 (AnII or later), Peek 1244,3 (II-III Ap), 1331=Kaibel

311,3 (Ap II). Cf. also Eur. Herc. 31 ταὐτὸν ὄνομα παῖς πατρὸς κεκλημένος. For

the juxtaposition, cf. also Eur. Heraclid. 115 ἐσθλοῦ πατρὸς παῖς Δημοφῶν ὁ Θησέως. For the custom, first appearing in the fifth century Bc, whereby the son was named after the father, see Geoghegan 40. The name Ἀντιφάνης is common and richly attested all over Greece. For occurrences in the islands of the Aegean Sea, including Mytilene, see LGPN I s.v. However, the name which means ‘the one who shines back’ seems too appropriate for a torch-bearer, and

creates doubts as to whether the poem is a genuine dedication. Cf. the playful treatment of Γέμελλα in 1,3, Σελήνη in 18, and Πρώτη in 14,5. For the etymo-

logical play as a characteristic of Hellenistic poets, see O'Hara 21-42. For a pun with the stem φαν-, cf. Meleager’s play with ¢aviov as a noun and as a proper

name, AP 12,82=67 HE; see Taran”! 79 with ἢ. 79,

71 Ὁ}, Taran, The art of variation in the Hellenistic epigram (Leiden 1979).

AP 6.242=9

"Hoi ἐπ’ εὐκταίῃ τάδε βέζομεν ipa τελείῳ Ζηνὶ καὶ ὠδίνων μειλίχῳ Ἀρτέμιδι: τοῖσι γὰρ οὑμὸς ὅμαιμος ἔτ᾽ ἄχνοος εὔξατο θήσειν τὸ πρῶτον γενύων ηἰθέοισιν ἔαρ. n

5

\

€

x

ν

ya

w

7

Δαίμονες ἀλλὰ δέχοισθε, καὶ αὐτίκα τῶνδ᾽ ἀπ᾿ ἰούλων

Εὐκλείδην πολιῆς ἄχρις ἄγοιτε τριχός. _—— AP 6.242 Kpıvayöpov caret Pl 3 θήσειν C: -aeis P

Reiske n. 488, Brunck n. 12, Rubensohn n. 7

On the longed-for day we make these sacrifices to Zeus the fulfiller and Artemis the soother of birth pangs; for to them my brother, yet beardless, vowed to offer the first spring bloom of a young man’s cheeks. Accept it, divinities, and lead Eucleides from these first whiskers all the way to the age of grey hair. The poet’s brother dedicates the first cutting of his facial hair to Zeus and Artemis, as he has promised. The main information is somewhat delayed, as ῥέζομεν ἱρά does not imme-

diately indicate that hair is being offered, which is gradually revealed in the second couplet. The deities Zeus and Artemis (who enclose the second line) are

symmetrically placed in the second and fifth line (here appearing as δαίμονες), and the idea of hair is emphatically placed at the end of each of the three last lines, with varied vocabulary: γενύων... ἔαρ, ἰούλων, πολιῆς... rpıxös,thehyper-

baton of the sixth line reflecting that of the fourth. Furthermore, the poem opens and closes with the contrasting pair now and remote future, expressed as this day (ἠοῖ) and the age of grey hair (moAıns... τριχός), both hoped for, the wish for the present (εὐκταίη) just accomplished, the wish for the future being the

object of a prayer to the deities (äyoıre). The present day and the day of the future are associated via hair, ‘this day’ represented by these ἴουλοι and the day of old age’ represented by the imagined grey rpixes, terms placed at the end of

the last two lines at a balanced distance, which stands for the distance of time that both separates and also unites them. Cutting the hair is often the fulfilment of a vow or accompanies a prayer for something wished for. The most famous Hellenistic example is, of course, Berenice’s dedication of her lock for the safe return of her husband, Ptolemy Euergetes, from the war in Syria, immortalized by Callimachus. In epigrams, we have Marc. Arg. AP 6.201=17 GP, Lucian 6.164; cf. Mart. 5.48. See further Citroni and Howell on Mart. 1.31 intr. note; see also Rouse 245 for various cases

of hair ofterings in history and literature, Cook Zeus III 1066 for further bibliography, and Sommer 21ff. for youths’ dedications of hair and beard. Ancient

Greeks were in the habit of dedicating their hair to Apollo, Artemis, and Zeus (Rouse 241-2, Eyben 693). For Zeus in particular, see Cook Zeus 123-5, where

the present epigram is mentioned among other passages. The hair of sixteenyear-old youths was dedicated to Artemis during the κουρεῶτις, the third day

of the Athenian Apatouria in Pyanepsion (October), the day when the κοῦροι were registered in the phratriae. Cf. Hesych. s.v. Koupewrıs and Suda s.v, kovpewrns. See Farnell II 463, Sommer 23, Cook Zeus I 24, Deubner 232-4, Fitton 233-4, 237; cf. Parke (1977) 89-91. For dedications of hair to Artemis, see

also Brulotte 11-12 with n. 37. For the Roman depositio barbae, see on Crin. 10, intr. note. Haircutting marks the transition from childhood to adulthood: see

Cook Zeus 123-5, Rouse 240, Gow-Page HE 2.285, Brulotte 11. Other poems on dedications of hair in the sixth book of the Anthology are Euphor. 279=] (to Apollo, first hair), Theod. 155=1 (to Apollo, by a four-year-old boy) and 156=2 (to the Nymphs, by a boy), Rhianus 173=7 (to Cybele, by a votary) and 278=8 (to Apollo by a youth), Damagetus 277=1 HE (to Artemis, by Arsinoe,

a Ptolemaic princess, perhaps the daughter of Berenice who made the well-known dedication'), Antip. Thess. 198=100 (to Apollo, first hair), Erycius 234=10 GP (to Cybele, by a priest of hers). Some of them (‘Theod. 6.155, Euphorion 6.279,

Rhianus 6.278, Antip. Thess. 6.198) display a similar structure to that of the present epigram: invocation, dedication, prayer, for which see Henriksén on Mart. 9.17, intr. note. See also Seelbach 66f. A father’s dedication to Apollo for another festive occasion (his son’s birthday) is Mart. 4.45 (cf. Autore 110).

For Philips skilful thematic arrangement of the Z H sequence 6.240-4 (Philip 240=3 GP a dedication to Artemis, daughter of Zeus; Crin. 242=9 a dedication to Artemis together with Zeus Teleius; Diodorus 243=3 GP a birth-

day sacrifice to Hera; Crin. 244=12 a prayer to Hera for an easy childbirth), see Cameron (1993) 42.” ' For her identification see Gow-Page ad loc., intr. note. ? Although Crin. 242 was not written on the occasion of the birth of a child, as Cameron remarks, probably confused by the phrase ὠδίνων μειλίχῳ Aprequsı in the second line: so, Crin. 6.242 and 6.244 are not associated by subject matter. The association of 242 with 244 may have come about thanks to the adjective τέλειος, in 242 in apposition to Zeus and in 244 in apposition to Hera. See below on τελείῳ ἐΖηνί,

If. ἠοῖ em’ εὐκταίΐῃ: cf. Apollon. AP 10.19=26,3 GP εὐκτὸν ἵουλον. Ἠὡς in the

sense ‘day’ (in Homer always accompanied by an ordinal number: e.g. I. 1.493, 24.31, Od.

19.192, al.) occurs elsewhere

in Crinagoras

in connection

with some special occasion: 6,4f. (same sedes), 7,5. On the longed-for day, cf.

Eur. Hel. 623 ὦ ποθεινὸς ἡμέρα, Aristoph. Pax 556 ὦ ποθεινὴ τοῖς... γεωργοῖς ἡμέρα. A Latin example with reference to the wedding day is Catullus 64,31

optatae luces. The construction of ἐπί + dat. is rare in reference to time: on a specific day. Cf. Il. 13.234 ἐπ᾿ ἤματι τῷδε (cf. Il. 8.529 ἐπὶ νυκτί: for the night, during the

night; Od. 14.105 αἰεί...

ἐπ᾽ Hare always by day). In the Anthology we have

the adjective at Apollon. 9.228=14,6 εὐκταίης ... ἐμπορίης, Antip. Thess. API 75=48,2 GP εὐκταίη... εὐτοκίη, Theon AP 9.41,6 εὐκταίων.... λιμένων, all at the

same sedes.

τάδε: for the convention of the demonstrative pronoun in dedicatory epigrams, cf. e.g. Theodoridas AP 6.156=2,1 HE τρίχα τήνδε, Anacr. 6.139=10,1 FGE [Ipafayspus τάδε δῶρα θεοῖς ἀνέθηκε, Satyrius 6.11=1,1 FGE, Agath. 6.74,7,

Gaetul. 6.190=2,2 FGE, etc. ῥέζομεν ipa: a very common Homeric formula, although the usual form in Homer is ἱερά (Il. 1.147 ἱερὰ ῥέξας; cf. 11.727, Od. 1.61, 3.5, 4.473, 5.102, 7.191). 1ρά is somewhat rarer; in the present expression, Il. 9.357 ipa Aut ῥέξας, Od. 3.159

ἐρέξαμεν ἱρὰ θεοῖσιν. The offering is accompanied by a sacrifice; cf. Theodoridas AP 6.155=1 and 156=2 HE. During the Athenian Apatouria, the sacrificial victim offered together with the dedication of hair during the coupedris day (see above, intr. note) was known as κούρειον; see Sommer 22-3, Cook Zeus I 24, Deubner 234.

τελείῳ / Zyvi: the cult of Zeus teleios, the ‘fulfiller, was widespread in Greece; see Cook Zeus II 1089, 1123, 1147, 1150, 1159, etc., Roscher s.v. Teleia, Teleios, Farnell I 53. At Crin. 12,1f,, the epithet is attributed to Hera. For examples in literature, see Usener 27 with n. 74, Bruchmann 141, Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 973, Bayfield 446. For instance, Pind. O. 13.115 and P 1.67 Ζεῦ τέλειε, Aesch. Supp. 525, Eum. 28, Sept. 116, Theogn. 341. For the appeal to gods to τελεῖν the humans’

wishes and the attribution of relevant epithets to them, see Keyssner 117ff. On the present occasion, the epithet is doubly suitable to Zeus, since the adjectives τέλειος and τελεσφόρος signify Zeus the fulfiller of wishes (‘this day’ being εὐκταίη for Eucleides and his family), but also denote Zeus who brings to maturity (see Cook Zeus II 1089, 1159; cf. on Crin. 12,1°H pn... redein, with note there on various views on the meaning of τέλειος). It is exactly Eucleides’ maturity that is celebrated here. ὠδίνων μειλίχῳ: Pierson (1752, 90) emends to εὐλόχῳ (comparing Call. AP 6.146=23,2 HE εὔλοχος ὠδίνων), but there is no reason to alter the text.

AP 6.242 =9 At Philip AP 9.22=36,5 GP Artemis is ὠδίνων eriokxoros and at Orph. H. 36.4

she is ἐπάρωγος ὠδίνων, MecAlace can be used for mortals appeasing the gods (e.g. Ap. Rh. 1.860, 2.692, 3.1035); it is now Artemis who can, among other gods, ofter comfort to humans in need. Homer uses μείλιχος of mortals (1. 17.671, 19.300, 24.739). The adjective qualifies Leto at Hes. Th. 406 and Helios at 763. For Aphrodite (cf. Paul. Si], AP 5.226,4), see Cook Zeus II 1144, n. 3. Above all Μειλίχιος is a title of Zeus in a widespread cult. See RE 15.339-42, Farnell I 64 and 171-2, Cook Zeus I] 1091-1160. In an inscription from Thespiae (/G 7.1814) of the third or second century BC, Zeus Meilichos’ consort Meiliche may be Leto (see West on Hes.

Th. 406). For the epithet μείλιχος, see also Keyssner 96ff. MecAcyin, however,

although extremely rare, is not unattested for Artemis. It is preserved in an inscription from Didyma; see RE s.v. Meilichioi Theoi 5 (15.343). In the present poem if any title of Artemis is to be used, Kouporpédos seems to suit the best, as Waltz notes.” Artemis has many epithets implying that she offers help to humans, for instance Avcaia, Ἐπήκοος, Βοηθόος, Σώτειρα; see further RE s.v.

Artemis, 2.1351, Farnell II 471, 535. Of course, one of her principal functions is the aid she offers during birth (cf. RE s.v, 2.1347, Farnell II 444), but this feature

seems irrelevant here. Its appearance is to be explained if we assume that the title retains its generic quality, standard in any context. It is also possible that the reference to childbirth, albeit associated with women, implies marriage (Artemis being one of the deities associated with marriage in cult; see Farnell I 53 and 157, n. 98) and fertility, an idea indeed connected with the offering of hair, which is a rite of passage to maturity; see above, intr. note. Cf. the comment of Waltz who remarks that the poet might be thinking ‘A léventualité de son mariage et d’une prochaine paternité. Zeus and Artemis are found together in inscriptions. Zeus Meilichos and Artemis Prothyraia appear as recipients of dedications in IvP* 3.161A and 161B/150. Their combination occurs in art as well. First of all, Zeus appears with attributes that properly belong to Artemis (a stag, fillets) on coins of Euromos and Mylasa; see Cook Zeus II 1220, ii. 575 n. 4. Moreover, statues of Zeus Meilichios together with Artemis Patroa stood near the Bouleuterion of Sikyon in the time of Pausanias. In the marketplace of the same town stood another pair of statues of Zeus and Artemis, created by Lysippus (Paus. 2.9,6-7; cf. Farnell [ 172, b for Zeus Meilichios and Artemis Patroa). Cf. also the statues of Zeus (Soter) with Artemis Soteira by Cephisodotus and Xenophon in

Megalopolis, mentioned by Pausanias in 8.30,10-8.31,1; see Farnell IT 585, n. 123, b, Schlesinger” 163, no. 64. Schlesinger (165-6) explains the relation between > For Artemis’ cult as ἰζουροτρόφος or [Tasdorpddos in various areas of Greece, see Farnell II

463-4 and 576-7, ‘Th, Hadzisteliou Price, Kouratrophoas (Leiden 1978), 189-90. Cf. Usener 124, n. 9. * C. Habicht, Die Inschriften des Asklepieions (Berlin 1969). ° A.C. Schlesinger, ‘Associated Divinities in Greek Temples, AJA 35 (1931), 161-9.

AP 6.242=9

125

the two gods, justifying the fact that they stand next to each other in the precinct of Megalopolis, on the grounds that it derives from the quality of both as ‘saviours, which hints at the chthonic connotations that both possess. Likewise, the quality of both gods as μείλιχοι (although more rarely attested for Artemis, and here playfully attributed only to Artemis and referring to a task that she performs which, in this context, is unexpected) forms a further link between

the two deities.

This common title, together with the custom of dedicating the

first lock of hair to them (see above, intr. note), is a further justification of their common appearance in the present poem. 3 τοῖσι γάρ: referring back, after a semicolon, as at Agath. AP 5.297,3, anon. 6.171=58a,7 HE, Jul. Aeg. 9.654,2, Cf. Leon. 9.322=25,10 HE, Agath. API 36,5.

οὑμὸς ὅμαιμος: this form of the pronoun together with the article occurs once in Homer (Il. 8.360) and is characteristic of tragedy, where it is frequently used of relatives, often with connotations of pride: Aesch. Eum. 649f. τούτων ἐπῳδὰς οὐκ ἐποίησεν marnp/ οὑμός, Eur. Hec. 18 Ἕκτωρ τ᾿ ἀδελφὸς οὑμός, Eur. Herc. 50 οὑμὸς εὐγενὴς τόκος and 290, Eur. Tr. 987. Cf. also Soph. El. 566, Eur. Ba.1349.

Ὅμαιμος occurs also frequently in tragedy, in the sense of ‘brother’ or ‘sister} as anoun. Cf. Soph. El. 12 and 325, Ant. 512f., Eur. Hipp. 339. In Hellenistic poetry, cf. Theocr. 22.173 ὅμαιμος ἐμός, κρατερὸς Πολυδεύκης, Leon. AP 6.13=46,1 HE ol τρισσοί... ὅμαιμοι. Note the alliteration of that stresses the idea of the commonness of blood

between the poet and his brother. ἔτ᾽ axvoos: Quintus Smyrnaeus probably picked up the present expression: 4.431 ἔτ᾽ ἄχνοον, εἰσέτι νύμφης / νήιδα, 7.357 Kai περ ἐὼν ἔτι παιδνός, ἔτ᾽ dyvoos. Cf. anon, API 372,5 ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι κουρίζων τε καὶ ἄχνοος ἄνδρας ἐνίκας. In the same

context we have in the epic Il, 6.222 ἔτι τυτθὸν ἐόντα, Ap. Rh. 2.438. ἔτι χνοάοντας

ἰούλους / ἀντέλλων, [Opp.] Cyn. 4.347 εἰσέτι παῖδες, ἔτι xvodovres iovAous. For

the uncontracted form in epigrams cf. Philip AP 6.259=23,1 GP, Christod. AP 2.1,194 and 272. For xvoös, often used of the first hair on the face or body, see also Gow-Page HE 2.539 (1. 3515). εὔξατο θήσειν: for εὔχομαι + inf., as ‘vow’ of a sacrifice, cf. Il. 4.101f. εὔχεο

δ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνι.... ῥέξειν κλειτὴν ἑκατόμβην, Od. 17.50f., Leon. Alex AP 9.352=

29,2 FGE. For dedications to the gods as fulfilments of vows, expressed through derivatives of εὔχεσθαι in dedicatory epigrams (for instance Kaibel 740,2, 751,2, 803,2), see H. Kühn 56-8,

4 τὸ πρῶτον.... ἔαρ: expressions of the other poems on the same theme are Euphor. AP 6.279,=1,1 HE πρώτας.... ἐθείρας, Antip. Thess. 6.198=100,3 θῆκε... πρῶτον γέρας, Apollon. 10.19=26,1 GP ἡδὺ παρειάων πρῶτον θέρος; cf. Call. H. 4.298 θέρος τὸ πρῶτον ἰούλων, Theocr. 15.85 πρᾶτον ἴουλον, Christod. AP 2.1,272, anon. API

336,6 and 381,1. The usual word is ἴουλος; see Headlam on Herondas 1.52.

yevdwy...éap: Callimachus and Apollonides (see prev. note) describe the firg

hair as ‘summer, a summer harvest of hair: see Mineur on Call. H. 4.298. In hig 1975 article on ἴουλος, Fitton (234ff.) wondered whether these terms, as wel] as

ἔαρ of Crinagoras’ poem, indicate the season in which the ceremony took place, cf. the fact that the assumption of the toga virilis, which usually occurred at the

same time as the offering of the first hair, was held in March (Ov. F. 3.771, Cie Ad Att, 6.1,12). Lacking further evidence, however, Fitton did not proceed tg connect any specific season with the offering of the hair. Today we have one more piece of evidence on the metaphorical use of ἔαρ for the beard: Dickie noted the similarity of phrasing (‘the spring of the beard’) between Crinagoray poem and an epitaph from Stratoniceia (SEG 38.1103,3f.), τερπνὸν ἐκ γενιάδων

/ éap μαρανθείς.5 Of course, our two occurrences of ἔαρ in contexts of the beard—offerings do not necessarily depend on the idea of spring as the season of this offering, although spring is a plausible candidate for this. Other metaphorical periphrases for the beard in the Anthology are Antip, Thess. 6.198=100,2 GP γενύων ἄρσενας dyAatas, anon. 7.334,11f. οὐ γενύων ὑπεδέξατο κούριμον avdos / ἡλικίης ἐρατῆς. For a collection of passages (among

which the present line is also mentioned) where spring is assimilated to youth (for instance, Hat. 7.162, Cat. 68.15-16, Hor. Od. 2.11,5-10), see P.-J. Dehon, Hiems Latina (Brussels 1993), 28, n. 67. Dickie cites, along with Crinagoras’

phrase, also Jul. Aeg. 7.601,1f. ἀμετρήτων χαρίτων éap, on the death of a sixteenyear-old wife. Male adolescence is described as cum tibi vernarent dubia lanugine malae in Mart. 2.61,1; see further C. A. Williams ad loc. ‘Spring’ occurs metaphorically at anon. AP 7.12=39,1 FGE ἔαρ ὕμνων, Lucian Dom. 11 τὸ ἔαρ τῶν πτερῶν (of a peacock), Greg. Naz. AP 8.127,1 elap ἑταίρων. ἠϊθέοισιν: in Homer the word always appears as a noun, as it does in the present

poem: Il. 4.474, 18.567, 593, 22.127-8. Cf. Call. H. 4.298 παῖδες δὲ θέρος τὸ πρῶτον ἰούλων | ἄρσενες ἠιθέοισιν ἀπαρχόμενοι φορέουσιν. The form here is a ‘dative of interest, translated as genitive, ‘the first bloom of the youths; like, e.g.,

Thuc. 1.89,3 ἐπειδὴ αὐτοῖς of βάρβαροι ἐκ τῆς χώρας ἀπῆλθον, ‘of their land!

Comparable is the dative of the standpoint at Crin. 7,5 εἰς ἑερὴν Ἀντωνίῃ... ἠῶ. Sf. δαίμονες ἀλλὰ δέχοισθε: Gow-Page comment ad loc. that this is a ‘readymade phrasing’ occurring also in Sabinus AP 6.158=2,3, Antip. Thess. 9.93=31,3 GP. Call. AP 6.347=21,2 HE ἀλλὰ ob μὲν δέξαι, πότνια can be further cited. A

god's ‘acceptance’ of an offering is standard from Homer onwards: Il. 2.420 ἀλλ᾽ ὅ ye δέκτο μὲν ἱρά, ἢ. Cer. 29 δέγμενος ἱερὰ καλὰ παρὰ θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων. For

δέχευ, δέχου, δέχεσθε, etc., in prayers to gods in dedicatory epigrams, see Wachtler 27f.,, H. Kühn 33-5. ° M. W. Dickie, ‘An Epitaph from Stratonikeia in Caria, ZPE 100 (1994), 112.

Δαίμονες at the same sedes in an appeal to gods occurs at Ap. Rh. 4.1411.

For ἀλλά with imperative, denoting encouragement, cf. the frequent Homeric usage, e.g. Il. 1.210 ἀλλ᾽ dye λῆγ᾽ ἔριδος, 11.611 ἀλλ᾽ ἴθι νῦν, Πάτροκλε, al. In a

similar construction: Tyrt. 10,15 IEG ὦ νέοι, ἀλλὰ μάχεσθε, Pind. Ο. 6.22 ὦ Divris, ἀλλὰ ζεύξον.

For the position of ἀλλά, cf. Crin. 32,5 and 48,5, Call. H. 1,18 Μάδων ἀλλ᾽ οὕπω μέγας ἔρρεεν, ep. 14,11 HE KAeiwiou ἀλλὰ θυγατρὶ δίδου χάριν, Thallus AP 7.188=3,5 GP πένθιμος ἀλλ᾽ Aldys ἐπεκώμασεν,

Gaetulicus 5.17=1,5 FGE

οὔριος ἀλλ᾽ ἐπίλαμψον.7 Jacobs (1812, 128, n. 7) cited Ruf. AP 5.9=1,7 Page αὔριον ἀλλὰ πάτρη με δεδέξεται and Antip. Thess. 6.198=100,5 GP τού» ἀλλ᾽ ἐπίνευε,

also a concluding prayer for the gods’ benevolence on the occasion of a hair offering (cf. above, intr. note). See also Page on Ruf. 1,7. αὐτίκα: unnecessarily changed by Hecker

(1843, 113) to εὔτυκα (translating eumgque

inde ab hac iuvenili aetate usque ad extremam senectutem servetis). Hecker’

(138) changed to αὖτις, with the reservation that in this case Wernicke’s Law would be violated (see Intr., Metre, Wernickes Law). Αὐτίκα, however, can be kept, if read in the sense “in the future: See also on (τίη. 23,5. τῶνδ᾽ ἀπ᾿ ἰούλων: for similar hyperbata in the Anthology, cf. Call. 5.23=63,2 HE

ψυχροῖς τοῖσδε παρὰ προθύροις, Nicarchus 11.124,1 τοῖσδ᾽ ὑπὸ τύμβοις, ‘Simon: 7.512=53,1 FGE τῶνδε δι᾿ ἀνθρώπων aperar. Ἴουλος is the common term for the

boys first down, used in the same context at Antip. Thess. at 6.198=100,1f. GP. The word is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον: Od. 11.319. Also, Call. H. 4.298, Herondas 1.52, anon. AP/ 381,1, Nonnus 3.344 and 10.179, Aesch. Sept. 534. See also above, on γενύων... ἔαρ. Ap. L. reads ἐπ᾿ ἰούλων. am .../...üxpıs ayoure: ἄχρις is a Homeric rarity: Il. 4.522, 16.324, 17.599; in

temporal sense, Od. 18.370 νήστιες ἄχρι μάλα κνέφαος. For the phrasing ‘from...to’ with a temporal meaning, cf. Dem. De Cor. 179 ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἄχρι τῆς τελευτῆς. With ἄγειν, Mac. Cons. AP 9.649,1f. ἀπὸ πρώτοιο θεμείλου / ἄχρι καὶ ὑψηλοὺς ἤγαγεν eis ὀρόφους, Call. fr. 41,3 χειρὸς ἐπ᾽ οἰκείην ἄχρις ἄγουσι θύρην (with Harder ad loc.), Qu. Sm. 2.617 πάντ᾽ ἐς τέλος ἄχρις ἄγουσα. In all the

examples with ἄγειν, as well as in Ap. Rh. 4.1402-3, ἄχρις is accompanied by prep. + acc., while Crinagoras prefers the construction with genitive (as at Od. 18.370 and Nonnus). Pierson’s (1752, 90) ἄχρι odorre is, of course, totally unnecessary. For this wish in similar epigrams of the Anthology, cf. Rhianus AP 6.278=8,3f. HE Φοῖβε, σὺ δ᾽ ἵλαος, AeAdivie, κοῦρον ἀέξοις / εὔμοιρον λευκὴν ἄχρις ἐφ᾽

7. These passages are collected by M. Haupt, Observationes Criticae (Leipzig 1841), 638.

AY

0.242 =9

ἡλικίην, Antip. Thess, 6.198=100,3-4 GP; see also Ε Williams on Call. A. 2.14 and Rouse 242.° For a comparable prayer, cf. also Mart. 4.45,4f.

Εὐκλείδην: in a late-second-century Bc inscription from Mytilene (1G 12.8.170, 29) we read Kaddırmos βυὐκλείδου; this Εὐκλείδης may be the poet’s grand. father on his father's side. It seems that Eucleides is younger than the poet,

which indicates that the paternal grandfather's name was not given to the first son (perhaps the poet?), but to the second or to a younger one. πολιῆς... τριχός: similar phrasing in the wish in Antip. Thess. AP 6.198=100,3£ GP εὔξατο δ᾽ οὕτως / καὶ πολιὴν λευκῶν κεῖραι ἀπὸ κροτάφων. This expression

designating white hair is Homeric: I. 22.77 7 ῥ᾽ ὁ γέρων, πολιὰς δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἀνὰ τρίχας ἕλκετο χερσί, Ap. R. and Ap. G. have πολλῆς; see Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Apographs of

P, Apographon Ruhnkenianum.

® Reaching the age of white hair is a feature of great happiness; cf. the common wish of the passer-by for the dead womans child, Leon. AP 7.163=70,7 ἐς βαθὺ γῆρας ἵκοιτο, Antip. Sid, 7.164=21,9 HE ἔλθοι ἐς ὀλβίστην πολιὴν τρίχα, Peek 1870,13 (1 bc) elev ἐν ὀλβίστῃ πολιῇ τριχί,

AP 6.161=10

Ἑσπερίου Μάρκελλος ἀνερχόμενος πολέμοιο σκυλοφόρος kpavans τέλσα παρ᾽ Ἰταλίης ξανθὴν πρῶτον ἔκειρε γενειάδα. Βούλετο πατρίς οὕτως Kal πέμψαι παῖδα καὶ ἄνδρα λαβεῖν. [4

“

“a

Α

7

/

~

5.»

ou

ij

a

—

AP 6.161 in codice Palatino bis exstat, hic [P*] et post 6.344 [P®] Pa ἀνάθημα παρὰ MapreAdov [Κριναγόρου: hoc delevit C, pergit idem in rasura] Pb Κριναγόρου Pl ΝΤ" (ἀπὸ νέων), 134 Κριναγόρου Suda s.v, σκῦλα (1-2) 2 τέλσα PP: τέρμα ῬΑΡΙ ἃ Brunck n. 11, Rubensohn ἢ, U

Returning laden with spoils from the western war to the bounds of craggy Italy, Marcellus shaved his blond beard for the first time. This was what his homeland wanted, to send him out a boy and take him back a man. Marcellus shaves his beard for the first time.

The first couplet of the poem builds up the image of a man returning victorious from the war, so that l. 3 comes as a surprise, since we belatedly hear of the extremely young age of the hero, a piece of information which of course enhances his achievement. The first couplet gives a sharp sketch of Marcellus’ image as a hero and, after the presentation of his first shave, the actual subject

of the epigram, in the third line, the last line masterfully condenses the whole point of the poem, the procedure of coming to maturity which the military campaign offered Marcellus. Thus Marcellus’ masculinity is stressed throughout the poem. Note that the first three lines open with adjectives qualifying the three main themes of the poem: the war (ἑσπερίου), Marcellus (σκυλοφόρος), the beard he shaves (ξανθήν). For the poet's carefulness in the construction of

the epigram, see Intr., Language and Style, Another poem written on the return of where he has performed military exploits, (probably Tiberius returning from Spain

Structure. a brilliant youth from a distant area, is Diodorus AP 9.219=1 GP on ‘Nero’ in 24 Bc: see Gow-Page intr. note

ad loc.), who is, however, too young to have shaved, aprıyeveiov ἔχων χνόον (1,5).

For other epigrams celebrating the dedication of a boy's hair, see on Crin. 9, intr. note. Apollonides 10.19=26 GP celebrates the first shave of the son of the poet's patron, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi. Usually the celebration includes a

dedication of the first hair to a god and, although there is no such indication jn

the present poem, it is not difficult to imagine this, as Gow- Page observe (intr. note). Ancient Greeks dedicated hair to Apollo, Artemis, Zeus; see on Crin, 9

intr. note. Nero dedicated his first shorn beard to Capitoline Jupiter (Suet. Nero 12). The depositio barbae was accompanied by a celebration and feast. Marquardt suggests that this practice came to Rome from Greece, as it is not attested before imperial times. See further Marquardt 599-600, Carcopino 160f., Citroni and Howell on Mart. 1.31, intr. note, Eyben 693. For the age of the

first shave, see below on ξανθήν... γενειάδα. M. Claudius Marcellus, Octavian's nephew from the first marriage of his sister Octavia with Gaius Claudius Marcellus, was born in 42 Bc. The war

mentioned here is Augustus’ Cantabrian campaign of 26-25 Bc, in which

young Marcellus and the future emperor Tiberius served as military tribunes; see on Crin. 11, intr. note. Allusion to this war is made by Virgil in the passage about Marcellus, Aen. 6.878-80 heu prisca fides invictaque bello | dextera! Non illi se quisquam impune tulisset / obvius armato, etc. Cf. Austin on Il. 879ff. and Horsfall on 880. The composition of the present epigram is therefore to be placed in the year 25 ac. Marcellus’ marriage to Julia (see Fantham 29) must have taken place shortly after the ceremony celebrated in Crinagoras’ poem. The poem is repeated in the sixth book of the Palatine codex after 344, the second occurrence giving τέλσα where 161 gives τέρμα. Cameron (1993, 44) has observed that ‘on every occasion when the repeated poem appears both times embedded in a Garland sequence there are textual variants and the answer is obvious. Cephalas had two different copies of both Garlands. Cameron reasonably suggests that Cephalas excerpted from start to finish from both his exemplars and left his two sets of excerpts separate to avoid the difficulty of integrating them into one sequence. The repeated poems were carelessly copied twice by Cephalas (see Cameron 1993, 44f.). In the case of the present duplication, the first occurrence (6.161) is between Antipater of Sidon (6.159 and 160) and Meleager (6.162 and 163), while the second one (after 6.344) is before another

Crinagorean poem (6.345=6; for the possible thematical relation between the two cf. intr. note ad loc.) but, as in the first instance, also not in a Philippan sequence. This cannot prevent us, however, from maintaining that the two epigrams come from two different sources; see Cameron (1993) 45, n. 40.

1 ἑσπερίου... πολέμοιο: ἑσπέριος as a geographical term, ‘western, in Homer only at Od. 8.29. Cf. Theocr. 7.53 ἐφ᾽ ἑσπερίοις ᾿Ερίφοις, Arat. 407 id’ ἑσπερίην ἅλα, the western sea, anon. AP 9.210,7f., Nonnus D. 39.4f. Callimachus also

uses the adjective in a reference to a historical event, the Galatian invasion of

AP 6.161=1U

Greece in 280-79 Bc in fr. 379 and H. 4.174; cf. Mineur on 171ff. and Pfeiffer on

fr. 379. The first line is encased in an adjective and the noun it qualifies; see on Crin. 5,1. In the present instance, note the morphological variation in the genitive of the forms, του, -ovo. The position of the word at the opening of the poem stresses the remoteness, hence the dangerousness, of the expedition.

Μάρκελλος: the name of the young man appears in the first line, almost at the beginning of the poem, as in Euphorion AP 6.279=1 and Theodoridas 6.156=2 HE. ἀνερχόμενος: the sense of ‘return’ is Homeric: Il. 4.392 ἂψ ap’ ἀνερχομένῳ πυκινὸν λόχον elaav ἄγοντες, 6.187, Od. 1.317. Elsewhere cf., for instance, Ap.

Rh. 4.1777. For the return from battle, cf. Ap. Rh. 2.912f. πολυθαρσέος ἐκ πολέμοιο / ἂψ ἀνιών. The Homeric colouring of the vocabulary (cf. the following κραναῆς) enhances the heroic quality with which the poet endows Marcellus. In the present passage ἀνέρχεσθαι is constructed with a simple genitive

without the preposition ἐκ or ἀπό, For this rare construction, cf, Ap. Rh. 3.1229f. περίτροχον ἔπλετο φέγγος / ἠελίου, ὅτε πρῶτον ἀνέρχεται Ὠκεανοῖο, where the

verb has, of course, the sense ‘to rise’ πολέμοιο: the form often occurs in Homer at verse-end: Il. 2.368, 4.240, 4.335,

5.318, 6.330, al., as always in Apollonius. For the sense ‘return from the war, cf. Il. 5.409 ἐλθόντ᾽ἐκ πολέμοιο καὶ αἰνῆς δηϊοτῆτος, 6.501f., 13.211f.

2 σκυλοφόρος: the word occurs elsewhere only at Dion. Hal. AR 2.34,4 τὸν δὲ Aiarov Depér prov, ᾧ τὰ ὅπλα ὁ Ῥωμύλος ἀνέθηκεν, eiteßovderaitıs Τροπαιοῦχον εἴτε Σκυλοφόρον καλεῖν ὡς ἀξιοῦσί τινες; cf. Antip. Thess. AP 9.428=1,1 GP Θρηϊκίης σκυληφόρε, addressed τὸ L. Calpurnius Piso, for his war against the

Thracians between 1] and 8 Bc. Gow-Page comment on ΟΡ 75 that Antipater is perhaps echoing Crinagoras here.

Gow- Page observe that the meaning is likely

to be ‘laden with spoils, rather than a ‘second Jupiter’ (alluding to Jupiter Feretrius, as Rubensohn (56f.) holds for both Crinagoras and Antipater). The association with Jupiter Feretrius, however, is indeed likely, as Roman generals

dedicated to the shrine of Jupiter Feretrius in the Capitolium the spolia opima,

the despoiled armour of the defeated enemy leader, the acquisition of which was regarded as the greatest military honour. The rarity of such dedications made them yet more important, so that the attribution of the adjective to Marcellus here, although he does not dedicate spolia opima, emphatically stresses the praise. It is moreover most significant that one of the three recorded dedications of spolia opima to Jupiter Feretrius is that by the triumphant M. Claudius Marcellus in 222 Bc, after his victory at Clastidium and his killing of Viridomarus, leader of the Insubres, described by Plutarch in Marc. 6-8. A

descendant of the victor of Clastidium was Marcellus the husband of Octavians sister Octavia and father of the young Marcellus, as of course was young Marcellus himself. Thus the allusion to Jupiter Feretrius and the great Marcellus

acquires added importance for the present praise, given moreover that Octavian had restored the temple of Jupiter Feretrius in his effort to strengthen his links with the family history of Claudii Marcelli. Comparable is the juxtaposition of

the two Marcelli by Virgil in Aen. 6.855-9 which underlines the hopes Augustus

had placed in his nephew; this is also expressed by Augustus’ reference to the achievements of the elder Marcellus in his faudatio of the dead at his nephew's funeral in 23 Bc.” kpavans... Ἰταλίης: in Homer the adjective always qualifies Ithaca: Il. 3.201 (with Kirk ad loc.), Od. 1.247, 15.510, 16.124. Pindar uses the adjective for

Delos (I. 1.3f.) and for Athens (O, 7.83, 13.38, N. 8.11), the city typically qualified by it. See further Dunbar on Av. 123. [Moschus] applies it to Tiryns (Meg. 38). Antipater of Sidon uses it for Cnidos, API 167=44,] HE. Antipater of Thessalonica for Babylon (AP 9.58=91,1 GP). Now, Italy is described as broad or full of shoal-water in the Anthology:

Alc. Mess. AP] 5=5,2, anon,

AP 7.714=52,1 HE; cf. Strabo 4.6,1. The whole of Italy in fact has a rocky ‘backbone, the Apennines, but, like Greece, has fertile plains as well. Cf. Strabo 2.5,28 ταῦτα δ᾽ (sc. the Apennines) ἐστὶν ὀρεινὴ ῥάχις διὰ τοῦ μήκους ὅλου τῆς Ἰταλίας διαπεφυκυῖα ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων ἐπὶ μεσημβρίαν, τελευτῶσα δ᾽

ἐπὶ τὸν Σικελικὸν πορθμόν; cf. 5.1,3. The country, therefore, can indeed be described as xpavan. Gow- Page comment in connection with the use of the adjective by Antipater of Thessalonica for Babylon (see on Antipater 91,1 GP) either that Antipater has never seen the city, or that the adjective had become stereotyped for fortified cities. The latter explanation agrees with the present use, as κραναή would further tend to present the country as

powerful and firm. The fact that Italy is a country, rather than a city, should not be regarded as an obstacle, since the adjective was originally used of an island (Ithaca). Cf. its use for Delos in Pind. I. 1.3f. and for other islands at Ap. Rh. 1.608 (Lemnos), 4.580 (the island of Electra). It can also qualify a

wider region: cf. AApp 3.333,8 kpavan Διβύη. The Homeric association of the adjective with Ithaca stresses the idea of the homeland that Italy is for Marcellus, and who ‘sends’ him, as her child, to the campaign (see on πέμψαι). Moreover, the heroic quality of Marcellus, through his parallelism with Odysseus, is further underlined. Cf. above, on ἀνερχόμενος.

For the long ı of Ἰταλίη, see on Crin. 32,1 ἐπ᾿ Ἰταλίην. τέλσα: τέρμα, transmitted by P?, Pl, and Suda occurs in similar expressions. Cf. Nonn. D. 3.348 Λιβύης παρὰ τέρμα, 38.329 Νότιον παρὰ τέρμα. TéAca, how-

ever, transmitted only by ΒΡ, is accepted by all editors except Brunck and Jacobs’ * See H. I. Flower, ‘The Tradition of the Spolia Opima: M. Claudius Marcellus and Augustus, CI. Ant. 19 (2000), 53-4. For a detailed discussion of the history of the dedications and dedicators of the spolia opima, see Flower, passim (34-64).

AP 6.161=10

133

(the latter prints τέρμα but approves τέλσα) and, as the lectio difficilior (given moreover Crinagoras tendency to use rare or unique forms)* may be correct; the alteration of reAoa to τέρμα is, of course, more likely than the opposite.’ The word appears three times in Homer: Il. 13.707 τέλσον ἀρούρης, 18.544, 18.547 yeiold.+- τέλσον, cf. Schol. on 13.707 τέλσον δὲ τὸ βάθος ἢ τὸ πέρας τῆς γῆς, ὅπερ

τέμνει τὸ ἄροτρον; Cf. Nic. Th. 546 χυτῆς παρὰ τέλσον ἅλωος (note the similarity to the syntax of the present verse: preposition, word order). Jacobs” observed

an instance of similar phrasing which can be used to defend the present usage:

paul. Sil. Deser. 149 reAva map’ ἐσχατόωντα κατ᾽ ὠκεανίτιδας arras. For the

formation of the noun, cf. Herodian Gr. Gr. 3.2,109,26 τέλσον' βαρυτόνως ὡς

μέτρον. Ἐγένετο δὲ παρὰ τὸ τέλος ἐν ὑπερθέσει τοῦ σ καὶ προσόδῳ τοῦ ν. Hesychius has reAgals]' στροφάς, τέλη, πέρατα, a reading with a separate entry in LSJ (i.e. apart from reAoov), as if from the (elsewhere unattested) form τέλση

(ἡ). See also Campbell on Ap. Rh. 3.412.

3f. ξανθήν.... γενειάδα: yeverds, perhaps a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (in the plural, Od. 16.176, but the reading is dubious‘), normally describes a fully grown beard. Cf., for instance, Aesch. Pers. 316 and Soph. Tr. 13. For a mans first hair on the chin other terms are preferred: Antipater in AP 6.198=100,1 GP and Crinagoras at 9,5 use touAov, Apollonides at AP 10.19=26,1 GP and Crinagoras in 9,4 πρῶτον θέρος and ἔαρ respectively, Apollonides at AP 10.19,2 γενύων ἠϊθέους ἕλικας. At Theocr. 2.78-9, where a similar expression of ‘blond beard’ occurs (τοῖς δ᾽ ἧς

ἐανθοτέρα μὲν EAtxptco.o γενειᾶς / στήθεα δὲ στίλβοντα πολὺ πλέον ἢ τύ,

Σελάνα), the youths described obviously have a proper beard. In Latin, however, apart from the usual lanugo, barba is also used to denote the first hair; cf. Ov. Met. 12.395 barba erat incipiens, barbae color aureus, F. 3.60 suberat flavae iam nova barba comae, Lucr. 5.673-4. Eyben notes that “barba refers to this initial growth only when it is further defined, as in prima, incipiens, mollis

barba or barbae color aureus.° For this first hair as yellowish, in Greek described with the adjectives ξανθός or πυρρός, cf. Theocr. 6.3 with Gow ad loc., Strato AP 12.10=10,2 Floridi with Floridi ad loc., Ov. Met. 6.718, Heliod. 7.10. The blond

colour, however, not only denotes youth but is also a feature of beauty; see further Gow on Theocr. 8.3, Bomer on Ov. Met. 12.395. In the present poem, there-

fore, ξανθὴ yeverds could be taken as referring to the first down, influenced by the Latin use of the term barba, or could denote a proper beard, as the first hair

was usually left to grow to a full beard and then shaved and dedicated; see Eyben 693. Octavian performed his depositio barbae in 39 Bc, at the age of

* See Intr., Language and Style, Ara£ λεγόμενα.

* In cases of variants between readings in two occurrences of an epigram in P, Pl’s reading agrees sometimes with the Ρ' and sometimes with P?, see Cameron (1993) 45.

* See further Stanford and Hoekstra ad loc. ° Cf. Nonnus Ὁ. 40.417 στίλβων ξανθὰ γένεια καὶ ἀστερόεσσαν ὑπήνην.

* See Eyben 692 with n. 9, 693.

AL

U.LULI

—

LU

twenty-four (see Marquardt 599-600, Carcopino 160), but an earlier age was more usual: Gaius performed the ceremony when he assumed the toga virilis, that is, in the seventeenth year of his age (Suet. Cal. 10: cf. Carcopino 160, Marquardt 123ff., 600), which is also the case for Marcellus, At Marcellus’ age it

is difficult to speak of a proper beard, though not completely impossible. A fully-grown beard is a sign of virility and maturity (Eyben 693), and such a reference, albeit exaggerated, is apt for the purpose of the present poem which

stresses Marcellus’ masculinity throughout; cf. above, intr. note. ἔκειρε: in cases of shaving or cutting one's hair the middle form is usually preferred: Antipater at AP 6.198=100,2 has κειράμενος (but at AP 6.198=100,4

κεῖραι), Apollonides at 10.19=26,2 GP keipeo; cf. Hl. 23.46 κείρασθαί re κόμην, 23.135f., Od. 4.198, 24.46.

BovAero πατρίς: the concept of the homeland or city that desires something, and corresponding expressions, are not rare in poetry and prose: Eur. Heraclid.

329f. dei ποθ᾽ ἥδε γαῖα τοῖς ἀμηχάνοις / σὺν τῷ δικαίῳ βούλεται προσωφελεῖν, Aristoph. Ran. 1424f. ἡ modus... βούλεται δ᾽ ἔχειν. Cf. Polyb. 9.40,1 τὸ γὰρ τοιοῦτον

ἦθος αἰεὶ

βούλεται διαφυλάττειν 7ἡ τῶν Ἀθηναίων πόλις. N

οὕτως Kai: οὕτως can refer to both the following and the preceding sentence: see K-GII (1) 646. Οὕτως καί often introduces the second element of comparison, referring back to the previously mentioned situation introduced with ὡς. Cf., for instance, Theocr. 2.24-6 yas αὕτα (sc. the bay) λακεῖ μέγα καππυρίσασα l...] οὕτω τοι καὶ Δέλφις ἐνὶ φλογὶ aapr ἀμαθύνοι, Call. AP 7.89=54,15f. HE, Nonn. D. 29,95-8. It can also introduce, however, a situation compared in gen-

eral terms with the one previously mentioned in a new sentence, after a full stop or a semicolon; cf. Crin. 27,5 οὕτως yai ἱεραὶ Ζηνὸς δρύες, ‘Diog. Laert? AP 7.126,3 οὕτω καὶ Φιλόλαον ἀνεῖλε ἰζρότων ποτὲ πάτρη, Honestus 9.230=5,3 GP.

In the present epigram, Marcellus’ return from the war and his first shave (Il. 1-3) are placed in parallel, by means of oörws, to his country’s wish to ‘send him as a boy and receive him as a man (I. 4); οὕτως therefore refers Italy’s wish back to the events presented in the first part of the poem. All (modern) editions,

with the exception of Brunck, Jacobs’ (who also print οὕτω, wrongly reported as Pl's reading), and Gow-Page, print a comma after οὕτως. There are two possibilities: a) οὕτως takes no comma and will refer to the following καὶ πέμψαι... λαβεῖν (his country wanted to send him thus a boy and take him back aman); Ὁ) οὕτως refers to βούλετο, takes ἃ comma after it, and καὶ πέμψαι παῖδα

καὶ ἄνδρα λαβεῖν is an epexegesis to οὕτως (explaining Italy's wish). In this case, however, the two «ai would add too much emphasis to the country’s wish about the boy’s both going and returning. πέμψαι... λαβεῖν: for the contrast ‘go child-return adult, cf. [Theocr.] 27.65 παρθένος ἔνθα βέβηκα, γυνὴ δ᾽ εἰς οἶκον ἀφέρπω. For phrases conveying a simi-

lar contrast and also concluding the epigram in Martial, cf. 1.62,6 Penelope

venit, abit Helene, 6.71,6 vendidit ancillam, nunc redimit dominam, 6.80,10 mitte fuas messes, accipe, Nile, rosas. Cf. also 3.4,7f. poeta / exierat: veniet, cum citharoedus erit.” Martial closes an epigram with a contrast opposite to the present; he prays to Apollo that a beautiful slave boy be shorn but not made a man (for this

pederastic wish, cf. below, on aida... ἄνδρα), 1.31,8 tonsum fac cito, sero virum. πέμψαι παῖδα: πέμπειν is very usual for messengers or soldiers of a city; cf., for

instance, Hdt. 1.73.1,2 ἀλλὰ περὶ ὧν ἡ πόλις ἔπεμψεν, Dem. De fals. leg. 147.8, Strabo 17.3,13, Eur. Supp. 458. Italy, however, is here a mother who sends her

son to the war as a boy and receives him as a man: for the image of a parent sending his/her child to the war, cf. Od. 24.312 ols χαίρων μὲν ἐγὼν ἀπέπεμπον ἐκεῖνον, Eur. fr. 360,28f. TrGrF τὰ μητέρων δὲ δάκρυ᾽ ὅταν πέμπη τέκνα, | πολλοὺς ἐθήλυν᾽ εἰς μάχην ὁρμωμένους, Aristoph. Lys. 549f., Diosc. AP 7.434=32,1f. HE. Πέμπειν can be used for ‘seeing off’ someone who departs on

a journey. Cf, the series of poems (variations of one another) in AP 12.24-7, of Laurea and Flaccus, for instance σῶόν μοι Πολέμωνα μολεῖν, or’ ἔπεμπον, Ἄπολλον, / ἠτούμην, κτλ. (Flaccus 12.25=11 GP); cf. next note,

naida...avdpa: for the stages of a man’s age, cf., for instance, Xen. Symp. 4.17 ὥσπερ γε παῖς γίγνεται καλός, οὕτω Kal μειράκιον Kal ἀνὴρ Kal πρεσβύτης.

Martial expresses for a beautiful young slave the opposite wish: that Spendophoros will return from Libya, where he accompanies his master in a military capacity, still a boy (cf. the wishes in pederastic poems of the Anthology, prev, note): 9.56,11f. dum puer es, redeas, dum vultu lubricus, et te / non Libye

faciat, sed tua Roma virum, with Henriksén ad loc. λαβεῖν: for a country as the subject of λαμβάνω, cf. Eur. Herc. 416f. ra κλεινὰ δ᾽ Ἑλλὰς ἔλαβε Bap- / Bapov κόρας λάφυρα. The verb, in the sense ‘receive’ a person, occurs at Od. 7.254-6 Καλυψώ !... ἣ με λαβοῦσα / ἐνδυκέως ἐφίλει. For parents receiving the son from the war, cf. δέχεσθαι: Il, 18.898 παιδὸς ἀποφθιμένοιο, τὸν οὐχ ὑποδέξεαι αὖτις / οἴκαδε voaryaarr, Erycius AP 7.230=12,1 GP, Qu. Sm. 10. 141}

” The origins of this motif may lie in popular poetry. For an exact parallel in modern Greek traditional verse, cf. the lullaby dave ποὺ παίρνεις τὰ παιδιά, ἔλα πάρε καὶ rodro: ἱμικρὸ μικρὸ σοῦ

τό᾽ δωκα, μεγάλο φέρε od ro (Politis 148,16).

AP 9,545 =11

5

Καλλιμάχου TO Topevrov ἔπος τόδε' δὴ yap ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ ὡνὴρ τοὺς Μουσέων πάντας ἔσεισε κάλους" ἀείδει δ᾽ ErdAns τε φιλοξείνοιο καλιήν 3 / / καὶ \ Θησεῖ ~“ Μαραθὼν4 ovs“ ἐπέθηκε πόνους. Τοῦ σοι καὶ νεαρὸν χειρῶν σθένος εἴη ἀρέσθαι, MagxeAde, κλεινοῦ τ᾽ αἶνον ἴσον βιότου.

ΑΡ9.545 Κριναγόρου Pl IP 37 (εἰς ποιητάς), 1 Kpıvaydpov Schol. Aristoph. Ald. Eq. 756 s.a.n. (1-2)

4 οὗς Ρ: τοὺς ΡΙ

5 νεαρὸν PP“: -ρῶν P*Pl

Brunck ἢ. 15, Rubensohn ἢ, 41

This well-chiselled poem is by Callimachus; the man shook all the Muses’ sail reefs above it; it sings of the hut of hospitable Hecale and the labours Marathon set for Theseus. May it be granted to you, Marcellus, to attain the

youthful strength of his hands and a fame equal to his glorious life. Crinagoras offers Callimachus’ Hecale to Marcellus. The idea of manhood recurs constantly in the poem, from ὡνήρ in the opening of the second line, through the labours of Theseus at Marathon in the second couplet, to the explicit wish for Marcellus’ strength and glory elaborated in full in the final couplet. We therefore have the triptych poet / mythological hero / real hero, the first two parties employed to prepare and highlight the presentation of the achievements of the final; it is with these that the poem reaches its crescendo. The whole picture is further coloured by the persistent epic references (see below, passim) with the help of which Marcellus is seen in the heroic light of the κλέα ἀνδρῶν (see also below, on 3f. and on Μάρκελλε). For other presents that Crinagoras sends to various persons, including members of Octavian’s household, see Intr., Life and Work. Epigrammatists usually send their own poems as presents: cf. Leon. Alex. 6.328=7 FGE (probably to Nero; see Page FGE 519). Antipater sends Piso a volume of his poems for his

birthday with 9.93=31 GP; Leonidas of Alexandria occasionally sends epigrams as birthday presents: to Nero or Vespasian (6.321=1 FGE; see Page FGE 514), to a Eupolis (6.325=4 FGE), to Agrippina (6.329=8 FGE); cf. also on Crin. 3, intr.

note. Martial's 14.183-96 are poems accompanying books as presents; cf. Galan Vioque on Mart. 7.17, intr. note. The present poem is comparable to the epi-

grams of Callimachus and Leonidas on Aratus’ Phaenomena, which probably also accompanied copies of the book (see Gow-Page on Call. 56 and Leon. 101 HE) and to which Crinagoras is alluding; see below on Καλλιμάχου.... τόδε and τορευτόν. Cf. also Cat. 65, a poem accompanying Catullus’ translation of Callimachus’ Coma Berenices (Cat. 66), which the poet sends as a gift to his friend Hortensius (see Fordyce 325, Tatum 493).' Octavian both married Marcellus to his daughter Julia (25 sc: cf. Dio Cass.

53.28) and adopted him (cf. Plut. Ant. 87.3 ἅμα παῖδα καὶ γαμβρὸν ἐποιήσατο Katoap). Nineteen-year-old Marcellus died during a plague in 23 Bc, a terminus ante quem for the composition of the present epigram. See further RE 3.2764ff.;

cf. Syme (1939) 219, 389, (1986) 23, Fantham 29-31. The young man was much loved and mourned by the Roman people (cf. Tac. Ann. 2.41), and his death inspired some of the most moving lines in Latin poetry: Virg. Aen. 6.860-85 and Prop. 3.18. Marcellus served as a military tribune in Spain together with the future emperor Tiberius in 26-25 Bc; see RE 10.345, Syme (1986) 348, Seager 15, Levick 20. The date of the poem's composition can be placed in the period 25-23 BC, if we accept that Crinagoras wrote it some time after he had returned to Rome after his Third Embassy to Augustus in Tarragona (26-25 Bc). Cichorius (1888, 54) suggested that the poet met Marcellus in Rome, before he set out for Spain. This assumption was based on the fact that the poem does not convey any reference to Marcellus’ military exploits in Spain.? Bowie (2008, 231 and 2011, 188) suggests that the poet is perhaps transferring (straight or inversely) the relationship between Theseus and Hecale to himself and Marcellus, perhaps because he is staying in Marcellus’ rich house in Rome, or because he expects Marcellus to pay him a visit in his own less luxurious home. For the popularity of Hecale in Rome in the times of Ovid and later, see Hollis 31-5. For young Roman aristocrats’ taste for Greek literature in the Augustan era, see further Syme (1986) 350, Cf. Syme (1986) 347 and Levick 16 for the education of Marcellus and Tiberius. Our sources praise Marcellus for his pie-

tas and virtus (cf. the notion of virility recurrent throughout the poem; see below on κλεινοῦ βιότου and cf. the poem praising his achievements in the Cantabrian 1 W. J. Tatum, ‘Friendship, Politics, and Literature in Catullus: Poems 1, 65 and 66, 116, CQ 47 (1997), 482-500.

? Augustus had already left Rome for Spain in late spring 27 sc: see Syme (1986) 38. Due to Cichorius’ misinterpretation of the inscriptions as regards chronology (see Intr., Life and Work, n, 3), his suggested dates generally need reconsideration. However, his scenario about Crinagoras’ meeting with Marcellus before the latter's departure for the Cantabrian campaign is valid regard less of his mistakes about JG 12.2.35a and [G 12.2.35b.

138

AP 9,545 = 1]

war that Crinagoras wrote for him, Crin. 10), and for his ‘lively spirit and strong

intelligence’; cf. Sen. Cons. ad Marc. 2.3 adulescentem animo alacrem, ingenio potentem. See further RE 3.2770.

1 Καλλιμάχου .... τόδε: the opening recalls the openings of Callimachus’ and Leonidas’ epigrams on Aratus, AP 9.507=56 and 9.25=101 HE respectively (Ἡσιόδου τό τ᾽ ἄεισμα Kal ὁ τρόπος and γράμμα τόδ᾽ Ἀρήτοιο δαήμονος), for

which see further Gow-Page HE on Leon. 101 intr. note. Both phrases occupy, as they do in the present poem, the first four feet of the line and in Callimachus there is also alliteration of τ, as in Crinagoras. ropevröv: worked in relief; ‘chiselled, as ropevfév at Honestus AP 7.274=22,4

GP. To praise the author of Hecale, Crinagoras uses a term recalling a key word

of Callimachean criticism in his description of Antimachus’ Lyde (fr. 398) as καὶ παχὺ γράμμα καὶ οὐ Topdv.’ Antipater of Sidon (AP 7.409=66 HE) defends Antimachus saying Ὄβριμον ἀκαμάτου στίχον αἴνεσον ἤντιμάχοιο, /.., ΠΠιερίδων χαλκευτὸν ἐπ᾽ ἄκμοσιν, εἰ τορὸν odas ἔλλαχες,

KrA.; here Antipater

picks τορόν from Callimachus' criticism of Lyde and combines it with the Aetia prologue; see further Skiadas (1965) 123, Cameron (1995) 333f.* Thus Crinagoras,

through the word τορευτόν and with the whole opening of the epigram which recalls another instance of Callimachean criticism (see prev. note), alludes to

famous literary debates involving the author of the poem he is at the moment offering as a gift. On Crinagoras’ passage, Couat’ remarks: “The word τορευτόν summed up for the Alexandrians the greatest praise that could be given to a poetic composition. Above all else, it designated attention to detail and perfec-

tion of form. For the metaphor of work on stone for the elaboration of poetry, cf. the use of the word in Dionysius of Halicarnassus referring to literary style: De Comp. 25.204-6 ἄλλως τε καὶ τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων od γραπτοῖς ἀλλὰ γλυπτοῖς καὶ τορευτοῖς ἐοικότας ἐκφερόντων λόγους (on Plato and Isocrates);° also De Thuc, 24.19f. Τορεύειν is often confused with τορνεύειν (cf. LSJ s.v. ropedw pas-

sim) and can be a synonym of τορέειν: see LSJ s.v. II. Cf. also Eust. on Od. 5.246 (1532,11-13). In fact there is a connection between the two words; see Chantraine

(1968) and Frisk s.v. röpvos. As regards literary style, cf. also the metaphor of chiselling and filing, Dion. Hal. De Comp. 25.205 (see above), Diosc. AP 7.411=21,3-4 HE Αἰσχύλος ἐξύμνησεν, ὁ μὴ σμιλευτὰ χαράξας / γράμματα, with Gow-Page > See Acosta-Hughes (2012) 26. * For ropds as ‘clear, ‘distinct, of literary style, see LS] s.v. 1 2, Pfeiffer on Call. fr. 398, Gutzwiller (1998) 220. Antipater's description of Antimachus’ work as χαλκευτὸν ἐπ΄ ἄκμοσιν is regarded by Cameron as a ‘rather inappropriate image, which derives from Pind. P 1.87 ἀψευδεῖδὲ πρὸς ἄκμονι χάλκευε γλῶσσαν, where it has a different meaning, ‘speaking the truth’ (Cameron 1995, 333, n, 144). Antipater's image, however, is in fact to be seen as an example of the use of vocabulary of metalwork standing for literary style. ° A.Couat, Alexandrian Poetry under the first three Ptolemies, trans. J. Loeb (London 1931), 409.

ὁ See Acosta-Hughes (2012) 26 with n. 3.

AP 9,545= 11

139

and Galan Vioque ad loc., Aristoph. Ran. 901, Th. 54 (cf. Taillardat 442, § 758),

Alexis fr. 223,7-8 K-A, Plato Phaedr. 234e. In Latin, cf. Prop. 2.34,43 angusto versus includere torno, Hor. Epist. 2.2,91£. mirabile visu / caelatumque novem Musis opus.

See further Rothstein and Brink’ on Prop. and Hor. locc. citt. respectively.® Crinagoras’ ropevrov denotes a fine, well-shaped work, while Callimachus described the verses of Aratus as Aewral / ῥήσιες (AP 9.507=56,3f. HE). The

meaning of the two qualifications is almost identical: cf. the fine metalwork Plutarch attests that the son of Aemilius Paulus became keen on: Aem, 37.4 εὐφυᾶ μὲν ἐν τῷ ropeverv καὶ λεπτουργεῖν γενέσθαι φασίν. The identification of

τορευτὸν with λεπτόν is further suggested by the opposition between παχύ and ropöv in Call. fr. 398; for a revision of the bibliography on the classical and Hellenistic use of the word λεπτός, characteristic for Callimachus, and a further discussion, see Cameron (1995) 323-8.

ἔπος τόδε: the phrase also at Call. AP7.272=38,5 and Anyte 7.724=4,3 HE, same sedes (where ἔπος, however, means ‘word’ rather than ‘epic’). For the demon-

strative pronoun, cf. its use also for the quintet of lyric books as ἃ gift to Antonia, Crin. 7,1f. ἐν τεύχεϊ τῷδε / πεντάς, and for the silver pen for Proclus, 3,1f. dpyupedv σοι Tovde.../... κάλαμον. ‘Eros as indicating an epic poem occurs first in Pindar (N. 2.1£.). Cf. Hdt.

2.117, Thuc. 1.3. The word can also designate poetry in general (for instance, Pind, O. 3.8). Cf. its Homeric sense, as song accompanied by music: Od. 8.91, 17.519, In regard to the work of a specific poet in the Anthology, cf. Theocr. 7.664=14,6, on Archilochus, and Antip. Sid. 7.713=58,2 HE, on Erinna. In the latter passage ἔπος is used in the singular, as here; in fact, ἔπος for ‘epic’ in the singular is quite rare (Acosta-Hughes (2012, 26). én’ αὐτῷ: Gow-Page translate ‘above it, Paton ‘in it, Soury, more freely, ‘pour

lecrire. The latter translation renders more correctly the point of the sentence, which means that ‘he made every effort for it, ie. to write it. In this sense, i.e. ‘for someone's sake; the phrase occurs in Il. 9.492 ἐπὶ σοὶ μάλα πόλλ᾽ ἔπαθον, 21.585 τετεύξεται ἄλγε᾽ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ.

2 ὡνήρ: cf. the use of the form with a touch of grandeur for an artist or a man of letters: Theocr. AP 9.598=16,1-4 ὡνήρ / (...) Πείσανδρος (for whom see Gow on Theocr. ep. 22, intr. note), 9.600=17,1-2 & re φωνὰ Δώριος χὠνὴρ 6 τὰν κωμῳδίαν / εὑρὼν Ἐπίχαρμος, Diosc, 7.707=23,3-4 HE ἐκισσοφόρησε yap wunp / ἄξια ” C.O. Brink, Horace on Poetry: Epistles book IT (Cambridge 1982). * An early collection of passages where terminology from sculpture like σμιλευτός, γλύφειν, etc. is applied lo γράμματα can be found in Salmasius (1689b) 735. Salmasius, however, overlooked the metaphorical sense and interpreted the expressions as denoting the function of the calamus. A discussion of the use of τορεύειν, ropevrös, etc. is made by M. J. Milne, “Ihe Use of TOPEYQ and Related Words, AJA 45 (1941), 390-8; a collection of passages concerning the meta-

phorical use of the terms can be found in 398, n. 63. See also R. Faber, "Ihe Literary Metaphor of the Chisel (Tornus) in Eclogue 3.38, Hermes 128 (2000), 375-9, esp. 376-8.

140

AP 9.545 = 11

Φλιασίων (for the tragic poet Sositheus). The present phrasing recalls Damag, 7.355=8,3 HE ἦν δ᾽ ὡνὴρ Μουσέων ἱκανὴ μερίς (on Praxiteles, an artist not to be confused with the famous sculptor; see Gow-Page ad loc., intr. note).

πάντας ... κάλους: the metaphor indicates great effort in pursuit of some goal: Eur. Med. 278 ἐχθροὶ yap ἐξιᾶσι πάντα δὴ κάλων (with Page ad loc.), Herc. 837 φόνιον ἐξίει κάλων, Aristoph. Equ. 756, Plato Prot. 338a, Lucian Alex. 57, Dio Chr. 4.81f. An early discussion of the expression, where Crinagoras’ passage is cited, is Leopard? 259f;; later also Toup 1760-6, 3.6-7. The phrase is a proverb; cf. Photius and Suda on πάντα κάλων σείειν' παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν πάσῃ προθυμίᾳ χρωμένων" παρῆκται δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἄρμενα χαλώντων. Σείειν is commonly used of hair (cf. Agath. AP 5.273,2), leaves (cf. Antistius 11.40=3,4 GP), earthquakes (cf. Lucillius 11.83,2). An imitation of the present

passage might be traced in Antip. Thess. 9.186=103,1-2 GP βίβλοι Ἀριστοφάνευς θεῖος πόνος alow Ἀχαρνεύς / κισσὸς ἐπὶ χλοερὴν πουλὺς ἔσεισε κόμην. In the present poem Callimachus ‘shook all (πάντας) the Muses’ sail reefs’ above his

Hecale, i.e. made every possible effort. In Antipater the ivy ‘waved its green hair’ over Aristophanes’ works in masses (πουλύς), meaning that the plays enjoyed enormous success in the theatre (cf. Gow-Page on Antip. Thess. 103,If. GP). Cf. the use of σείειν of reins: Soph. El. 7116. of δ ἅμα / ἵπποις ὁμοκλήσαντες

ἡνίας χεροῖν / ἔσεισαν, Cf. the metaphor involving reins in Plato Prof. 338a χαλάσαι τὰς ἡνίας τοῖς λόγοις. Callimachus is thus implicitly envisaged as the captain of the ship of poetry who makes every effort to achieve perfection in his work. At N. 5.5] ἀνὰ δ᾽ ἱστία τεῖνον πρὸς ζυγὸν καρχασίου, Pindar describes in similar terms poetic inspiration; see Péron 49ff.,'° Pfeijffer 83f. The poetry is a

ship on which the poet, as its captain, manoeuvres the sails; cf. Pind. P 1.91f. For the ship of poetry, cf. also Pind. P 2.62, P. 67f., P 10.51f., N. 3.26f, 4.69f. The same image is suggested by the Muses’ ‘fair wind’ at N. 6.27f., P 4.3f. Apart from Pindar, there is an example from Gregory of Nazianzus with the speaker ‘stretching the sails’ in regard to poetry, Cart. 37.1533,8 PG μήδ᾽ ὅλον ἐξεπέρησα λόγων πόρον, ἱστία τείνας. Finally, it should be noted that Crinagoras’ πάντας

κάλους, denoting ‘every possible effort, resembles the expression πλήρεσιν ἱστίοις, ‘with full sails, 1.6. ‘with all might and main. Cf. Philostr. VS 1.25,5, Suda s.v. ἱστίον, Pfeijffer 185. For Hollis (9-10), this expression in Crinagoras’ poem

indicates the rich diversity of authors and genres which Callimachus used in

writing Hecale. Clauss" suggested that Crinagoras’ πάντας ἔσεισε κάλως is a play on the phrase ἔσται πάντα καλῶς which the critic attributes to Callimachus’ Hecale.

5 P Léopard, Emendationum et Miscellaneorum libri viginti (Antwerp 1568). 10 7 Péron, Les images maritimes de Pindare (Paris 1974).

12 J, J. Clauss, ‘An Attic-Speaking Crow on the Capitoline: A Literary Emigré from the “Hecale” ; ZPE 96 (1993), 172.

P's and PI's κάλους can be retained (since Lascaris’ editors print it as κάλως; Gow-Page print κάλως, adopted also in Jacobs’ two editions, and Holtze among modern editors), as it is the epic-Ionic form of the standard Attic word (cf., for instance, Eust. 1271,5 (on Zl. 22.310) κάλος κάλου, τὸ σχοινίον. Ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς καὶ

κάλως κάλωος map’ Ἀττικοῖς), and is used by Homer and Herodotus; cf. Od. 5.260, Hdi. 2.36.

Movaewv: Callimachus is very fond of references to the Muses, especially when he intends to define his ‘new’ art and, more generally, to describe and defend his work. Cf. Η. 1.2, 1.24; in this form of the genitive, cf. fr. 2,2, 112,9, 538,1. Μουσέων occurs at the same sedes (before pentameter diaeresis) also at Crin. 49,2. 3f.: Note the central position of the presentation of the theme of Hecale, sym-

metrically encompassed by the first and third distich, the one on Callimachus, the other on Marcellus. The central distich also offers a symmetrical and balanced presentation of the two themes of Callimachus’ poem, Hecale’s hut, and

the fight with the bull. What it is interesting to observe, nevertheless, and critics have failed to comment upon the matter, is that in reality the two themes of Hecale were not equal in length and importance. Theseus’ heroic achievement

was subordinate to the scene in Hecale's hut and to the figure of Hecale herself, who opens and closes the poem (cf. Hollis 6, Cameron 1995, 443). For the sake of the direction he has laid down for his epigram, however, Crinagoras ignores this distribution of importance in Callimachus poem and gives the same length to Hecale’s hospitality and to Theseus’ fight at Marathon, so that he can close his poem with the wish that Marcellus achieve similar accomplishments. ἀείδει: in the Anthology, of lyric poets, cf. Antip. Sid. 7.27=15,3 (on Anacreon) ὑγρὰ δὲ δερκομένοισιν Ev ὄμμασιν οὖλον ἀεΐδεις, Theocr. 7.664=14,6 HE (on Archilochus) ἔπεά τε ποιεῖν πρὸς λύραν τ᾽ ἀείδειν. Poets often use the verb to

speak of their work in the first person: cf., for instance, Theogn. 4, Pind. N. 5.50, 10.31. Callimachus often does the same, especially in pieces of programmatic importance: frr. 1,33 δρόσον ἣν μὲν ἀείδω, 612 ἀμάρτυρον οὐδὲν ἀείδω, H. 2.106; cf. H. 1.1, 1.92, 2.31, fr. 392,1. Arguing that the ἀοιδή and ἄεισμα of the Aetia prologue (Il. 1 and 3 respectively) refer to Callimachus’ hexameter works, principally Hecale and probably the Hymns, as well, rather than to the Aetia, AcostaHughes further suggests that the Crinagorean ἀείδει perhaps alludes to the aforementioned doidy.'* With the a lengthened in the first syllable of the verse the word occurs for the first time in Od. 17.519. Cf. also Theocr. 7.41 (with Gow and Hatzikosta ad loc.),

Call. fr. 260,66=74,25 Hollis. In other metrical positions but always in the thesis of the foot, cf. Theocr. 16.3, 18.36, 24.77, Call. frr. 26,8, 75,5. In the Anthology 12 See Acosta-Hughes 2012, passim, esp. 31 with n. 20 (for a further suggestion that Crinagoras’ verb possibly alludes to Call. fr. 74,25 Hollis ἀείδει καί πού τις ἀνὴρ ὑδατηγὸς ἱμαῖον).

this is comparatively rare. Cf. Leon.

6.120=91,2 HE, Antip. Thess. 9.92=2,2,

9.428=1,3 GP, all at verse-opening. See further Steiner on Od. 17.519-20.

The verb is translated by the editors as ‘he sings and it is generally taken as referring to the poet, Callimachus. It could be also taken, however, as referring to the poem itself. The notion of a book or poem speaking is not unattested. Cf. Antip. Thess. AP 9.428=1,3 GP, also verse-opening, where the speaker is the epigram itself. Cf, moreover, the image of Homer's stilus ‘shouting’ at Peek 1729,1-2 (II-] sc). Commenting on this notion, Reitzenstein compared Posid, 17,5£. HE Lardadar.../ φθεγγόμεναι σελίδες; also Anyte AP 7.724=4,3 ἀλλὰ

καλόν τοι ὕπερθεν ἔπος τόδε πέτρος ἀείδει, Mel. 7.428=122,19 τὸ δ᾽ οὔνομα πέτρος ἀείδει, and Euphorion 7.651=2,2 HE ἡ κνάνεον γράμμα λαλοῦσα πέτρη (the

gravestone ‘singing’ the announcement written on it).'? Ἑκάλης... καλιήν: the phrase echoes Call. fr. 263=Hollis 80,3f. eto... φιλοξείνοιο καλιῆς / μνησόμεθα. Hollis comments ad loc.: ‘Crinagoras picked out these

words to represent one of the two main themes of the poem, the other one being the battle with the bull which he presents in the next verse; see above

on 3f. In Greg. Naz. Carm. 37.1259,11 PG, the combination of the two words,

φιλοξείνοιο φυτοῦ καθύπερθε καλιήν, strongly suggests that the author, Callimachus’ ‘most enthusiastic reader’ in the fourth century (Cameron 1995, 335), consciously produces a variation of the Callimachean phrasing.'* In verse-ending kaAın occurs also at Crin. 43,3, in the sense of ‘shrine; for the various meanings of the word, see ad loc. Aldus (1503), Aldi Filii (56),’? heirs of Giunta (60)’° and Badius (64) print

Ἑκάβης (whilst Aldus 1521, 56 prints correctly ‘ExaAys).'? Obsopoeus’ use of the first Aldine is echoed in the reproduction of this mistake in his comment (Obsopoeus 158 and Brodaeus-Obsopoeus 140). Obsopoeus suggested an

emendation again influenced by a reading of the first Aldine in Crin. 16,6; see there, on κεῖται... ἐπ᾿ αἰγιαλῶν.

Φιλόξεινος in Homer occurs only in the Odyssey and always refers to people (6.121, 8.576, 9.176, 13.202), Crinagoras produces a variation of the Callimachean phrase applying the adjective to Hecale, rather than to the hut. For the word qualifying something other than a person, cf. Call. H. 4.156 (Κέρκυρα), ‘Diog. 15. See Reitzenstein 219ff.

For Callimachean echoes in Gregory, see Cameron (1995) 334(f,, Hollis 165, 321. 15 ‘therefore, the edition of Aldi Filii (Paolo Manuzio) is not a wholly exact repetition of the

Nicolini edition (cf. on Crin. 19,3 ἀλλιστ᾽ Aids), since Nicolini here (56) have ‘ExdAns, according to their model, the second Aldine. 16 The Juntine edition is described Hutton (1935), 169. See also next note.

as an ‘incorrect reprint of the first Aldine; see further

‘7 Badius reproduced the text of the second and, sometimes, of the first Aldine; see Hutton (1946), 83. Here it is obvious that Badius reproduced the text of the first Aldine. It has been observed that in one instance there is an error in the Juntine edition, spotted also in Badius and

even in Etienne; see Hutton (1935) 169, n. 2.

Laert? AP 7.98,3 Κόρινθος), Colluthus 254 (θάλαμοι), Nonnus D. 32.291, 41.98 (πυλεών), 43.164 (θάλασσα).

καὶ Θησεῖ... πόνους: the expression is Homeric: Il. 17.158 ἀνδράσι δυσμενέεσσι πόνον καὶ δῆριν ἔθεντο, 21.524f. πᾶσι δ᾽ ἔθηκε πόνον, πολλοῖσι δὲ κήδε' ἐφῆκεν, | ὡς Ἀχιλεὺς Τρώεσσι πόνον καὶ κήδε᾽ ἔθηκεν, for which cf. further Richardson

ad loc. Note the juxtaposition of subject and indirect object at Il. 21.525, as in the present instance. Μαραθών: for the reference to Marathon in Hecale, cf. Call. frr. 253=40,1 Hollis,

260=69,8 Hollis. For the personification of the place in which something happens, and its treatment as if it were responsible for the event, cf. Call.H. 5.90 ὦ ὄρος, ὦ Educay.../ ἦ μεγάλ᾽ ἀντ᾽ ὀλίγων ἐπράξαο, «rA.; also cf. Soph. OT 1391 ἰὼ Κιθαιρών, τί μ᾽ ἐδέχονυ. The personification of Marathon recalls the hero who gave his name to the place (cf. Paus. 1.15,3 and 32,4, 2.1,1. See further RE 14.1428, LIMC s.v. Marathon).

ovs: for the postponed relative pronoun, see on Crin. 34,2. The reading of Pl τούς, accepted by Rubensohn, may be correct, recalling the Homeric use of the article as a relative pronoun, for which see Monro 231f., § 262, Chantraine (1958) 277f. $ 130, (1963) 166 ὃ 248-50. As the lectio difficilior, it is likely to have

been changed to the Attic οὕς. A counter-argument to this reading is the coincidence of sound with the following τοῦ.

5f. τοῦ: for the relative pronoun as a demonstrative at the beginning of the sentence, cf., for instance, in the Anthology Leon. 6.131=35,4 HE. σθένος ein ἀρέσθαι: the expression κῦδος (usually, but also εὖχος and κλέος) ἀρέσθαι, to win glory, isa common Homeric formula, almost always at verseend. Cf. Il. 7.203, 12.407, 16.87f., 17.16, 20,502, al. νεαρόν... σθένος:

Bücheler

(1883,

511)

compared

Plutarchs

description

of

Theseus at Thes. 14.2 νέον ὄντα κομιδῇ. For the association of power and youth,

cf. Eur. Herc. 232, anon. API 383,4f. For the ‘power of the hands, cf. Od. 21.282 χειρῶν καὶ σθένεος πειρήσομαι, Pind. N. 10.48; cf. Il. 20.360f. For the wish to be

young and strong, cf. the Homeric formula εἴθ᾽ὡς ἡβώοιμι, Bin δέ μοι ἔμπεδος εἴη, Il, 7.157, 11.670, 23.629, Od. 14.468, 14.503.

Neapös is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον: Il. 2.289 παῖδες veapoi. If P’s reading

after the correction is correct we have here an adjectival enallage, the phrase standing instead of νεαρῶν χειρῶν σθένος, which is PI's and P’s reading before the correction, also possibly correct. MapxeAde: Bowie (2008, 231 and 2011, 188) underlines that the poet introduces a Homeric lengthening here, particularly unusual at the final e of a name. In

this way, the epic grandeur of Marcellus is further emphasized.

αἶνον... βιότου: for the wish for unfading glory in one's life, cf. Od. 7.332f. τοῦ μέν κεν ἐπὶ ζείδωρον ἄρουραν / ἄσβεστον κλέος εἴη (for Alkinous; cf. the same motif for the dead at Od. 4.584). Cf. also Eur. IA 566 ἔνθα δόξα φέρει / κλέος

ἀγήρατον βιοτᾷ, Cycl. 201f. Alvos occurs twice in Homer (//. 23.652 and 795) meaning a ‘tale’; in Hes. Op 202, al. it is used of fables, proverbs, riddles. It is through the meaning of tale

that the notion of praise derives. See further Richardson on Il. 23.651-2, KAewot...Bidrou: κλεινὸς is not Homeric; Homer uses κλειτός (Il. 3.451, Od

6.54, al.). For a glorious βίοτος, cf., for instance, Eur. Andr. 319 ὦ δόξα δόξα. μυρίοισι δὴ βροτῶν / οὐδὲν γεγῶσι βίοτον ὄγκωσας μέγαν. Marcellus antici. pated glorious life is to be seen in the context of the glory of Rome, as he was

the intended heir of Augustus (cf. Dio Cass. 53.30; see, for instance, Syme 1986 41, Levick 20). The glory of Rome (also through its ancestor, Troy) was of course a recurrent motif in Augustan poetry; cf, for instance, Virg. Aen. 6.64f. ingens /

gloria Dardaniae, 6.756f., 7.1-4, 11.430f.

AP 6.244=12

Ἥρη Ἐληθυιῶν

5

μήτηρ,

Ἥρη

δὲ τελείη,

καὶ Ζεῦ γινομένοις ξυνὸς ἅπασι πάτερ, ὠδῖνας νεύσαιτ᾽ Avrwvin ἵλαοι ἐλθεῖν πρηείας μαλακαῖς χερσὶ σὺν Ἠπιόνης, ὄφρα κε γηθήσειε πόσις μήτηρ θ᾽ ἑκυρά TE: ἡ νηδὺς οἴκων αἷμα φέρει μεγάλων.

AP 6.244 Κριναγόρου caret Pl 1 Ἐληθυιῶν apogrr.: EiAnd- P, Εἰλειθ- C | τελείη C: τελέσει ut videtur P

4 πρηείας

C: πρησεί- ut videtur P | Ἠπιόνης C: -vins P

Reiske n. 489, Brunck πη, 13, Rubensohn ἢ. 8

Hera, mother of Eileithyiai, Hera Teleia, and Zeus, common father to all that are born, be gracious and grant that gentle pangs come to Antonia with

the soft hands of Epione, so that husband, mother, and mother-in-law may rejoice. Her womb bears the blood of great houses. A prayer that the pregnant Antonia may have an easy birth. The poem proceeds at a smooth and proportionate pace from the divine to

the human level. The first couplet invokes Zeus and Hera, the archetypal divine couple, each line referring to each god. The second couplet presents the human situation for which the heavenly couple’s help is needed, the divine element

being still present through fAao: in |. 3 and through the reference to another goddess, Ἠπιόνη, in 1. 4. The last two lines, reflecting in opposition the first two,

carry us to the totally earthly environment of a human family whose magnificence, however, mirrors that of the gods mentioned in the first couplet (note

that there Hera is called ‘mother’ and Zeus is called father, the two gods being thus placed in the context of a family). The epigram closes with the picture of the strong bonds of kinship of this royal house, whose members, apart from Antonia (husband, mother, mother-in-law), are gathered in the fifth line, and

whose importance is portrayed in the last line: the actual grandeur of the family is emphatically placed at the very end (οἴκων... μεγάλων).

Usiidlly women

in epigrams offer thanks accompanied by dedications to

the goddesses of birth (Artemis, Eileithyia) after a successful childbirth, Cr

Leonidas AP 6.200=38 and 202=1, Nicias 6.270=3, Phaedimus 6.271=1, Perse, 6.272=2 and 274=3 HE; for a prayer before the childbirth, cf. Nossis 6.273215

HE (for the ascription of the poem, see Gow-Page ad loc.). In Callimachyg prayer of AP 6.146=23 HE, the woman has given birth to a girl and prays for 4 boy. A laudatory poem

for the expected child of Domitian

is Mart. 6.3; cf.

Grewing 86-7. For the placement of the poem in its Anthology sequence, seg on Crin. 9, intr. note.

It is generally accepted that the Antonia of the present poem is Antonia Minor, born in 36 Bc, daughter of Marcus Antonius and Octavia, Octavian's sister (cf. RE s.v. Antonius, 1.2640, n. 114, Syme 1986, 141, Kokkinos 6, Fantham

27; cf. on Crin. 6, intr. note). She married Nero Claudius Drusus around 18 pc and had three children, Nero Claudius (commonly called Germanicus), Livilla,

and Claudius, the future emperor. Antonias mother-in-law mentioned here jg Drusus’ mother Livia, who divorced her husband and married Octavian in 39-38 Bc (cf. Syme 1939, 229, 1986, 39, Fantham 22). Scholars observe that the

epigram must refer to the birth of Germanicus (born 15 Bc) or Livilla (12-11 BC), rather than to that of Claudius (born in 10 Bc; see Kokkinos 11-13), as Antonia’s mother, Octavia, who died in 11 Bc, is still alive (1.5); cf. Rubensohn 13, Gow-Page intr. note, Hemelrijk 109-10. Cichorius (1888, 58) observed that the

poem is more likely to be associated with Antonia’s first birth, since there is no reference to a brother of the expected baby. The child then could be either Germanicus, or another baby that died at birth or in its infancy, as Suetonius attests that Drusus had several children by Antonia, of whom only three survived (Claudius 1.6); see Kokkinos II with n. 16. The composition of the poem can be therefore placed between 18 and 15 Bc.

1 Ἥρη... Ἥρη: for the anaphora, cf. the opening of Crin. 15; see ad loc. The figure is very common in Hellenistic poetry. Cf. Call. H. 1.6f. Ζεῦ... Ζεῦ with McLennan ad loc.; see also see Legrand' 376-8 (on Theocritus), Lapp 54f. (on Callimachus), F. Williams on Call. H. 2.1f., Lausberg 281ff.,, $ 629; cf. also below, on δέ, The vocative here is without ὦ, as the invocations of gods usually are in early epic, which suggests a loftiness of style.* The solemnity of the occasion is further stressed with the striking series of spondees in this and the following hexameter,’ See Intr., Metre, Spondees; cf. also below, on 1. 5.

' Ph. E. Legrand, Etude sur Theocrite (Paris 1898). > See J. A. Scott (1903) 1921F. See also Intr., Language and Style, Apostrophes. * Long syllables were thought to produce an effect of grandeur and were used in invocations of the gods at libations (amoröad) or other solemn occasions: cf. Dion. Hal. De Comp. 17. See further

West (1982) 55 with n. 66.

Ἐληθνιῶν μήτηρ: Cook (1906, 367) lists the passages where Hera is mentioned ‘as the mother of Eileithyia (singular: Hes. Th. 922, Pind. N. 7.2, Plut. ap. Euseb. Praep. Ev. 3.1,5, Paus. 1.18,5) or Eileithyiai (plural: //. 11.270-1, the present poem, and Ael. NA 7.15; we can add Nonnus D. 48.795 Ἡραίας δὲ Odyarpas). Hera is, inter alia, a goddess of birth, and it has been suggested that Eileithyia was initially an epithet of hers, as the cults of "pa Εἰλείθυια in Attica and Argolis attest (see Farnell 1 196, IT 608, Cook 1906, 367-8, Weinreich 1909, 11, Pingiatoglou 94,

West on Hes. Th. 922).* For votive offerings to Hera as protectress of fertility,

pregnancy, and childbirth in various areas of Greece, see J. D. Baumbach, The Significance of Votive Offerings in Selected Hera Sanctuaries in the Peloponnese, lonia and Western Greece (Oxford 2004), passim.

Similar to the phrasing of this epigram is the phrasing of Philod. AP 10.21=15 GP=8,2 Sider, Κύπρι Πόθων μῆτερ ἀελλοπόδων, ina poem which is full of cletic

anaphora; see Sider on ]. 1, Körrpı. Here Hera as mother neatly corresponds to Zeus as father in the next line, the two gods being given equal length of presentation.

Ap. G., Ap. B., and Ap. R. correct the form to Ἐληθ-. For the etymology of the name of Eileithyia, the predominant view being that it derives from the stem ἐλευθ-, see Pingiatoglou 11.° The form Ἐλ-, as Gow-Page note on the present passage, occurs in all Pindaric passages (P. 3.9, Ο, 6.42, N. 7.1, Pae. 12.17); also in Call. H. 4.257, 6.131. Jacobs’, followed by Holze, printed Ἐλειθ- from Call. H. 4.257. For the different spellings of the name (Εἰλείθυια, Ἐλείθυια, Ἰλείθυα, Εἰλειθούη, etc.), see RE 5.2102, Schulze 260f.; the Homeric spelling is Εἰλείθυια. The form Εἰλήθνια occurs in inscriptions, Call. H. 4.132, as well as in many epigramsin the Anthology, which are usually altered by the Corrector to Eideid-; Call. AP 6.146=23,1, Leon. 6.200=38,1, Nicias 6.270=3,2, Perses 6.274=3,3 HE, Mac. Cons. 7.566,1. See Gow-Page on Call. and Leon. ad locc., and Gow on

[Theocr.] 27.29f. Ἐληθ-, the reading of apographs in the present passage, is Salmasius’ correction in Antip. Thess. AP 9.238=83,6 GP (corresponding sedes in the pentameter) whilst P has EiAn8- and Pl Ἐλειθ-. Ἐλειθ- is suggested by D’Orville (1737, 190) for the present passage. “Hpy... τελείη: in 9,1f., Crinagoras attributes τέλειος to Zeus. For Hera as the

goddess of marriage, cf. Aesch. Eum. 214 (cf. 835 γαμηλίου τέλους), Aesch. fr. 383, Pind. N. 10.18 (schol.: ἔστι yap αὐτὴ γαμηλία καὶ ζυγία. Ἔστι δὲ ὁ γάμος τέλος διὰ τὸ τελειότητα βίου κατασκευάζειν), Schol. on Aristoph. Th. 973. Cf.

also Diod. Sic. 5.73,2. See Sommerstein on Aesch. Eum. 214, Bury on Pind. loc. cit., Roscher s.v. “Teleia, Teleios, Bruchmann 154, Farnell I 157, n. 96, 195-6,

* As an epithet Εἰλείθυια is also associated with other goddesses, such as Artemis, Hecate, Selene, Hebe, Themis (see Cook 1906, 368, Pingiatoglou 91-119).

5 It is noteworthy that the contemporary Greek equivalent to the ancient goddess of birth is St Eleutherios.

AP 6.244= 12

Nilsson (1906) 28, 53-5, Cook Zeus ΠῚ 65, 932, 948-9 with n. 16, 1042, Bolkestejn passim.° For Zeus and Heras ἱερὸς γάμος, see Farnell 1184-92, Cook Zeus ΠῚ

1025-65. For the use of epithets which are compounds with reA- in apostrophes to gods, see Keyssner 117-19. δέ: D’Orville printed re (1737, 190) which is adopted by all editors except for

Gow-Page, but there is no reason for such an alteration; for δέ in the second element of an anaphora with no μέν in the first, see Denniston 163, 2.

2 Ζεῦ... πάτερ: the concept of Zeus as ‘father of men and gods’ is Homeric. Cf

Il, 1.544, 4.68, 5.426, al.; see Dee 74 and, further, Bruchmann 137-9. Zeus is the father of men not in the literal sense but in the sense of ‘our father which art in

heaven; see Kirk on Il, 1.544, Zeus is also the pater familias: Nilsson (1940) 706, Kerényi (1976) 46-8. For the description of Zeus and other gods as parents of people in apostrophes in literature, see Keyssner 23-8. For the apostrophe Ζεῦ πάτερ in the Anthology, cf., for instance, Nicander 7.526=2,1 HE, Strato 12.179=20,6 Floridi with Floridi ad loc., anon. API 262,4; in a prayer, Jul. Pol, AP 9.9=3,2 GP.

Reiskes (1754, 38 and 1766, 33) changing of P's πάτερ to πατήρ, accepted by Dibner, Paton, and Gow-Page, is not necessary (Brunck left πάτερ unchanged and changed μήτηρ to μῆτερ; ch Ἥρη μῆτερ Ἐληθυιῶν in Ap. B. in margine, Similarly Ap. G. has μῆτερ in margine and Ap. R. has μῆτερ in a note beneath the text). For Zed πάτερ in regard to "A pn... μήτηρ (1. 1), ie. a double apostrophe where one person is addressed in the vocative and the other in the nominative, cf. Il. 3.276f. Zed narep.../ Ἠέλιός θ᾽, Od. 19.406 γαμβρὸς ἐμὸς θύγατέρ re, Aesch. Pr. 88-90 ὦ δῖος alßyp.../.../...mauunröp re γῆ. In regard to the nominative £vvös, the adj. nominative + name vocative is attested in Homer (11. 4.189 φίλος ὦ Mevédae) and accepted as grammatically correct by Aristarchus.° Cf. the same use in Crin. 32,5; see there on ἀλλά.... φίλος. For the construction (dative + noun), cf. K-GII (1) 426-8. ° H. Bolkestein, Τέλος ὁ γάμος (Amsterdam 1933). Rejecting the sense ‘accomplisher’ for τέλειος, Bayfield in 1901 interpreted Heras original epithet teleia as ‘Wife, ‘Queen’ Bolkestein held that the epithet was not initially connected with marriage at first (agreeing with the common view that Zeus τέλειος Is the ‘fulfiller’), and suggests that Hera τελεία, probably denoting her as adult, was eventually associated with marriage in a society in which every adult was married. Kerényi's interpretation of the epithet of the archetypal divine couple, in regard to the expression τέλος ὁ γάμος, is that Hera feleia attained completion in marriage and Zeus teleios was ‘the bringer to perfection, which is not far from the commonly accepted sense of the term, the ‘fulfiller’; see Kerényi (1976) 98, 104. ” See Humbert 242, Monro 155f., $ 164. For later literature as well as for examples in Modern Greek, see Schwyzer 2.63, 7, 1. Apollonius Dyscolus (Gr. Gr. 2.2,313) discussed this phenomenon, citing Od. 19.406. δ΄ See L. Friedlaender, Aristonici Περὶ Σημείων Ἰλιάδος (Göttingen 1858), 18, G. Giangrande, ‘Hellenistic Poetry and Homer, AC 39 (1970), 50; also Schwyzer 2.63, n, 2.

AP 6,244=12

γινομένοις: ‘all who are born’; for γιν- instead of yıyv-, see Etienne’s Thesaurus S.VV. ᾿γίγνομαι et γίνομαι, Γιν- is in our Homeric manuscripts but it is impos-

sible to trace the date in which this spelling got into the Homeric text; see Chantraine (1958) 12f. In his comment on I. 10.71, Leaf defends yeır- against

yıw- on the ground that the former, aor. participle (from γενόμενος with metrical lengthening; see Schulze 182-91, West on Hes. Th. 82), is the proper tense

to express ‘at the moment of birth’ and further maintains that the real meaning of γινόμενος is not nascens (as opposed to natus, according to Schulze) but ‘becoming; as is shown in its only occurrence in Homer at Od. 4.417. True as this may be for epic (also note that in all its occurrences in the Anthology, the present participle γινόμενος or yıyv- has only the sense become’), we find γιγνόμενος unambiguously as nascens in later literature. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 347 γιγνομέναισι λάχη τάδ᾽ ἐφ᾽ duly ἐκράνθη, Eur. fr. 839,12 TrGrF θνήσκει δ᾽ οὐδὲν τῶν γιγνομένων; cf. the examples from Philemon and Menander in

Schulze 190. Both gods whom the poet addresses are given qualifications that relate them to birth: Hera is the mother of Eileithyai and Zeus is the father of all that are born; cf. Artemis’ association of her task of helping women when they are

giving birth with her own birth in Call. H. 3.21-5. ξυνός: Ξ κοινός, common, first in Homer (Il. 15.193, 18.309). With the dative,

cf. Il. 16.262 ξυνὸν δὲ κακὸν πολέεσσι, Archil. 110 IEG ξυνὸς ἀνθρώποις Ἄρης,

Pind. O. 3.18, [Theocr.] 23.24. Usually the adjective refers to a whole group of people, while it is seldom used of two persons or groups; see Mineur on Call. H. 4.171. For its occurrence in epigrams, cf. Geoghegan on Anyte 20,2 (AP7.190). 3: for the elision at the caesura, see Intr., Metre, Elision.

vedoair’... ἐλθεῖν: νεύειν + inf. in the sense of ‘grant’ (see LSJ s.v. 2), occurs at Il. 8.246 νεῦσε δέ of λαὸν σόον ἔμμεναι, Pind.

O. 7.67f. ἀλλὰ Κρόνου

σὺν mardi

νεῦσαι, ἰ... γέρας ἔσσεσθαι; cf. Phaedimus AP 6.271=1,6 HE. Divine assent,

expressed with the nod of the head, is irrevocable; cf. Il. 1.524-7. Also, cf. Athena's nod in Call. H. 5.131-3.; see Bulloch ad loc. Crinagoras is using the milder optative instead of the imperative, as he does in 17,3 κληθείητε; see Goodwin 291, $ 725. See also below, on ὄφρα κε γηθήσειε.

ὠδῖνας... ἐλθεῖν: the noun appears once in Homer (Il. 11.271, in association with the ‘daughters of Hera; see above on Ἐληθυιῶν μήτηρ) and once in h. Ap. 92. For parallels to the present phrase, cf. Lxx Jes. 37.3 ὅτι ἥκει ἡ wiv τῇ τεκούσῃ, Antiphilus AP 7.375=26,3f. GP ὑπήλυθον αἱ κακόμοιροι / ὠδῖνες, Opp. Hal. 4.198f. ἱκάνεται Εἰλειθυίης / κῦμα πόνων.

ἵλαοι: for the conventional appeal to gods with this epithet, cf. Aristoph, Th, 1148 ἥκετε τ» εὔφρονες, ἵλαοι, Herondas 4.11 ἵλεω δεῦτε, Orph. H. 18.19, 35.6,

al.; see Keyssner 91f. In the Anthology, cf., for instance, Satyrius 6.11=1,5 FGE (to Pan), Rhianus 6.278=8,3 HE (Apollo), Antiphilus 6.199=16,4 (Artemis), Philod. 6.349=19 GP=34,5 Sider (various sea deities). The penultimate is usually

short, as here, while in rare cases it is lengthened (e.g. Il. 1.583); see Gow on Theocr. 5.18.

4; the construction of the line is very unusual. The hyperbaton with the preposition σύν after both the noun and the adjective is probably unique here. Usua]

hyperbata with σύν consist of a preposition between adjective and noun: cf, for instance, Crin. 5,4 γηθομένῃ σὺν φρενί, Duris 9.424=1,2 νυκτὶ σὺν ἀστεμφεῖ, Mnasalcas AP 6.264=6,5 HE ἀνδρὶ κορυσσαμένᾳ σὺν ἀριστέι, Diod. 7.624=5,6

GP, Cornelius AP! 117=2,2 FGE, Ap. Rh. 3.126, Theocr. 16.107. Relatively comparable, though not with σύν following the adjective and the noun, but involving a genitive in the construction, is h. Cer. 5 κούρῃσι σὸν Qreavot βαθυκόλποις, Eur. JA 1067f. ὃς ἥξει χθόνα λογχήρεσι σὺν υρμιδόνων / ἀσπισταῖς.

As regards the image of the gentle-handed Epione helping pregnant women, Jacobs? compared Maximus Astr. Περὶ καταρχῶν 205-7 οὐ μὲν δὴ κυέουσαν, ὅτ᾽ ἀμβλώσειε, γυναῖκα | ῥεῖά κεν οὐδ᾽ αὐτὴ Παιηονὶς ἰήσαιτο / Ἠπιόνη χείρεσσιν ἀκεσφορίην ἐπάγουσα.

πρηείας: the adjective here refers to ὠδῖνας in self-variation with 51,6 zpyetns... ἩΠπιόνης. Note the oxymoron, emphasized by the enjambment and the placing of the noun and the adjective qualifying it at the beginning of the two consequent lines: cf. Crin. 35,4 νύκτας löns. See on Crin. 4,4 πρηεῖ κέντρῳ. The adjective is conventionally used for the goddess of childbirth. Cf. Pind. O. 6.42 mpadunriv τ᾽ Ἐλείθυιαν, Phaedimus AP 6.271=1,3f. HE (Artemis) πρηεῖα λεχοῖ δισσὰς ὑπερέσχες ἰ χεῖρας; cf. also Hor. Carm. Saec. 14 lenis, Ilithyia,

Ov. Am. 2.13,21 lenis ades precibusque meis fave, Ilithyia. See Pfeiffer on Call. fr. 202,9 and 18, and McKeown on Ov. loc. cit. For mpaiis as a conventional epithet of gods, see Keyssner 97. For the notion of ‘soft’ birth pangs, cf. Plato Theaet. 149d (the midwives) δύνανται ἐγείρειν τε τὰς ὠδῖνας καὶ μαλθακωτέρας ἂν βούλωνται ποιεῖν, Plut. Mor. 658f (the moon) μαλακωτέρας παρέχουσα τὰς ὠδῖνας,

μαλακαῖς χερσί: cf. the ‘soft (i.e. “healing”) hand’ of the physician at Pind. N. 3.54f. Ἀσκλαπιόν, / τὸν φαρμάκων δίδαξε μαλακόχειρα νόμον, Β 4.271f. with

Braswell ad loc. (on 271 [b]). ἘΪπιόχειρ is an epithet of Ὑγεία αἱ Orph. H. 23.8, 29.18, 84.8, and Apollo in anon. AP 9.525,8. See further Headlam on Herondas 4.17f., Weinreich (1909) 28-35, Keyssner 93f., and Usener 157 with n. 26. Weinreich (1909, 16) placed in parallel Epione’s ‘gentle hands’ in the present

epigram with the verba puerpera of Lucina (the Roman goddess of childbirth) at Ov. Met. 10.511. Weinreich (1909, 11) further assumed

that Persephone’s

title Xeıpoyovia (Hesych. s.v.) perhaps qualifies her as goddess of childbirth. Cf. also the hands of Artemis assisting in childbirth (see prev. note). See also on

Crin. 51,2 πανάκῃ χεῖρα λιπηνάμενος. Μαλακαῖς χερσί occurs at the same sedes at Adaeus AP 9.544=9,2 GP, here

denoting the delicacy of the artist’s hands and, consequently, the finesse of his work; see Gow-Page ad loc.

σύν; Stadtmüller suggested (χερσὶν) ὑπ᾽ Ἠπιόνης. There is no need to change the text, as ὑπὸ χερσί implies a violent action. Cf. Crin. 28,3 ὑπὸ χερσὶ δαμεῖσαν, the usual Homeric expression; see ad loc. Σὺν χερσί, on the contrary, is better

here, as the preposition denotes the help which Epione’s hands will offer Antonia. For this meaning of σύν, see Chantraine (1963) 135, $ 198, Note the

occurrences with verbs of movement: Il. 1.179 οἴκαδ᾽ ἰὼν σὺν νηυσί re ans Kal σοῖς ἑτάροισι, 5.219, al. For a different nuance of σύν + χερσί, cf., for instance, Ap. Rh. 3.126 βῆ κενεαῖς abv χερσὶν ἀμήχανος (cf. Campbell ad loc.), Od. 11.359 πλειοτέρῃ σὺν χειρὶ φίλην ἐς πατρίδ᾽ ἱκέσθαι. In a similar context, cf. Call. AP 6.146=23,1-2 HE καὶ πάλιν, Εἰλήθυια, Δυκαινίδος ἐλθὲ καλεύσης / εὔλοχος ὠδίνων ὧδε σὺν εὐτοκίῃ. 30,

©

\

3

/

Ἠπιόνης: Ἠπιόνη is Asclepius’ wife, rarely mentioned in literature; cf. Paus. 2.27,5, 2.29,1; Macedonius ll. 20f., p. 139 Powell Ἰασὼ Ἀκεσώ re καὶ AlyAn καὶ

IIavareıa /"Hmidvans [θύγατρες σὺν] ἀριπρέπτῳ ‘Yyıeig, Herondas 4.6 Ἠπιώ,

perhaps a diminutive form of Ἠπιόνη; see Headlam and Cunningham? ad loc. Tzetzes comments on Lyc. 1054 that “Hos was the former name of Asclepius. Cf. Et. M. s.v. Ἤπιος" οὕτως πρότερον ἐκαλεῖτο ὁ Ἀσκληπιός: ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν τρόπων, ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς τέχνης καὶ τῆς τῶν χειρῶν ἠπιότητος. ᾧ καὶ γυναῖκα παραδίδωσιν Ἠπιόνην, κτλ. See also Usener 165f. with ἢ. 49 and Hornblower on Lyc. 1054. Note the accumulation of words denoting gentleness in |. 4.

5: Gow-Page comment that ‘the Homeric tone is appropriate to the solemnity of the occasion’; cf. the Homeric vocabulary and phrasing ὄφρα κε, γηθέω, éxupy. See also above on Ἥρη... Ἥρη; see further Intr., Language and Style, Homericisms.

For the conjunction with double re in a parataxis of three elements, cf. Il. 1.459f. (cited by Denniston, 497). In the Anthology, cf., for instance,

Antiphilus 9.192=36,3-4 GP, anon. API 262,1f. For τε at the end of the parataxis, cf., for instance, Theodoridas 7.738=13,3 HE νηΐ τε σὺν φόρτῳ re, Leo Philos. ° 1.C, Cunningham, Herodas, Mimiambi (Oxford 1971).

9.361,6 οὖρόν τε προέηκεν πατήρ τε.

ἀπήμονά

τε λιαρόν Te, anon. 9.615,7 ταμίης τε

In a similar context, of the hopes of the parents of Regulus’ son, cf. Mart, 6.38,9 di, servate, precor, matri sua vota patrique.

5 ὄφρα xe γηθήσειε: γηθέω is a Homeric verb which Crinagoras uses in the

middle voice at 5,4 γηθομένῃ σὺν φρενί. Ap. G. and Ap. R. have καὶ γηθ. (kat supra lineam in Ap. R.; see Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Apographs of P, Apographon Ruhnkenianum), Ap. L. has ye γηθ- and Reiske (1754, 39 and 1766, 33) reads γεγηθήσειε, but the codex has clearly κε. For a similar phrasing, cf. Antip. Sid. AP 7.26=14,3-4 HE σπεῖσον γάνος, ὄφρα κεν οἴνῳ ! ὀστέα γηθήσῃ

rapa νοτιζόμενα. For ὄφρα κε + opt., see K-G II (2) 386, b. The construction

ὄφρα κε + opt. following an imperative (for the optative in the main clause here instead of the imperative, see above on νεύσαιτ᾽... ἐλθεῖν) is rare, as Gow-Page note. Close parallels to the present construction are Qu. Sm. 3.69f.

τλήτω.... ὄφρα κέ οἱ μέλαν ala... χυθείη, Nonnus D. 1.14 orjoard por... ὄφρα φανείη, 27.201-3 ἐλθέτω... oppa.../... ἐπικλαύσειε, 48.885 ἔσσο φύλαξ... ὄφρα κεν εἴη. πόσις: lawful husband. Cf. Eust. on Il. 24.763 ζητητέον, εἴ τίς ἐστι διαφορὰ πόσιος καὶ ἀνδρός, καθὰ Σοφοκλῆς ev Τραχινίαις ἐμφαίνει, ὅπου ἡ Δηϊάνειρα δέδοικε, μή ποτε ὁ αὐτὴν ἔχων Ἡρακλῆς τῇ μὲν αἰχμαλώτῳ Ἰόλῃ εἴη ἀνήρ,

αὐτῇ δὲ πόσις (Soph. Tr. 550f.). This distinction, however, is not always kept, as Andromache calls Hector dvep in Il. 24.725 and Helen describes Paris as her πόσις in 24.763. For the interchangeability of the terms and a brief account of the relevant discussion, see Davies on Soph. Tr. 550-1.

At the same sedes in the Anthology, cf. Philip 7.186=24,5, anon. 7.667,3,

Jul. Aeg. 7.600,3.

ἑκυρά: Hesych.: ἑκυρά" ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ ἀνδρός" πενθερά. Exvpn isa Homeric rarity:

Il, 22.451, 24.770. It occurs rarely in poetry: Ap. Rh. 4.815, Qu. Sm. 13.524, three times in Nonnus. Eustathius comments on Il. 6.378 (648,49) λέγεται δὲ ἐκυρὸς μέν, ὡς eis ἕ ἤτοι eis ἑαυτόν, ἔχων τὴν κύρην ἢ τὸ τῆς ἀγχιστείας κῦρος. Aid Kal δασύνεται κατὰ τὴν ἄρχουσαν παρά γε τοῖς πλείοσιν. Geist’s alteration of P's

ἑκυρά to ἑκυρή, accepted by Stadtmüller, Beckby, Waltz, Gow- Page, and ConcaMarzi-Zanetto is not necessary, as the poet does occasionally use Atticisms: see Intr., Language and Style, Dialect. After her marriage Antonia settled in the house of her mother-in-law Livia and remained there after the sudden death of Drusus (9 Bc) whom she greatly

lamented; see Kokkinos 16, 158-9. 6 ἡ: Stadtmüller and Gow-Page print Sitzler’s alteration of P’s ἡ τὸ ἢ (Sitzler 115). The occurrence of # at the opening of the last sentence of epigrams is indeed quite frequent; cf., for instance, Antip. Thess, AP9.417=70,5, Archias 9.343=24,5

AP 6.244= 12

153

GP, after the bucolic diaeresis: at verse-opening Antiphilus 9.156=35,5, Archias 7.214=22,7 GP, Paul. Sil. 9.396,5, al. The manuscript reading, however, can be retained, as ἡ underlines the emphatic reference to vnövs, ‘this womb, recalling the Homeric ‘article-demonstrative pronoun: See LS] s.v. 6, ἡ, τό A I, Chantraine

(1963) 158ff; cf. especially $ 239: ‘associé 4 un substantif, l'article conserve souvent une valeur proprement démonstrative’;; also $ 240. Likewise, the article ἡ opening the last sentence in Bassus AP 9.236=6,5-6 GP was changed by Huet (12) to ἡ (this emendation was accepted by most editors). Ap. R. and Ap. G. have καὶ νηδύς in the text (Ap. G. has ἡ in margine), yndds...dépe: in the sense of ‘womb’ νηδύς occurs also at Crin. 38,5 νηδὺς δὲ rptroxet. Elsewhere cf., for instance, Il. 24.496 ἐννεακαίδεκα μέν μοι tis ἐκ νηδύος ἦσαν, Hes. Th. 460 νηδύος ἐξ ἱερῆς μητρὸς πρὸς γούναθ᾽ ἵκοιτο, Aesch.

Eum. 665, Eur. Ba. 527. Crinagoras says ‘her womb carries’; the more usual expression is ‘carry in one’s womb, as at Il. 6.58f., Ap. Rh. 4.1328 and 1354, [Opp.] Cyn. 3.517, Nonnus D. 47.698.

Νηδύς occurs also at Alcaeus AP 9.519=2,2 HE, Philod. AP! 234=29 GP=30,3 Sider, Nic. Al. 416, Opp. Hal. 2.580, [Opp.] Cyn. 3.150; νηδύς mostly in Attic drama and Nonnus, Call. H. 3.160. See Pfeiffer and Bornmann ad loc., Sternbach (1890) 208f. Cf. Gr. Gr. 4.1.332,5f. Ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι τὸ νηδύς κατὰ ποιητικὴν ἐξουσίαν συστέλλει τὸ ὕ, ὡς παρὰ Καλλιμάχῳ, κτλ. αἷμα: for ‘blood’ in the sense of kinship. Cf., for instance, Il. 19.105 αἵματος ἐξ ἐμεῦ εἰσίν, 19.111 ot σῆς ἐξ αἵματός εἶσι γενέθλης, Od. 4.611 αἵματος eis ἀγαθοῖο,

Pind. N. 11.34 αἷμ᾽ ἀπὸ Σπάρτας, Aesch. Eum. 606, Sept. 141. οἴκων... μεγάλων: Graefe's (46) correction of οἴκων to roxéwy is unnecessary.

For the idea of a royal house, cf. the ‘houses’ in tragedy: for instance, Aesch. Ch. 861f. Ayapeuvoviov / οἴκων, Soph. Ant. 594 Aaßdakıdav οἴκων. For the Augustan house, cf. Philo Flacc. 23.2, 49.3, 104.5 ὁ Σεβαστός (-ov) οἶκος (-ov). Cf. domus Augusta or Augusti, Ov. Pont. 2.2,74, 3.1.135, Tac. Ann. 6.51.

AP 6.350 =13

Τυρσηνῆς κελάδημα διαπρύσιον σάλπιγγος πολλάκι Πισαίων orpyves ὑπὲρ πεδίων φθεγξαμένης ὁ πρὶν μὲν ἔχει χρόνος ἐν δυσὶ νίκαις" εἰ δὲ σὺ καὶ τρισσοὺς ἤγαγες εἷς στεφάνους ἀστοῖς MiAnrov, Δημόσθενες, οὔ ποτε κώδων χάλκεος ἤχησεν πλειοτέρῳ στόματι. RA

5.

é

4

AP 6.350 Κριναγόρου caret Pl 2 πεδίων C:-iovP 4 εἷς Bothe: ei P

id

N

/

5 ἀστοῖς scripsi: ἀστὸς

Ρ

6 ἤχησεν Ci ἤχειον P

fortasse Reiske n. 547, Brunck n. 10, Rubensohn n. 13

The Tyrrhenian trumpets piercing ring has sounded shrilly over the plains of Pisa for double victories many times in the past; but when you brought, all on your own, three crowns to the citizens of Miletus, Demosthenes, never has the brazen bell sounded with a fuller mouth. A celebration of Demosthenes’ triple victory at Olympia. The pompous style and convoluted syntax of the first two lines (note the spondeiazon of 1. 1), as well as the elevated vocabulary and tone of the whole poem, seem intended to recall Pindar (cf. below, on κελάδημα and Πισαίων....

πεδίων). More specifically, in this poem Crinagoras seems to be recalling an Olympian written for a τρισολυμτιονίκαν οἶκον (the adjective opens the poem: see below, on δυσὶ vias), O, 13.29-31: δέξαι τέ οἱ στεφάνων ἐγκώμιον τεθμόν, τὸν ἄγει πεδίων ἐκ Πίσας, [4

4

€

[4

3

tA

7

\

»

[4

>

7

πεντάθλῳ ἅμα σταδίου νικῶν δρόμον: ἀντεβόλησεν 7

La

7

a

7

3

é

τῶν ἀνὴρ θνατὸς οὔπω τις πρότερον.

Crinagoras’ poem forms a priamel, the foil being other athletes’ double Olympic victories of the past, and the climax being Demosthenes’ present triple victory.’ * Fora definition and features of the priamel, see Race ixff., 7ff., and passim.; cf. also Gutzwiller (1998) 72 with n. 65.

The poet uses priamels elsewhere in 21 and in 37,3ff.; see ad locc. The epigram ends with the opening idea ( Tupayvijs...cdAmcyyos, κώδων / χάλκεος) and is thus enclosed in the notion of the triumphant trumpet (cf. Intr., Language and Style, Structure). Robert (1967, 115) observed that the idea of trumpet and vic-

tory recurs throughout the epigram, and that each line ends with images of trumpet and glory: σάλπιγγος, πεδίων, νίκαις, στεφάνους, κώδων, στόματι (the

mouth which blows the instrument to proclaim the victor). It can be added that the poem displays an antithetically constructed ring composition (as happens also in Crin, 34; see intr. note ad loc.): 1.1: Trumpet

Past:

l. 2: Olympia, place of the games ], 3: a double victory

l. 4: a triple victory Present:

l. 5: Miletus, the victor’s homeland

1. 6: Trumpet

A celebration of an analogous performance is Alc. Mess. AP 9.588=17 HE

(=Ebert n. 67), on the triple victory of the famous Cleitomachus from Thebes in the same Isthmian contest, in wrestling, boxing, and the pancration. The

event is recorded by Paus. 6.15,3-5; see further Gow-Page HE on Alc. Mess. 17 intr. note, Ebert on n. 67. As far as literary epigram is concerned, and apart from the ἱππικά of the New Posidippus, commemorations of athletic victories

are the inscriptional (or imitations of inscriptional poems) ‘Simon? API 2=30 FGE (at Olympia, wrestling), AP! 3= 42 FGE (Isthmia and Pythia, pentathlon),

API 23=31 FGE (Pythia, boxing), 29 FGE (two Olympiads, boxing). Another case of non-dedicatory epigram on an athletic victory in the sixth book of the Anthology, like the present one, is Antip. Thess. 6.256=110 GP (at Olympia, boxing), which has a rather ‘demonstrative’ character and which is, as GowPage observe, ‘strangely misplaced among the ἀναθηματικά of Book 6, even if, as seems possible, they once stood on a votive statue of Nicophon’ For this and other instances of epigrams not strictly corresponding to the Cephalan classification in AP 6, 7, 9, al., see Cameron (1993) 30f.?

Gow-Page list the three possibilities concerning the occasion of the poem: a) Demosthenes won three athletic victories at the same Olympic festival; 2 The assumption that the poem constituted an inscription on an image or statue lacking any reference to the dedication is easier to make in regard to Antipater 6.256 (=110 GP) than to the present epigram.

156

AP 6.350=13

b) he won a third victory, after two previous ones; c) he won three victories in the contest for trumpeters. The last possibility, which was supported by older

critics,” is weak: the trumpet'’s ‘sounding many times in Olympia indicates the marking of the athletes’ victories rather than victories in the trumpet competition,

Three victories in the competition for trumpeters would not be exceptional. the trumpeter Herodorus won at ten successive περίοδοι (rounds of the four great festivals: Olympian, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian Games) accordin to Athenaeus (10.415a), and at seventeen according to Pollux (4.89).* The extra.

ordinariness of Demosthenes’ accomplishment favours the assumption that he won three victories in the same contest, as otherwise the deed is not as remark-

able as the tone of the poem implies: cf., for instance, ‘Simon? Page FGE 25=, p} 24=Ebert n. 61 Μίλωνος τόδ᾽ ἄγαλμα καλοῦ καλόν, ὃς ποτὶ [lon / ἑπτάκι νικήσας, ἐς γόνατ᾽ οὐκ ἔπεσεν (for which see Page's intr. note), [Ὁ 5,1.1108,2 [πεντάκις ὈἸΛ[υ]μπι[ο]νί[καν], Ebert n. 17 (on the tyrant Hiero, three times Olympic victor in the horse race), Moretti 1953, n. 86,3 νεικήσας τρὶς Ὀλύμπ[ια) (after ap 229), Posid. 75,3 Austin-Bastianini areba]v[o]» τὸν Ὀλευρμπικὸν

ἄλλον er’

ἄλλῳ." For two victories in the same Olympic contest, see below on δυσὲ νίκαις. A triple winner in the same contest was called τριαστής. Olympic τριασταί before Crinagoras time were Phanas of Pellene (stade, diaulos, and hoplite, 512 pc, the

first τριαστής we know of; Moretti 1957, n. 142-4), Leonidas of Rhodes (stade, diaulos, and hoplite, 164 Bc; Moretti 1957, n. 618-20), Hecatomnos of Miletus (stade, diaulos, and hoplite, 72 Bc; Moretti 1957, n. 681-3), and perhaps Astylos of Croton and Nicocles of Acriae as well; see also Moretti (1987) 74. Later, three victories in the same Olympian contest (stade, dolichos, and diaulos) were won by Polites of Ceramos in ap 69 (Paus. 6.13,3). Pausanias (6.13,3) also speaks of

Hermogenes of Xanthos (late first century AD) who has won eight victories in three Olympic contests: see Robert (1967) 114. For three victories in the same

contest, other than the Olympic one, cf., for instance, Moretti 1953, n. 45,10f. (200-180 BC) Δύκαια τᾷ αὐτᾷ ἁμέρᾳ στάδιον, δίαυλον, | ὁπλίταν, Moretti 1953, n. 61,7-9 (c. aD 5) Ῥωωμαῖα τὰ τιθέμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ | δάμου παῖδας Ἰ᾿σθμικοὺς στάδιον, δίαυλον, | πένταθλον τᾷ αὐτᾷ ἁμέρᾳ. See also below, on τρισσούς. For

thoughts as regards the identity of Demosthenes and for his probable quality as an Olympic τριαστής, see also below, on Δημόσθενες. > Jacobs, Rubensohn, Cichorius (see below, on Ζημόσθενες), Weinreich (1941) 84f. with n. 67, (1948) 51. I. Rutgers (Sexti Iulii Africani Ὀλυμπιάδων ἀναγραφή, Leiden 1862, 152) and Moretti

(1957, 152, nn. 726, 729, and 731 and 1987, 73f.) also regard Demosthenes as an Olympic winner in the trumpet contest; see further Robert (1967) 111.

* For the competition cf., for instance, Paus. 5.22,1; it was included in the Olympic games from 396 Bc. See Gardiner (1910) 139, Harris 170.

° For three or more victories in different contests in epigrams, cf. also, for instance, AApp 1102,1f. ουνοπάλης νικῶ dis Ὀλύμπια Πύθιά τ' ἄνδρας, | τρὶς Νεμέᾳ, τετράκις δ᾽ Ἰσθμῷ ἐν ἀγχιάλῳ, κτὰ,, Simon. FGE 35=AP 13.14=Ebert 15,30 FGE 43=AP 13.19, Moretti 1953, n. 25=Ebert

n. 39 (356 Bc), Moretti 1953, n. 29 ([I)=Ebert n. 43,3 (336-332 Bc), Ebert n. 50,3.

AP 6.350= 13

157

Gow-Page observed thal the present poem suggests that the trumpet, apart from denoting the beginning and the ending of each race (cf. Paus. 6.13,9, Soph. El. 711; see also RE 18.1,17, Harris 180), also proclaimed the victor. Crinagoras’

epigram, however, is not our only source for the trumpet’s use in the proclam-

ation of the victor. Our other evidence is both literary (Sen. Ep. Mor. 78.16 tubicen praedicationi nominis nostri silentium faciens, Heliod. 10.30,5 καθάπερ σάλπιγγι τὸ ἐπινίκιον ἀνακηρυττόμενος) and archaeological; see Kephalidou 60f. with n. 46, Robert (1967) 109-10.° Robert (1967, 115) remarks that the

imagery of the poem is identical with that of two coins from Perinthus which show a crown and a trumpet next to it on a table, as symbols of the athletic victory (Robert 1967, 108 and Plate I, 1 and 3).

1 Tuponvis... σάλπιγγος: the earliest reference to the trumpet as an Etruscan invention is Aesch. Eum. 567f. Τυρσηνική / σάλπιγξ (see Sommerstein ad loc.; also Jebb on Soph. Aj. 17 and Finglass on Aj. 15-17), which became a cliche in tragedy: cf. Eur. Heraclid. 830, Ph. 9, 1377 with Mastronarde ad loc. In the Anthology, cf. Tymnes 6.151=1,3 HE Tupanvor μελέδαμα. Σάλπιγξ, a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 18.219), is known to the poet but not to the Homeric her-

oes, See Edwards ad loc. and below, on φθεγξαμένης. For the use of tragic expressions by Hellenistic and later epic poets, cf. F. Vian, Recherches sur les Posthomerica de Quintus de Smyrne (Paris 1959), 168. Cf. τοι with an apostrophe to a person at Crin. 17,3.

The line is encased by an adjective and a noun in agreement; see on Crin. 5,1. κελάδημα: κελαδεῖν is a word systematically used by Pindar, usually with a deity as an object (see further Gerber on O. 1.9), but also employed for the

praise of a winner. Cf. I. 8.62f. Νικοκλέος / μνᾶμα muypdyou κελαδῆσαι; see

Slater’ s.v. κελαδέω and cf. above, intr. note. KeAdönua, not a Homeric word,

occurs elsewhere in the Anthology only in Christod. 2.43. In regard to the sound of a trumpet, cf. Eur. Ph. 1102 παιὰν δὲ καὶ σάλπιγγες ἐκελάδουν ὁμοῦ,

Nonnus

ἢ, 22.247f., [Opp.]

Cyn. 4.398. Rubensohn

compares anon. AP

6.51=42,5f. HE βαρυφθόγγων ἀλαλητόν / αὐλῶν, [Phalaecus]® 6.165=1,3 FGE

καὶ κορυβαντείων ἰαχήματα χάλκεα ῥόπτρων, Diosc. 6.220=16,15 HE, and Galan

δ For the heralds’ announcing of the victor, cf. Diog, Laert. 6.43,3, Pollux 4.91. The relationship between heralds and trumpeters is close: cf. Paus. 5.22,1, Polyb. 18.46, Appian BC 4.12,89; also cl. the successive discussion of the two in Pollux 4.85-94, On the battlefield, the trumpet served not only to announce the beginning and the ending of the battle (cf. Pollux 4.860), but also to proclaim

the victory (cf., for instance, Ael. Arist. Ath. 16.17). According to Pollux (4.87), its use expanded from the battle to the athletic contests. For a bibliography on the distinction between military and

athletic trumpet, and on the trumpet contests, see Kephalidou 61, n. 47. 7 W. J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin 1969).

® Probably Flaccus: see Gow-Page HE 2.459.

Vioque AaAdynua (here ‘noisy instrument’; see Gow-Page and Galan Vioque ad loc.).

διαπρύσιον: ‘penetrating, always as an adverb in Homer (Il. 8.227, 11,275, al.) As an adjective it qualifies ὀλολυγή at h. Ven. 19 and Call. H. 4.258, ὅτοβος at Soph. OC 1479, «éAados at Eur. Hel. 1308. With his following κώδων χάκλεος and ἤχησεν Crinagoras is perhaps playfully reminiscent of Call. Η. 4.257-8, as

the ‘penetrating shout’ there is ‘heard through the brazen aether’ αἰθήρ | χάλκεος ἀντήχησε διαπρυσίην ὀλολυγήν.

2 πολλάκι: at the usual Homeric sedes (Il. 1.396, 3.232, 9.490, al.). Πολλάκι, πολλά, πάντα frequently serve as foils in preparation for the ensuing climax of the speech in Attic prose and drama; see E. Fraenkel, ‘Eine Anfangsforme| attischer Reden; Glotta 39 (1960), 1-5, Race 112 with n. 194.

IIıoaiov... πεδίων: the same phrase at anon. AP 9.362,2. Cf. Nonnus D. 37.138 πέδον [Tisatov, Pind. O, 13.29 πεδίων ἐκ Πίσας (see above, intr. note). Cf

Moretti 1953, n. 43=Ebert n. 68,1f. (204 Βα the latest) πρῶτος ἐγὼ Τρώων Πισάτιδος ἔρνει ἐλαίας / στεφθεὶς καρύχθην. Pisa was a spring at Olympia, after which the whole area was named. Cf. Strabo 8.3,31. Πῖσα, Πισαῖος often stand

for ‘Olympia, ‘Olympic’ in literature; in epigrams, cf. Alc. Mess. AP 12.64=9 | HE, Archias 9.19=19,6, Antip. Thess. 7.390=62,3 GP, Lucill. 11.258,1 and 11.81,3,

anon, API 54,4, ‘Simon. API 24=25,1 FGE. See further Gerber on Pind. O. 1.18 ITicas.

ὑπὲρ πεδίων: in the whole poem Crinagoras is probably playing with /l. 18.219-23, where Achilles shouts ‘with brazen voice, and is thus compared to a trumpet. See below on κώδων χάλκεος; for the sound which spreads ‘over Pisa’s plains; cf. Il. 18.228 τρὶς μὲν ὑπὲρ τάφρου μεγάλ᾽ ἴαχε δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς.

3 στρηνές: ‘harshly, a rare word, probably connected with strenuus (see Chantraine 1968 and Frisk s.v.), Ap. Rh. 2.323, Antip. Thess. 7.287=58,3 GP, where it is also used as an adverb. Cf. στρηνός in Nicostratus fr. 38 and στρηνόφωνος in Callias fr. 37 K-A. φθεγξαμένης: for φθέγγεσθαι describing the sound of an instrument, cf. Theogn. 532 αὐλῶν φθεγγομένων, 761 φόρμιγξ δ᾽ ad φθέγγοιθ᾽ ἱερὸν μέλος

(see Van Groningen ad loc.), Xen. An. 4.2,7,5.2,14 4 τε! καὶ ἡ σάλπιγξ ἐφθέγξατο. ὁ πρίν... χρόνος: cf. Soph. Ph. 1224 ἐν τῷ πρὶν χρόνῳ; also Eur. Andr. 5. The

phrase is used mainly in prose: cf. Thuc. 1.23,3, 4.2,1, 4.41,3, often in Hippocrates. For prose words in Hellenistic poetry, cf. Giangrande 1975b, 15-18. ἔχει: Hecker (1843, 172 and 1852, 259) compared Phanias AP 12.31=1,2 HE Batos ἔχει τὸν σὸν ἔρωτα χρόνος, Antiphilus 9.192=36,8 GP εἶπεν ἔχειν αἰὼν ἕνδεκα Πιερίδας, Peek 1736=558,1f. Kaibel (Rome, AD II) σεμνὴν Πηνελόπην ὁ πάλαι

AP 8.350= 13 βίος, ἔσχε δὲ καὶ viv / σεμνὴν Φηλικίταν, «ri. Add Peek 2005,39= 547,6 Kaibel

[κ]αὲ σὸν ἐν ὀψιγόνοις ἄνθος ἔχοι τι χρόνος.

δυσὶ νίκαις: two victories at the same Olympic festival are recorded: cf. Schol. Pind. O, 13.la Τρισολυμπιονίκαν" παρόσον τρεῖς νίκας αὐτοῖς συμβέβηκε γενέσθαι, τῷ μὲν παιδὲ δύο κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἡμέραν, πεντάθλῳ καὶ σταδίῳ ἀγωνισαμένῳ, τῷ δὲ πατρὶ Θεσσαλῷ τοὔνομα πρῶτον ἐν τῇ ξθ΄ Ὀλυμπιάδι. Cf. also CEG 844=Ebert n. 37=Moretti 1953, n. 21,3f. (IV Bc, 370-365 according to Moretti) οὐ γάρ τις Ὀλυμπίᾳ ἐστεφανώθη / ωὐ[τὸΪ]ς [ἀνὴ]ρ πυγμῇ παγκρατίῳ re κρατῶν, on the

Thasian Theogenes. The 5816 feat wasalso achieved by the Theban Cleitomachus. See Paus. 6.15,3; cf. above, intr. note.’ For two victories in the same contest, other than the Olympiad, cf. Ebert 47,1f. (IV Bc, two victories in the same Pythian contest), Kaibel 942= Moretti 1953, n. 55 (I Bc, an unnamed contest).

4f, et: ‘citing a fact as basis for argument’; see LS] s.v. B VI; Rubensohn compared Antip. Thess. AP 9.418=82,7 GP, Paul. Sil. 5.291,1, Ap. Rh. 1.1285. Cf. also Bion fr. 8,8 and Asclep. 7.145=29,3 HE (see Reed on Bion loc. cit.).

καί: ‘you won even three victories’; for this use of kai, even’ (ascending climax), see Denniston 293, II, Ai.

τρισσούς....| ἀστοῖς: Stadtmiiller’s conjecture ἀστούς, accepted by Gow-Page, Beckby, Waltz, and Conca-Marzi-Zanetto, in combination with Ap. G.s and Ap. B’s eis, is preferable in comparison to other suggestions more radical and less natural in terms of meaning.'” It results, however, in a rather difficult and unusual sense, τρισσοὺς ἤγαγες eis στεφάνους ἀστοὺς Μιλήτου, ‘you brought the citizens of Miletus to (receive) three crowns’: the parallels from epigram support the general meaning (Kaibel 938,4, I Bc or AD I, εὐόλβου δὲ πάτρας ἄστυ καλὸν στεφαν[; see also below, on ἤγαγες ...]... Μιλήτου), but not, of course, the sense ἄγω τινὰ els στεφάνους, The problem could be easily solved at the smallest possible cost, if we read τρισσοὺς ἤγαγες els'' στεφάνους | ἀστοῖς 9 In different Olympiads it is, of course, a frequent achievement. Cf, for instance, AApp 1.102,1f,, ‘Simon? AP 13.14= 35,3f. PGE. 10 Ey. Reiske’s (1754, 66 and 1766, 54) εἰ δέ au καὶ τρισσοῖς ἤγαλες ἐν στεφάνοις / ἀστὸς MiAyrov, Δημόσθενες (at si tu Miletum patriam ternis coronis, victoriae indicibus, ornares; Ap. L.,on which Reiske based his edition, reads εἰ δὲ σὺ καὶ τρισσοῖς ἤγαγες ἐν στεφάνοις / ἀστὸς Μιλήτου), Brunck’s εἰ δὲ ab καὶ τρισαοὺς ἤγαγες εἰς στεφάνους / ἀστὸς Μίλητον Δημόσθενες, the suggestion of Jacobs (which is not printed, however) τρισσοὺς ἤλασας εἰς στεφάνους | ἀστὸς Μιλήτου Δημόσθενες, Hecker's εἰ δὲ σὺ καὶ τρισσοὺς ἠγάγεο στεφάνους / ἀατὸς Μιλήτου Δημόσθενες (1843, 172) and εἰ δέ σε καὶ τριασοὺς ἤγαγεν εἰς στεφάνους (1852, 259), Rubensohns (accepted by Paton) τρισσοὺς ἤγαγες eis στεφάνους / ἀστὸν McAjrou Anpoobeve, Sternbach's (1890, 210) τρισσοὺς nyayes εἰς ἀστὸν Μιλήτου Δημοαθένη (accepting Rubensohns ἀστόν and changing P’s στεφάνους Δημόσθενες to Anpoobérn).

i its had already been proposed by Bothe (see Dübner's apparatus), but without any other

change: τριασοὺς ἤγαγες εἷς στεφάνους ἀστὸς Μιλήτου leaves ἤγαγες without the required indirect object. Robert (1967, 113) approves εἶς, while drawing attention to editors’ disregard of it,

160

AP 6.350 = 13

Μιλήτου, Δημόσθενες: now we have an emphatic juxtaposition of the three crowns and the uniqueness of the victor, which creates a crescendo of intensity

culminating in the final statement about the unprecedented volume of the trumpet. For the antithesis one-three, cf., for instance, Eur. [A 1137 [δαίμων els τριῶν δυσδαιμόνων, Or. 1244 τρισσοῖς φίλοις γὰρ els ἀγών, Antip. Sid. Ap 6.287=52,2 τὰν μίαν αἱ τρισσαὶ πέζαν ὑφηνάμεθα, anon. 12.89=2,1 HE, Nonnus

D. 36.109. For εἷς without a qualified noun, cf. Eur. [A 1358 καὶ μαχῇ πολλοῖσιν εἷς. For the word order, cf. Opp. Hal. 4.376 πολλαῖς δ᾽ εἷς ἀλόχοις πέρι μάρναται. To the possible objection that the word order TPIELOYE HEATED ΕἸΣ ZTE®BANOYZ would render difficult the reading εἷς, as E/Z followed by an accusative strongly suggests to the reader the prepositional construction, one could argue that breathings and accents were not absent from Hellenistic script, especially when identically spelt words had to be distinguished from one another; see Laum 357ff., 454 ff. For εἷς followed by an accusative, as in our poem, cf. anon. AP7.323=50,1 FGE eis δύ᾽ ἀδελφειοὺς ἐπέχει rados.'? rpıooovs: for poetic celebrations of three victories in (different) contests, cf.

Pind. P 8.78-80, in 1. 80 the accomplishment described as νίκαις τρισσαῖς. In the same contest, cf. Pind. O. 13.38f. (three victories at the Panathenaia in the same day), Alc. Mess. AP 9.588=17,6 HE τοὺς τρισσοὺς Ἰσθμόθεν εἷλε πόνους.

See above, intr. note. nyayes.../...Midnrov: cf. Kaibel 938,4 (see above, on tpicaaus.../ ἀστοῖς), AApp 1.291,7f. οὐκ ἄν τις ἀριθμήσειεν | ots ἀν Ἀχαιΐδα] γῆϊν A) yayouny στεφάνους; also Posid. 87,1f. Austin-Bastianini {r[roı].../...dyayonlels, στέφανον (πἰῶλοι], according to a different reconstruction; see Hose in F Angid

et al., Der Neue Poseidipp, ad loc.). See Bastianini-Gallazzi on P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309, col. XIIL31f. For the honour bestowed on Miletus by an athletic victory, cf. Moretti 1953, n. 52=Ebert n. 74,2 (II Bc). For the idea of the winner ‘crowning’ his city, see further Ebert on ἢ. 12,4 (='Simon! API 2=30 FGE) and on 25,3; also Robert (1967) 113, n. 2.

Δημόσθενες: Cichorius (who maintained that Demosthenes was a trumpeter)

identified him with one of the lovers of Augustus’ daughter Julia brought to trial in 2 Bc (Macr. Sat. 1.11,17). Cichorius also associated the present Demosthenes

with M. Antonius Demosthenes, whose name appears in CIL 6.4264, an inscription from Livia’s columbarium. See further Cichorius (1922) 318f. this

2 Cf. also Soph. OC 563f εἷς πλεῖστ᾽ ἀνήρ... ἤθλησα κινδυνεύματα. For the frequent contrast between ‘one’ and ‘many’ in Greek literature, see Fraenkel on Aesch, Ag. 1455. For this antithesis in tragedy, see also Collard on Eur. Supp. 936. The εἷς which follows the personal pronoun is often accompanied by ὧν, μόνος, or both (cf. Plato Gorg. 475e, 472b, 472c). However, ὧν and μόνος are not indispensable: cf. Eur. [A 1358, Opp. Hal. 4.376. In Aesch. Eur. 199, αὐτὸς σὺ τούτων ov μεταίτιος mein, / ἀλλ᾽ eis τὰ πᾶν ἔπραξας, εἷς has been suggested and is usually accepted by editors.

AP 6.350= 13

161

view was followed by recent scholars, too.'* The name occasionally appears in inscriptions from Miletus; see Kawerau-Rehn'*

n. 137,6, 122,11 34 (IV sc),

151,23 (II sc), Gerkan-Krischen’” n. 336 (An II). Robert (1967, 114f., n. 7) suggested that the Demosthenes of the present epigram may be the Milesian athlete celebrated in Moretti 1953, n. 59 (inscription from the theatre of Miletus)

who has won in the 20 sc Olympiad in contests lost in the inscription, who has been a τριαστής in according to Robert, mentary patronymic the 20 Βα Olympic

the Nemean, Pythian, and other games, and who was, son of a Democrates (- - - κράτους Μιλήσιον). This fragis attested in an inscription from Olympia, which reports victory in the diaulos of the son, whose name has not

survived; Robert connected the two inscriptions and further suggested that Demosthenes is a suitable name for the son of a Democrates.’® Moretti (1987,

73f.), who thought that Crinagoras’ Demosthenes won the trumpet competition in three successive Olympiads (suggesting 24, 20, and 16 BC), objected to Robert's view arguing that the epigram speaks of an unprecedented achievement, whereas being an Olympic τριαστής is not unique (see above, intr. note). It can be observed that it was definitely an extremely rare attainment to be a τριαστής, although not unique: Crinagoras need not have known the few other persons who accomplished such a feat. As for Moretti’s other point, that the specific contests are not named, Robert's observation (1967, 114) that ‘devant

cette gloire la mention de la catégorie de l'athléte est devenue secondaire et n’a pas été faite’ seems convincing. Crinagoras’ poems anyway often offer the minimum amount of information required; see Intr., Language and Style, Brevity. Needless to say, these answers to Moretti’s arguments do not confirm Robert's identification, but just support the assumption that Crinagoras’ athlete is an

Olympic τριαστής. The real difficulty in Robert’s identification is, as Robert also, naturally, saw (1967, 114f., n. 7), the reference in the inscription from

Olympia to the diaulos only. 5f. κώδων / χάλκεος: cf. Antip. Sid. AP 6.46=2,3 HE χαλκοπαγῆ

σάλπιγγα.

Χάλκεος is an epic adjective: see on Crin. 5,1. Cf. also Soph. Aj. 17, where Athena's voice is compared to the instrument: χαλκοστόμου κώδωνος Τυρσηνικῆς with Schol.: κώδων καλεῖται τὸ πλατὺ τῆς σάλπιγγος" ἀπὸ μέρους τὴν σάλπιγγα φησί. Note that Achilles’ voice is described as ὄπα χάλκεον Il, 18,222, shortly after the simile in which his voice is compared to the sound the trumpet. Cf. I. 5.785 Yrévropi... χαλκεοφώνῳ; see Stanford and Finglass

ws δὲ in of on

Soph. loc. cit. Κώδων is the curved mouth of the trumpet which belongs to the 13 See I. Cogitore, La légitimité dynastique dAuguste a Neron a lépreuve des conspirations (Rome 2002), 168 with n. 40.

14 G, Kawerau, A. Rehm, Das Delphinion in Milet (Berlin 1914). 15 A, Gerkan, αὶ von-Krischen, Milet: Thermen und Palaestren (Berlin 1928).

16 For the association of the two inscriptions, publication and commentary, see L. Robert, Hellenica, vol. 7 (Paris 1949), 17-25.

162

AP 6.350= 13

sixth type of the σάλπιγξ, to which alone the epithet ‘Tyrrhenian’ is restricted

by the Scholiast on II. 18.219. ἤχησεν... στόματι: cf. Call. fr. 757 φθέγγεο κυδίστη πλειοτέρῃ φάρυγι with

Pfeiffer ad loc. There are more examples in Latin: Cic. De Off. 1.18,61 quasi pleniore ore laudamus, Hor. Od. 2.13,26 sonantem plenius aureo... plectro, Πλειότερος is Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Od. 11.359), comparative of πλεῖος

(πλέως). For uses of the word in Hellenistic poetry, see Sens'” 205. For the general image, cf. Moretti 1953, n. 43=Ebert n. 68,1-3 πρῶτος ἐγὼ Τρώων.

capuxOny,.../...Nepeéa τ᾽ tayev ἀθλοφόρον. Paton, following Rubensohn, prints ἠχήσει. Sternbach (1890, 210) changes to ἤχει σοῦ, taking σύ of |. 4 to refer to the trumpet and offering a rather forced interpretation. There is no reason to change C's correction, however (for C and for his exemplar, see on Crin. 14,3 ὦ χαρίεσσα γύναι), as, since the poem opens with the trumpet's previous blasts, it is far more natural for the poet to conclude by saying that the trumpet has never sounded so loudly in the past than to assert that a louder sound will be never heard again, i.e. such a deed will surely never be achieved in the future. ” “The Corpus Asclepiadeum and Early Epic, in M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, G. C. Wakker, Hellenistic Epigrams (Hellenistica Groningana 6, Leuven et al. 2002), 201-14.

AP 5.108 =14

“» ? „ Δειλαίη,4 τί / σε πρῶτον ἔπος, τί / δὲ \ δεύτατον εἴπω; δειλαίη- τοῦτ᾽ἐν παντὶ κακῷ ἔτυμον. Οἴχεαι, ὦ χαρίεσσα γύναι, καὶ ἐς εἴδεος ὥρην ἄκρα καὶ εἰς ψυχῆς ἦθος ἐνεγκαμενη. Πρώτη σοὶ ὄνομ᾽ ἔσκεν ἐτήτυμον" ἣν γὰρ ἅπαντα δεύτερ᾽ ἀμιμήτων τῶν ἐπὶ σοὶ χαρίτων. a

5

LA

A”

+4

3

>

,

\

ν

__— AP 5.108 Kpivayédpov [J] eis κόρη [sic] καλουμένην Ilpwrnv caret Pl

3 οἴχεαι C; οἴχεται P | γύναι C in textu, post rasuram, et praeterea in margine sinistro: νύμφη P ante rasuram

Brunck n. 41, Rubensohn n. 1

Miserable, what word shall I say to you first, what last? Miserable; this is the true word in the whole present misfortune. You are gone, charming lady, standing out in bloom of beauty and in character of soul. Prote was a true

name for you; for everything was second to your inimitable graces. An epitaph for a lady called Prote. In the present epigram we have lamentatio and laudatio, among the parts of a full epicedion; see further on Crin. 16, intr. note. As is generally the case with Crinagoras, the poem displays a careful construction. It is divided into three self-contained couplets, proceeding from the larmentatio (first couplet) to the laudatio (second and third couplet). The first couplet, which opens with a rhetorical question, announces the sad situation, while the second one offers the

main information. The reason for the misery is the death of a woman whose principal features fill the two lines: she was beautiful in body and soul. The plain

fact of death is stressed, appearing as the first word of the couplet, and is expressed as a departure (οἴχεαι), with a brevity conveying the sense of irrevocability. In the final couplet we hear for the first time her name and an (admittedly

commonplace) comment on this name, which exploits its obvious connotations. The antithetical pair ‘first and second’ opens and closes the poem, creating an impression of circularity, as happens often in Crinagoras’ epigrams

(see Intr., Language and Style, Structure): the combination of the notion of being first (the dead woman being prote in name and in essence) with its oppog. ite, the idea of being second (which holds for everything else compared to her), which is developed fully in the last couplet, has already appeared in the rhet. orical question of the first line, where it serves a different purpose (the poer’s

bewilderment as to which words to use).' The principal epithets describing the lady, δειλαίη and χαρίεσσα (both emphasized, the former with its position and with repetition, the second with the elaboration of its sense in εἶδος, in op ἄκρα, and in the poem’ concluding word, χαρίτων), sum up the traits of her

existence that the poet judges as most important: beauty (in both a physical ang moral sense) and unhappiness, notions actually enclosing the whole poem as its first and its last word (δειλαίη-- χαρίτων). All in all, the poem is full of repetitions (δειλαίη-δειλαίη,

ἔπος -εἴπω, δεύτατον-δεύτερ᾽, ἔτυμον--ἐτήτυμον,

χαρίεσσα--χαρίτων) which underline the core of the situation: the poem is an account of the unhappiness, and of the true excellence and grace, of this dead lady. For rhetorical techniques used in the poem, see below, on δειλαίη.

The epigram is out of place in the fifth book, and its appearance here can be accounted for by its vocabulary due to which the Anthologist, who evidently read the poem carelessly, probably took it to be erotic. Cf the conventional praises of the beloved involving χάρις (χαρίεσσα, χαρίτων; see below on χαρίτων), and the reference to the lady’s εἶδος. The explanation of this confusion is also probably to

be found in the fact that the erotic epigram just above Crinagoras’ poem in P (Philod. AP 5.107=5 GP=23 Sider) has χαρίεσσα in the first line,

The exploitation of the dead woman’s name is more or less to be expected (as it is also with Ge, the dead man’s mother, in 15, the young boy Eros in 17, and Cleopatra-Selene in 18). As regards the correspondence between the person's

name and his/her qualities, Stadtmiiller compares Antip. Thess. AP 9.517=4,3f. GP (on Glaphyrus the piper) Γλάφυρε / οὔνομα καὶ τέχνης καὶ σώματος tol. 5 of

the present poem, together with Leont. Schol. API 33,2 τῆς yap ἐπωνυμίης ἄξια πάντα φέρεις and Peek 1018=640,4 Kaibel (AD II) οὔνομά μοι Γλάφυρος καὶ φρενὸς εἴκελον ἦν; Rubensohn’s citations include Kaibel 63=1785 Peek (IV-II] BC), Kaibel 435=1404 Peek (ap I-III), Kaibel 502=2035,12 Peek (Ap III-IV), Kaibel 621=1333,3f. Peek (ap II-III). Cf. also Peek 875,1f. (AD II?) αἰνήσας ra

δίκαια Arkalveros ἐκ βασιλῆος οὔνομα τοῦτ᾽ ἔλαχεν, Peek 876=520,1f. Kaibel (AD II?) τοῦτο γὰρ ἐν ζωοῖσιν ἐπώνυμον ἔσκε γυναικί | εἵνεκεν ἧς ἀρετῆς καὶ σωφροσύνης μάλ᾽ ἀρίστης, the womans name appearing in the inscription

above the epigram as (probably) Φ[ρό]νη[σ]ις Lddpacio[v]. In the Anthology, cf. also Jul. Aeg. 7.599,1, 7.561,3. See further Schulte 81 (on Julian 7.599, intr. * Gow-Page remark that there is some awkwardness in the poet starting with ‘miserable is the (rue name for you’ and finishing with ‘Prota was the true name for you. However, |. 5 does not actually repeat |. 2; Crinagoras does not say in Ihe beginning that δειλαέη is the woman's real name, but that it expresses the true essence of the misfortune.

note), Grewing on Mart. 6.8,5; for plays with names in epigrams, see also Ὁ. Weinreich, Die Distichen des Catull (Tübingen 1926), 90f. For further speaking

names and for the poets’ interest in etymology, see on Crin. 17,1 and 6 οὔνομα... ἔδωκεν. Cichorius (1888, 49 and MDAI (Athen), 13 (1888), 72-3, n. 34; also (1922), 322,

n. 3) was the first to suggest that the name appearing in [Ὁ 12.2.260 refers to the woman addressed in the present poem.” The Mytilenean inscription, as edited

by Paton in the JG corpus,’ runs: Φίλων Aradl[eveos - - -

IIparav γύνα[ικα - - kat φιλαγαθίας [ἕνεκα *

Later scholars have objected to this identification. Rejecting the reading of πρῶταν asa first name, and reading Φίλων as Φιλών (accusative of Philo, name of a woman appearing in two other Mytilenean inscriptions as daughter of Diaphenes), Robert (1935, 473-6) suggested that Philo was daughter of Diaphenes, who was son of Potamon, the fellow-ambassador of Crinagoras (see Intr., Testimonia 1 and 5), identifying Diaphenes of IG 12.2.260 with Gaius Claudius Diaphenes of IG 12.2.656 (which is dated between 2 Bc and AD 14); see also R. W, Parker 123-4. Geist (45f.) suggested that Prote is a translation of Prima, the name of a Roman lady,” and Rubensohn (6) put forward the possibility that

Prote might be a Roman libertina (mentioning the occurrence of the name Prote in CIL 10.254). However, even if Cichorius’ identification is not valid,

there is no need to reject the assumption that the poem refers to the death ofa Greek woman who bore this name. For the occurrence in Greece of the name, see below, on Πρώτη. 1 δειλαίη: the adjective never occurs in Homer in the uncontracted form,° but it is frequent in tragedy (for instance, Soph. Ant. 1272, Tr. 1243, OT 1347, Eur. ? Other critics who accepted this view were Hoffmann and Paton. See Robert (1935) 474, n. 1.

This assumption has been held, more recently, by C. Williams, “Hellenistic and Roman Buildings in the Mediaeval Walls of Mytilene, Phoenix 38 (1984), 45, followed by E. H. Williams, ‘Notes on Roman Mytilene, in 5, Walker and Av. Cameron (eds.), The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire (London 1989), 166. * W.R. Paton, Inscriptiones Graecae, XII. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum, 2. Inscriptiones Lesbi, Nesi, Tenedi (Berlin 1899). * However, the first line should be printed ΖΔιαφέϊνη (which is what Robert, 1935, 473 and R. W. Parker, 123, print), or 4iadé[veos (according to Paton’s restoration of the ending), because E is

clearly visible in the inscription (see Robert 1935, P] XXIX, middle photograph). > For the name, cf, for instance, Plut. Rom. 14.8 καὶ γενέσθαι καὶ παῖδας αὐτῷ, μίαν μὲν Buyarepa Πρίμαν, τῇ τάξει τῆς γενέσεως οὕτω προσαγορευθεῖσαν (the eldest daughter of Romulus); also CIL 1.1010, 5.2608, 5.2805. Cf. G. Davis Chase, ‘The Origin of Roman Praenomina, HSCP 8 (1897), 171.

6 However, δειλός is usual: in the vocative cf., for instance, I/. 11.816, Od. 10.431, 20.351.

166

AP 5.108 = 14

Med. 1265, Hec, 156, Εἰ. 183). In the Anthology, it is usually associated with the misfortune of death: Eutolmius 7.611,2 (verse-opening), anon. 7.334,4, on the

parents left behind; δείλαιος qualifies the dead in Leon. 7.654=16,5, Theocr 7.662=9,3 HE, Automedon 7.534=12,3, Erycius 7.397=8,1 GP, Perses 7.730=7 | HE, in all epigrams except Erycius’ in verse-opening. Crinagoras again uses the adjective at the same sedes at 46,4 (of the dead woman) and at 16,1 (of manki nd,

unhappy because of death). Cf. Crin. 47,1 ἃ δείλαιε... θυμέ. The repetition of this apostrophe at the beginning of the next line creates the effect of πάθος. C£

Apsines On Narration 27 (Dilts-Kennedy 134) χρήσιμοι δ᾽ ἐν αὐταῖς (sc. in the ‘pathetic narrations’) καὶ of σχετλιασμοὶ καὶ αἱ ἐπαναλήψεις" “Θῆβαι de Θῆβαι"

See also Martin 162. For the effect of πάθος, see also next note. The apostrophe to the dead is not uncommon at the opening of sepulchra] epigrams. Historical/mythological figures are addressed directly by their name in Antip. Sid. 7.8=10, 7.27=15, 7.29=16 HE, Erycius 7.36=11 GP, al. Other dead

persons, sometimes qualified by an epithet expressing lament, are addressed to in Antip. Sid. 7.241=25,1, 7.467=54,1, Theodoridas 7.738=13,2f. HE, Mel, 7.468=125,1, 7.476=56,1 HE, Antip. Thess. 7.286=14,1, Thallus 7.188=3,1 GP. Cf.

also Crin. 20,1. τίσε... εἴπω;: the question ‘what shall I say first, what last’ is a typical rhetorical figure. Cf. Od. 9.14, Qu. Sm. 14.289, anon. API 96,1, Eur. Herc. 485, Supp. 687f.,” Stat. Silv, 1.3,34. Cf. also the Homeric formula ἔνθα τίνα πρῶτον, τίνα ὕστατον

ἐξενάριξαν (Il. 5.703, 11.299, 16.692). These rhetorical questions can enhance the effect either of mourning (for instance, Qu. Sm. 14.289, mentioned above) or of admiration/praise (cf. anon. AP! 96,1, mentioned above).* Here both

nuances are present, although the predominant feature is that of lament. These

questions create the effect of πάθος: cf. Apsines On Epilogue 53 (Dilts-Kennedy 236, Patillon 110) ἐν τοῖς πάθεσι καὶ ai διαπορήσεις χρήσιμοι εὐθὺς ἐν ἀρχῇ: Ti

πρῶτον ἢ τί τελευταῖον εἴπω; and On Narration 27 (Dilts-Kennedy 134). See further Patillon 140, ἢ. 223, Martin 287f. For rhetorical questions in Greek epigrams and Martial, including questions in a context of lament, cf. Siedschlag 19ff.; see further on Crin. 16, intr. note and If, on 19,3f. ri, on 22,1f., and on 37,1 οἵους ἀνθ᾽ οἵων.

” For more examples from Euripides, see Collard ad loc. ® On the aporia of the speaker of an encomion, cf. also Theocr. 17.11 τί πρῶτον καταλέξω, Call. H. 4.1 τίνα rpönov...deloeıs; See further G. Giangrande, ‘Kallimacheische Beiträge, Hermes 91

(1963), 157, and Rossi and Hunter Ecphrasis of the Hagia Sophia, see Byzantine Period (Helsinki 1968), aporia: ἡ τρίτη δὲ τοῦ προοιμίου

on Theocr. loc, cit. For examples from Paulus Silentiarius’ T. Viljamaa, Studies in Greek Encomiastic Poetry of the Early 100. Theocritus complies with Menander’s instructions for ἔννοια, (καθόλου δὲ τούτου μέμνησο τοῦ παραγγέλματος)

προκαταρτκτικὴ γενέσθω τῶν κεφαλαίων, λοιπὸν ὡς διαποροῦντος τοῦ λέγοντος, ὅθεν χρὴ τὴν

ἀρχὴν τῶν ἐγκωμίων ποιήσασθαι (Menander 369, 13-17); see Cairns 106 and Russell-Wilson 274.

AP 5.108 = 14

167

Together with the alliteration of δ, enhanced by the repetition of δειλαίη in the second line, the first line also displays alliterations of r and 7. A most striking alliteration of in an epitaph occurs in the beginning of Mel. AP7.476=56,1-3 HE. ἔπος ...eimw: note the correspondence formed by the fact that the two hemi-

stichs of the line end with etymologically related words. "Eros εἰπεῖν is a Homeric formula (11. 1.108, 1.543, 2.361, 3.204, 20.250, 24.75, Od. 8.397, al.).

Sedrarov: instead of ὕστατον, as in Il. 19.51, Od. 1.286 (with S. West ad loc.). With ἔπος, as in the present poem, cf. Od. 23.342 τοῦτ᾽ dpa δεύτατον εἶπες ἔπος.

For the sense of δεύτατος as ‘last, cf. also Pind. O. 1.50 with Gerber ad loc.,

[Moschus] Meg. 65, Qu. Sm. 12.332. Crinagoras’ use of the adjective constitutes a variation of the tradition, as in the rhetorical question ‘which first, which last’ the conventional word is ὕστατος; see above, on ti ce... εἴπω;. Ap. G., Ap. B., Supp. Gr. 886 (iii), and Ap. R. have ὕστατον, a correction probably influenced by the commonness of the scheme πρῶτος - ὕστατος. See also Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Apographs of P, Parisin. Supp. Gr. 886 and Apographon Ruhnkenianum. 2 τοῦτ᾽... ἔτυμον: similar phrasings, involving reference of τοῦτο to a phrase mentioned before, are Jocastas ἰοὺ ἰού, δύστηνε: τοῦτο γάρ σ᾽ ἔχω | μόνον

προσειπεῖν, ἄλλο 5’ οὔποθ᾽ ὕστερον (OT 1071} and Aesch. Pers. 737 καὶ πρὸς ἤπειρον σεσῶσθαι τήνδε, τοῦτ᾽ ἐτήτυμον;. For a word or speech combined with

ἔτυμον, Cf, the Homeric ψεύσομαι, ἢ ἔτυμον ἐρέω; Il. 10.534, Od. 4.140, Soph. Ant. 1320 dap’ ἔτυμον; cf. Leon. AP7.13=98,4 HE εἶπ᾽ ἐτύμως a mais.

ἐν παντὶ κακῷ: Page corrects to κακοῦ on stylistic grounds, preferring the sense ‘in uttermost disaster’ and rejecting the sense ‘in every evil’ (ἐν παντὶ κακῷ) as ‘dull. For the phrase proposed by Page, cf. Plato Rep. 5790 μᾶλλον ἐν παντὶ κακοῦ ein, Thuc. 7.55,1 ἐν παντὶ δὴ ἀθυμίας ἦσαν, Hdt. 7.118 ἐς πᾶν κακοῦ

ἀπίκατο; see K-G II (1) 278. There is no reason to alter P’s reading, however, since the emphasis laid on the intensity of the disaster that Page's suggestion offers seems less appropriate than the simpler assertion of the totality of the misfortune (as it is with κακῷ) in this context. For the (admittedly rare) occur-

rence of the phrase in literature, cf. Plut. Mor. 568a ἐν παντὶ κακῷ γενέσθαι διὰ φόβον.

3f. οἴχεαι: conventional verb for death. In an apostrophe to the deceased: Mnasalcas AP7.488=9,1f. HE (with Seelbach ad loc., on 18,2), Greg. Naz. 8.139,1, Theod. 7.732=12,1, Simias 7.203=1,4 HE (on a bird), all at verse-opening; cf.

Leon, 7.19=57,4, 7.273=62,5f., Theocr. 7.662=9,1, Anyte 7.492=23,1 HE. The participle οἰχόμενος is often used of the dead: Alc. Mess. AP 7.412=14,1, Antip. Sid. 7.423=28,7, 7.464=53,3, al. For the avoidance of direct description of death employing the literal verbs τελευτᾶν or ἀποθνήσκειν, and for the notion of death

as departure, see Skiadas (1967) 40f. and 41, n. 1. For a discussion of οἴχομαι in

particular, and its various uses, including the euphemistic one for die, see fur. ther E Letoublon, Π allait, pareil a la nuit (Paris 1985), 97-108. Οἰχόμενος for

‘dead’ in Callimachus in fr. 228,73 (οἰχομ[ένα]ν); see Lapp 31. C changed P's οἴχεται to οἴχεαι erasing the τ which is still discernible in the codex. For C and his source, see next note. Ap. L. has oryerat ἡ χαρίεσσα γύναι,

Supp. Gr. 886 (ii) has οἴχεται in textu and οἴχεαι in margine, retaining also P’, ὦ; see Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Apographs of B Parisin. Supp. Gr. 886,

ὦ χαρίεσσα γύναι: for χαρίεσσα, which mostly occurs in love epigrams, see on Crin, 1,3; cf. Crin. 18,3 τὴν χαρίεσσαν... Σελήνην (both at the same sedes ἃς in the present epigram). For the responsibility of the word for the inclusion of the present poem in the erotic epigrams, see above, intr. note. For the voca. tive, cf. Theocr. 3.6, 4.38 ὦ χαρίεσσ᾽ Ἀμαρυλλί, 11.30 χαρίεσσα κόρα, 18.38, anon. API 324,3.

P's unmetrical νύμφη was erased and corrected to γύναι by C, who also wrote γύναι in the left margin between lines 2 and 3. To check P's readings, C used an exemplar presumably different than that of P (whose scribes, that is J, A, By, Ba,

and B;, used the same exemplar, as Cameron suggests). J probably shared the

same exemplar with the other scribes, but the lemmata are mostly made up by himself; see Cameron (1993) 102f. Οἷς correction to γύναι here, then, seems to

derive from his own exemplar (the manuscript of Michael Chartophylax: see,

for instance, Gow (1958) 13, Cameron (1993) 116-20), and, needless to say, it is

not influenced by J’s κόρη in the lemma,” so that we have little reason to doubt it. Stadtmüller suspected that vuds, bride (e.g. Theocr. 18.15), probably lies behind P's νύμφη, which was originally the explanation of that vuds. Without excluding such a possibility, it can be observed that, were Prote a deceased bride, we would have probably heard something about her marriage, husband, or family and, perhaps, the conditions of her death. ἐς etdeos.../...éveyxapeévy: the praise of both the dead woman's beauty and character appears occasionally in epitaphs, although more usually her beauty alone is stressed:'° Anyte 7.490=6,3 HE κάλλευς καὶ πινυτᾶτος ava KAcos, | Jul. Aeg. 7.599,1f. (see above, intr. note), Peek 1282=174,1-3 Kaibel (Athens, Ap IM-IV), AApp add. 2.198b,5f. For a male, cf. Peek 810,6 (Paros, AD I) κάλλει καὶ

πινυταῖς τερπόμενον πραπίσιν. See also Griessmair 96f., Pircher 46ff. with n. 31. In anon-sepulchral poem, cf. Antonia’s praise by Crinagoras in 7,6 κάλλευς καὶ πραπίδων e€ox ἐνεγκαμένῃ; also Leont. Schol. API 33,1 and Qu. Sm. 4.129f, ἢ For examples of C’s ironic comments on the editing and comments of the scribes (A, J), see Cameron (1993) 113.

1% See Geoghegan 76 (on Anyte 7.490=6,3 Geoghegan) with n. 5. Cf, Anyte 7.649=8,3 HE. "" For Anyle’s use of the Homeric Od. 20.70f., see Geoghegan 75. See further on Crin. 7,6 κάλλευς.... ἐνεγκαμένῃ.

For the praise of the dead in epitaphs, see also on Crin. 16,4 ἄρτιος. ἐς eideos ὥρην: for eis + acc. ina context signifying excellence in regard to something, cf. Aesch. Pers. 326 πρῶτος eis εὐψυχίαν, Plato Charm. 158a,7 eis πάντα

πρῶτον εἶναι. The Ionic form εἴδεος occurs occasionally in prose (Herodotus, medical writers, etc.) and rarely in poetry (never in Homer): Arethas Deacon

AP 15,32,14 eideos ἀγλαΐης, anon. API 319,2 etdeos ἀπρεπίης, Peek 587=626,2 Kaibel (Rome, ap II-III, on a dog) iSeos (sic) ἀγλαΐαν. Cf. also Qu. Sm. 4.130,

14.113, Opp. Hal. 5.94, AApp add. 2.198b,11; the form occurs several times in Gregory of Nazianzus. On ὥρα as the bloom of youth, cf. Mimn. 3,1 JEG, Aesch. Supp. 997, Sept. 12,

Aristoph. Av. 1724. Crinagoras’ εἴδεος ὥρη is comparable to Aeschines 1.158,10f. καλλίστην ὥραν ὄψεως. The poet is perhaps paraphrasing here the hexameter

clausula εἴαρος ὥρη, for which cf., for instance, 4, Cer. 174, anon. AP 9.363,2 (Meleager’s authorship is rejected by Gow-Page, inter alios), anon. 9.580,3,

Nicarchus 11.407,1, Peek 1595=570,3 Kaibel (Ap II?); for ἔαρος... ὥρη, cf. IL 6.148. Crinagoras might be moreover playfully reminiscent of the Homeric κοίτοιο τάχ᾽ ἔσσεται ἡδέος ὥρη (Od. 19.510). ἄκρα... ἐνεγκαμένη: self-variation with Crin. 7,6 κάλλευς καὶ πραπίδων ἔξοχ᾽ ἐνεγκαμένη, Gow-Page cite Antip. Sid. AP 6.118=49,5f. HE a δὲ φέροιτο ἄκρα λύρας, Theocr. 12.31 ἄκρα φέρεσθαι, Peek 1121=224,2 Kaibel (II-I Bc) ἡ πάσης ἄκρα φέρουσ᾽ ἀρετῆς and reject, on these grounds, Jacobs’ unnecessary sugges-

tion raxpa (1826, 147, printed by Dübner). Page further mentioned the present phrasing commenting on Astydamas 1,2 FGE γλώσσης τερπνῆς πρῶτα.... φέρειν. Add Greg. Naz. AP 8.93,2 ἄκρα φέροντα naons...codins. In regard to a girl's beauty, cf. anon. API 324,4 ed δ᾽ εἴδους ἄκρα δέδωκε Κύπρις. For the idea and for a similar phrasing, cf. also Peek 488=50,1 Kaibel (390-365 BC) τὴν πάσης ἀρετῆς ἐπὶ τέρμα noAöcav. The use of ἄκρον for excellence in something first occurs in Hesiod Op, 291 eis ἄκρον ἵκηται (here in the context of a road metaphor, absent in the later examples), echoed by later poets: Tyrt. 12,43 LEG, Pind. N. 6.23f., al. See West on Hes. Op. 291 and, for the sepulchral use of the formula, Skiadas (1967) 77 and 78 with nn. 2 and 3. Similar phrasings are Aeschines 1.134,5f. κάλλει καὶ ὥρᾳ διενεγκόντες, Peek 1772=516,4 Kaibel (ap HI) πρῶτα φέρων πινυτῆς κῦδος ἐκαρπίσατο.

Rubensohn changes here, as in 7,6 and in 8,1, ἐνέγκ- to ἐνεικ-. Ἐνεγκ- does

occur in non-Attic poetry (cf. Pind. O, 13.66, P 9.36, 1. 8.23, Bacchyl. 17.62 Maehler; see also Intr., Language and Style, Atticisms, and Gow-Page on the present passage). Moreover, P’s insistence on using the form all three times weakens the possibility of corruption. ψυχῆς ἦθος: ψυχή in the sense of ‘soul’ first occurs in Pindar, fr. 133,3. Cf.

Hdt. 2.123, in earlier literature the word meaning ‘life. The expression τῷ τῆς ψυχῆς ἤθει appears in Plato Rep. 400d,7. For the distinction between ψυχή

and σῶμα in epitaphs of the Anthology, see Gow- Page on Philip 7.362=78,3 GP. The periphrasis ψυχῆς ἦθος for character’ (while ἦθος alone can express the sense) corresponds to Prote’s other balancing quality, εἴδεος ὥρην of the

previous line. Ap. G., Ap. B., and Supp. Gr. 886 (iii) have ἄνθος (Ap. R. has ἄνθος in textu,

ἦθος in margine; see Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Apographs of B Apographon Ruhnkenianum) unnecessarily.

Sf. Πρώτη: Πρώτη is rare (by contrast to the more common Πρῶτος), but not unattested in epigraphs. The epitaph Peek 1830=649 Kaibel (Rome, aD III) also refers to a dead woman of the same name. The name further occurs in South Italy (Bc I-I An), Cimmerian Bosporos (Myrmecion, Panticapaion, I-II AD),

Thrace (Rhegion, I Bc-an I), Scythia (Πρώτα: Olbia-Borysthenes, IV gc), Pergamon (I Bc-AD I); see LGPN s.v. in vols. IIIA, IV, VA respectively. In Cogs we have [7 pwriary (III 3c). Prote also appears in a Christian epitaph from Rome, AD II-III (Πρώτα, SEG 29.1007), (probably) in an epigraph on a statue base from Sparta, ap III? (ITpwra, SEG 30.409), and in an epitaph from Egypt,

II-I Bc (JIpaé7a, SEG 55.1833; however, the vocative of the male /Tpwrä has been suggested as equally possible here). Cf. also the name Πρῶτις in Posid, 58,1 Austin-Bastianini, attested in northern Greece and Asia Minor (see Bar in

F. Angiö et al., Der Neue Poseidipp, ad loc.). σοί: to treat the hiatus Hermann (1805, 771) corrects to σοί γ᾽ ὄνομ; printed by Jacobs’, and Jacobs (1826) 147, Geist, Beckby, and Waltz-Guillon, while Ap. L.

has σοὶ δ᾽, Cf. Od. 9.366 ἐμοί γ᾽ ὄνομα; the phrase also in Od. 24.306. However, P’s reading can be kept, as the poet is indifferent to hiatus; see Intr., Metre, Hiatus. Hiatus at this sedes elsewhere in Crinagoras: 18,1 καὶ αὐτὴ ἤχλυσεν, 27,5 οὕτως Kat tepat, only here in Philips Garland, and elsewhere in the Anthology vary rarely, See Page on Metrodorus AP 9.360=1,7 FGE πόθοι. ἔσκεν: the frequentative form of the imperfect of e¢ud occurs usually at the same sedes in Homer: Il. 3.180, 5.536, 6.153, 8.223, 11.669, 17.584, Od. 2.59, 10.304,

11.394, al. Elsewhere in the Anthology, at Jul. Aeg, 6.25,6 and once in Book 14.

In a similar context, cf. Peek 876,1 (see above, intr. note). In tragedy, where these forms are anyway rare, it occurs at Aesch. Pers. 656 and, perhaps, at Ag. 723; see Garvie on Pers. 656 (p. 268). Also, Call. Hec. 263,4, H. 1.11, τότ᾽ ἔσκεν | οὔνομα of Medcyouvis. Verbs in -σκὼ have long ago frequentative meaning.'” Crinagoras’ verse displays an impressive logical variatio, as ἔσκεν and ἦν appear in two successive sentences

3.47 ἀλλὰ lost their morphoand very

closely to one another (separated only by one word, erıyrupov)."?

'? See McLennan on Call, H. 1.11 for further examples from Callimachus and Apollonius. '? For this feature in Hellenistic poetry, see H. White Essays in Hellenistic Poetry (Amsterdam 1980), 42, n. 1 and ibid. (1985), 51.

Ap. L., Ap. G., Ap. B., Supp. Gr. 886 (iii), and Ap. R. have ἐστίν, printed by Reiske (1752, 135), Brunck, and Jacobs’. Supp. Gr. 886 (ii) retains P’s ἔσκεν. See

Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Apographs of P, Parisin. Supp. Gr. 886.

ὄνομ᾽... ἐτήτυμον: one more morphological variatio, in regard to ἔτυμον of the second line. The word, a poetic reduplicated form of ἔτυμον, appears

another three times in the Anthology (Marc. Arg. 6.333=14,3, Antip. Thess. 11.23=38,5 GP, anon. 9.593,1) and is frequent in Homer (Il. 1.558, 13.111, 18.128, Od. 3.241, 4.157, al.) and later epic (cf. Apollonius 1.142, 2.975, 3.358,

al., Opp. Hal. 1.104, 5.305, al., Nonnus D. 37.238, 47.257, Par. 1.24, 3.53, 4.6, 5.136, 7.156, al.). Always in Homer and Oppian, almost always in Nonnus, and usually in Apollonius it occurs at the same sedes as here, before the bucolic diaeresis. For the ἔτυμον ofa name, cf. Plut. Mor. 278c τοῦ ὀνόματος τὸ ἔτυμον and 638e προσάγειν τὴν ἐτυμότητα τοῦ ὀνόματος; for a word, cf. Diod. Sic. 1.111, Athen.

13.571d. Here the phrase also echoes the connection that earlier poets made

between a heros name and his nature: cf. Aesch. Ag. 682 with Fraenkel ad loc. See also above, intr. note. qv.../ δεύτερ᾽: the expression ‘everything is second, by comparison to the object of praise, occurs in Nossis AP 5.170=L,1f. HE ἅδιον οὐδὲν ἔρωτος, ἃ δ᾽ ὄλβια δεύτερα πάντα / ἐστίν, Greg. Naz. 8.209,6 χρυσοῦ δεύτερα πάντ᾽ ἀδίκοις; cf. Leon. Schol. AP! 364,3 δεύτερα δ᾽ εὕρετο πάντα τεὸς πόνος. ἀμιμήτων.... χαρίτων: at the same sedes αἱ Crin. 7,2; see ad loc. Note the sound effect of the homoeoteleuton (for which see Intr., Metre, Homoeoteleuton and

agreement between pentameter ends) and the alliteration of r. Other poems of the Anthology which form a similarly perfect ὁμοιοτέλευτον with the word

χαρίτων αἴ [π6 hemistichs of the pentameter, as here (both words ending in -rwy, not just

-wv),

are

Jul.

Aeg.

7,584,4

τούτων...

χαρίτων,

Marianus

9.669,12

ἱμερτῶν... Χαρίτων (both at the end of the poem). In another sedes, Jul. Aeg. 7.601,1 ἀμετρήτων χαρίτων.

χαρίτων: graces as qualities of the girl are usually present in erotic epigrams (Call. 5.146=15, Mel. 5.148=47, 5.149=32, 5.196=40 HE, Mac. Cons. 5.231, al.),

but they occasionally appear in sepulchral poems as well: Jul. Aeg. 7.599,2, 7.600,2, 7.601,1.

Xapieooa (v.3) and χαρίτων (v. 6) have the same stem, and their appearance

in neighbouring lines of a poem is a figure characteristic of Hellenistic poetry.'‘ Cf. also Crin. 26,4f. Ἐνυάλιον /...’Evua, where the figure is more impressive, as

it occurs in two subsequent lines.

14 See H. White 1989, 18f., 39f.

AP 5.108 = 14

τῶν emt σοί: the expression stands for τῶν σῶν; Polak’s correction to ἐνὲ g, fi unnecessary.'” Sternbach (1886, 91f.) compared Mundus AP 9.103=1,5 Gp τῶ, ἐπ᾿ enol μεγάλων οὔνομ᾽ ἔχουσα μόνον, which he translated as ‘de magnis in meum honorem perfectis rebus nomen tantum leve habens. Gow-Page remark ad loc. that 'τῶν ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ μεγάλων is a variation for τῆς ἐμῆς μεγαλειότητος᾽ and compare the phrase here with Mel. AP 5.160=26,2 HE 4 δ᾽ ἐν ἐμοὶ... κραδίῃ-:

ἐμὴ κραδία; see Gow-Page on Mel. 26,2 HE. The expression is (partly) Parallel

to (τίη. 4,6 6 πᾶς ἐπὶ cod: see ad loc.'®

V1. J. Polak, ‘Ad Anthologiae Palatinae partem priorem (Capp. V, VI, VII) coniectaneg? Mnemosyne 5 (1877), 435.

' "Ihe earlier edition of LS] had an entry for ἐπύε dat. where the expression could be replaced with an adjective: Plato Sprnp. 210b τὸ ἐπὶ wager τοῖς σώμασι κἀλλοςει σωματικόν, soph. Ph, 806 ram got... κακάτετα od. In the revised edition (1925-40) the phrases are translated ‘extending Over

all bodies’ and ‘the ills that lie upon thee’ (so Jebb and Kamerbeek) respectively. Crinagoras use

however, may actually offer an example of ἐπί + dat. in the sense ‘belonging to someone/ something:

AP 7.371=15

5

Γῆ μευ καὶ μήτηρ κικλήσκετο, γῆ με καλύπτει καὶ νέκυν" οὐ κείνης HOE χερειοτέρη. Ἔσσομαι ἐν ταύτῃ δηρὸν χρόνον, ἐκ δέ με μητρός ἥρπασεν ἠελίου καῦμα τὸ θερμότατον. Κεῖμαι δὲ ξείνῃ ὑπὸ χερμάδι μακρὰ γοηθείς Ἴναχος εὐπειθὴς Κριναγόρου θεράπων.

_— AP 7.371 [C] Κριναγόρου [J] eis Ἴναχον τὸν Κριναγόρου θεράποντα ἐπὶ ξένης τελευτήσαντα Pl IP 21 (εἰς θάνατον), 2 5.8.1. 5 δὲ Pir: δ᾽ ἐν PPI* Brunck n. 43, Rubensohn n. 14

Earth was the name of my mother; earth is also covering my body; this earth is no worse than that. In this I will be lying for long; from my mother I was seized by the sun's hottest blaze. I lie under a foreign stone, Inachus, the greatly lamented obedient servant of Crinagoras. Epitaph for Inachus, the poet's faithful servant. For the conventional content of an epicedion and for the extent to which this

appears in Crinagoras’ epitaphs, see on Crin. 16, intr. note. The poem is neatly divided into three couplets (as are also 9, 11, 14, 22, 28, 32; see further Intr., Language and Style, Structure), each one providing a new element of the funerary information (belonging to the conventional type, save the appearance of the mother’s name): name of the mother (here apt due to particular reasons) and announcement of death (first), cause of death (second), place of death and iden-

tity of the deceased (third). The epigram opens with a reference to the dead mans mother and ends with the presentation of the deceased and his status as the poet's servant: note that the names [ἢ and “Ivayos stand at the beginning of the first and

the last line respectively, and that the last line is enclosed between Ἴναχος and θεράπων. The central couplet continues the opening play with the notion of the

two ‘Earths, analysing, as it were, this contrasting but also matching pair.

Peek includes it in his epitaphs assuming that it is inscriptional (Peek 1703). for further discussion of this possibility, see on Crin. 16, intr. note. For epitaphs on servants, see Lattimore 280ff., and the detailed monograph of Raffeine, Epitaphs for young slaves are often found in inscriptions of the first century gq Martial offers various examples of such poems; cf. 1.88 on Alcimus, 5.34, 5.37 and 10.61 on Erotion,

11.91 on Canace, 6.28-9 on Glaucias, a freedman.

See

further Citroni on Mart. 1.88 intr. note, Kay on Mart. 11.91 intr. note, Galan

Vioque on Diosc. 36 (AP 7.162), intr. note. For inscriptional epitaphs on Slaves

see below, on εὐπειθής.... θεράπων; in the Anthology, cf. Diosc. 7.162=28 and 7.178=38 HE, Apollon. 7.180=4, Antip. Thess. 7.185=16 GP, anon. 7.179=25 FGp (the slaves speaking also in the first person), Call. 7.458=49 HE, Leon. or Theocr,

7.663=Theocr. 11 HE=20 Gow, Damascius 7.553. Lattimore observed that epitaphs which show a cordial relation between masters and servants are of a later period. We have two more epigrams of Crinagoras on the death of young slaves, 17 and 19. The ‘foreign stone’ indicates that Inachus died either during one of the poet’s journeys (the Second and Third Embassies being plausible candidates) or in Rome. For the common motif of the deceased as the speaker of epitaphs in the

classical and Hellenistic period, see Tueller 20, fig. 4 and 112-15, 11}... pyryp: the concept of Earth as the mother of all creatures is a common-

place in funerary epigrams. Cf. Mel. AP7.461=124,1 HE, Peek 441=606,4 Kaibel (ap II-III), al." Cf. the play between Earth as parent and as place of burial at Mac. Cons. AP 7.566, [ata καὶ Bide(@via, od μὲν τέκες, ἡ δὲ καλύπτεις, Peek 1039=563 Kaibel (Ap II), Peek 1184=402 Kaibel (ap II-III). See also on Crin. 31,3 τίκτουσαν.

[ἢ is presumably the proper name of the speaker's mother; the name is relatively common. In LGPN I s.v., we have an occurrence from Lesbos, III Bc. It is also quite frequent in Asia Minor; cf. MAMA? 4.172,1, 5.141,3, 7.59,1, TAM? 3.91.1, 382,1, al. Rafleiner (28f. with n. 1) holds that it is hard to decide whether Earth is the name of the slave's mother or the term refers to the common motif of the

‘Mother Earth, but is inclined to the latter assumption, citing CEG 482=Peek 1702=Kaibel 75,1f. (Athens, IV Bc) and Peek 1759=156 Kaibel (III Bc): Tata μὲν eis φάος ἦρε, Σιβύρτιε, γαῖα δὲ κεύθει / σῶμα. The first four lines of Crinagoras’

epigram, however, are built on the very contrast between ‘this’ earth and ‘that’ mother, and would lose their entire meaning if we did not accept that Inachus’ real mother was actually called ‘Earth’; οἴ, especially, |. 2 od κείνης ἦδε χερειοτέρη,

which is pointless if the two ‘Earths’ were not clearly distinguished.

U See further Griessmair 21, Skiadas (1967) 81, n. 4. * Monunienta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, 10 vols. (1928-93).

> Tituli Asiae Minoris, 5 vols. (1901-2007).

γῇ...γἢ: anaphora is a figure frequent in Hellenistic poetry; see on Crin. 12,1 Ἥρη... Ἥρη. Anaphora is also quite common in epitaphs; cf, for instance, Peek 1981=550,1 Kaibel (ap I-III) κλαίει μέν... κλαίει δ᾽, Peek 1243=564,1 and

4 Kaibel (Ap II), Peek 1763=651,5 Kaibel (Ap I-II), Kaibel 994,6 (Ap II-III), al.

(see Kaibel index I'V, s.v. anaphora).

κικλήσκετο: the verb, poetic for καλεῖν, is Homeric, both in the sense of ‘summon and ‘name. In the middle voice (κικλήσκετο, -Taı, -ομαι) it is rare in the

epic and occurs always at the same sedes as in the present poem: Il. 10.300, Od. 15.403, h. Ap. 372, Batr. 27. In sepulchral epigrams, cf. Peek 781=698,6 Kaibel (AD II?) Ἐκλεκτός τοι ἐγὼ κικλήσκομαι, Peek 947,5 (II-1 Bc) Sum δὲ Ἑρμογένου κικλήσκομαι, same sedes.

καλύπτει: the usage of the verb, in this context, goes as far back as Homer: χυτὴ κατὰ γαῖα καλύπτει (Il. 6.464).

2 καὶ νέκυν: cf. the similar phrasing, also in an enjambment, at Antiphilus AP 9.294=38,3f. GP ἀσπὶς ἔχοι με / καὶ νέκυν, The enjambment here enhances the

effect of abruptness characterizing the introduction of the idea of death. For νέκυς as a predicate adjective, cf. Antip. Thess. 7.287=58,) καὶ véxur...dvijoes με θάλασσα (same sedes), Philip 7.382=25,1 GP ἠπείρῳ μ᾽ ἀποδοῦσα νέκυν, τρηχεῖα θάλασσα. The poet uses elsewhere the emphatic repetition ‘and...and? Cf. Crin. 18,5f. and 45,3f.

ov... χερειοτέρη: χερειότερος is a Homeric rarity. There are two occurrences in the Iliad, 2.248 and 12.270. In the former, the adjective is also in a figure of litotes, οὐ γὰρ ἐγὼ σέο φημὶ χερειότερον βροτὸν ἄλλον. Cf. the same figure with

χερείων at Il, 1.114, Od. 5.211, 8.585, 17.176. The same figure with the adjective also at verse-end at Apollon. AP 10.19=26,6 GP οὐ yap δὴ πλούτου Moüca χερειοτέρη. 3f. ἐν ταύτῃ: cf. Leon. AP 7.506=65,11 HE ἠόνι δ᾽ ἐν ταύτῃ κακὰ λείψανα..." ἔκρυψαν (same sedes). For the convention of the description of the location of

the grave, see below, on κεῖμαι... χερμάδι. δηρὸν χρόνον: Crinagoras uses the expression again at 32,2. This epic phrase (Il, 14.206, 14.305, h. Cer. 282, h. Min. 14, Ap. Rh. 3.811) is frequent in tragedy; cf. δαρὸν χρόνον in Aesch. Supp. 516, Soph. Aj. 414f., Eur. ΠῚ 1339, al. More usually δηρόν occurs alone, as an adverb. See Allen-Halliday-Sikes and Richardson on

h. Cer. 282, G. Björck, Das Alpha impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache (Uppsala 1950), 126, and Kyriakou on Eur. loc. cit. ἐκ δέ...) ἥρπασεν: the exemplar of the ἁρπαγή of a child from the mother is the rape of Persephone by Hades. Cf. h. Cer. 2f. ἣν Ἀιδωνεύς / ἥρπαξεν, Hes. Th. 914 ἣν Ἀιδωνεύς / ἥρπασεν ἧς παρὰ μητρός. The concept of Hades’ ‘seizing’ humans,

especially at a premature age, is a funerary topos. Cf. Call. 7.80=34,6 HE, Jul.

Aeg. 7.599,5f., 7.603,1£., and 7.601,3, Antip. Sid. 7.711=56,5f., Mel. 7.476=56,7£:

HE, anon. AP 7.221,6, Lucian 7.308,1f,, Agath. 7.574,3f.; see also Schulte 85 (on: Jul. Aeg. 7.601,3). The motif appears again at Crin. 19,3. See further Vérilhae

2.192-4; cf. Alexiou 124 and 230, n. 68. Here deities who ‘snatch people in epi. taphs (Hades, Moira) are replaced by the natural phenomenon (heat) that caused death. Although the verb usually takes ἀπό or παρά, its construction with ἐκ is not impossible. Cf. Peek 952=571,1 Kaibel (ap I-II) νύμφαι kpyvalal we συνή ρπασαν ἐκ βιότοιο; also Eur. Ph. 1456 ἥρπασ᾽ἐκ νεκρῶν ξίφος.

The mention of Inachus relationship to his mother, a rare reference in epitaphs on slaves, implies that he is young; cf. Peek 1576=624,6-8 Kaibel (Raffeiner n. 22, AD I-III). Also cf. Peek 1237=n. 51 Raffeiner (ap I), astele erected byaslave

couple for their daughter.

ἠελίου καῦμα: cf. Hes. Op. 414f. ἦμος δὴ λήγει μένος ὀξέος ἠελίοιο / καύματος εἰδαλίμου, Soph. OC 350 ἡλίου τε καύμασι. Καῦμα is ἃ Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 5.865). As Gow-Page comment ad loc., the assumption of the Bude com.

mentators that Inachus must have come from a hot country is unjustified: the poem only says that the heat of the sun was the cause of his death. Cf. the description of the tyrant Clearchus’ elimination of the citizens by the marshiness of the place they had encamped ἐν τοῖς κυνικοῖς καύμασιν, during the hottest days of summer (Polyaenus 2.30,3). Cf. also JI. 22.29-31 κύν᾽ "Qpicvos.../...f

Kat Te φέρει πολλὸν πυρετὸν δειλοῖσιν βροτοῖσιν, Hes. Op. 587f. ἐπεὶ κεφαλὴν καὶ γούνατα Σείριος abet, / αὐαλέος δέ τε χρὼς ὑπὸ καύματος. CF also the pestilence

due to Sirius’ heat at Ap. Rh. 2.516-19 and quotations from medical writers on the fevers during those days.’ Further, Qu. Sm. 8.31 Σείριος, ὅς re βροτοῖσι φέρει

πολυκηδέα νοῦσον, Stat. Silv, 2.1,216 implacido letalis Sirius igni (with Van Dam ad loc., on Sirius), where the heat of Sirius is numbered among other causes of mens death. For a summer disease, cf. also Pind. P 3.50, probably fever or sunstroke; see Young 41 and Ἰακώβ ad loc. An old woman also dies from the heat while gathering heads of corn in Philip AP 9.89=41 GP. A slave dies from fever at Peek 1862=247,2 Kaibel (Hadrianoi, ap I-II). For the description of the natural causes of death in Greek epitaphs, see Lattimore 142ff. τὸ θερμότατον: cf. Anyte AP] 228=18 HE=Geoghegan 8,4 θερμῷ καύματι, See

Geoghegan ad loc., where the author defends this reading against Kaibel's change to θερινῷ, citing Hdt. 3.104 καυμάτων τῶν θερμοτάτων (on the heat of

the day). For the word order, cf. Crin. 23,1 αἶγά με τὴν εὔθηλον, (τίη. (Ὁ) 24,2 ψιττακὸς 6 βροτόγηρυς.

* See J.C. B. Petropoulos, Heat and Lust: Hesiod’s Midsummer Festival Scene Revisited (Lanham MD 1994), 103.

δ κεῖμαι... χερμάδι: χερμάς does not occur in Homer, though χερμάδιον is a common Homeric word; cf. Il. 4.518, 5.302, 8.321, al. Gow-Page prefer the read-

ing δ᾽ ἐν of P and PI* (as do Geist, Holtze, Jacobs’, Diibner, Stadtmiiller, Beckby, and Paton) on the grounds that ‘it is the country rather than the tombstone which is “foreign”, and £eivn χερμάς would be an unusual phrase’ The construction here, however, is smoother and more natural with £eivn qualifying χερμάδι: as Gow-Page comment, χερμάς here denotes the grave as in Apollonides 7.693=9,1 GP.’ The attribution of the adjective ξεῖνος to a grave is not unattested in the Anthology. Cf. Diosc. 7.76=33,2 HE ξείνῳ... τάφῳ, Diod. 7.74=14,1 GP τοῦτο Θεμιστοκλεῖ ξένον ἠρίον εἴσατο Mayvys, Agath. 7.552,6 ξεῖνον... τάφον.

For the phrasing, cf., for instance, Hes. Th. 301 κοίλῃ ὑπὸ πέτρῃ, Peek 477=309,2 Kaibel (An I-II) κοίλης κατὰ πέτρας. Although the phrasing accepted by GowPage is not impossible (cf. Peek 702,4, II-I Βα, ev γᾷ ‘Pyveig κεῖμαι ὑπὸ σπιλάδι,

Peek 874,9f., aD II? viv δ᾽ ὑπὸ γαίῃ / κεῖται ὑπὸ σποδιῇ), the expression seems more elegant if the sepulchral stone is qualified by an adjective. Cf., for instance, anon. AP 7.324=27,1 FGE

ὑπὸ πλακὶ τῇδε τέθαμμαι,

Alc. Mess. 7.1=11,4 HE

ἀκταίῃ θῆκαν ὑπὸ σπιλάδι, Antip. Thess. 7.287=58,2 GP ἐρημαίῃ κρυπτὸν ὑπὸ σπιλάδι; cf. also anon. AP 7.615,2 ὑπὸ τῷδε τάφῳ, Peek 701=241,1 Kaibel (II Bc),

Peek 428=297,1 Kaibel (II Bc) τῷδ᾽ ὑπὸ τύμβῳ, al. Cf. the similar phrasing in a slave's epitaph, Peek 480=119,1f. Kaibel (ap II-III); see below on εὐπειθής... θεράπων. For the idea of ‘lying in a foreign land) see on Crin. 16,5f.; for a slave who has died away from his homeland, see Raffeiner 14ff. For the convention of describing the place where the tomb is situated in sepulchral epigrams, see Geoghegan on Anyte 10,1 and 12,6. Also cf. Crin. 16,6. Rubensohn altered to δή (which occurs often in the Anthology at this sedes; see, for instance, Nicias 7.200=4,1, Anyte 6.312=13 HE, Andronicus 7.181=1,1

FGE, etc.), comparing Antip. Thess. AP 7.286=14,2 GP κεῖσαι δὴ ξείνῃ γυμνὸς ἐπ᾿ ἠϊόνι; cf. Moero 6.119=1,1 HE κεῖσαι δή, for a votive offering. Pl’s δέ, however, can be retained; the particle can actually have the sense of δή or οὖν (see Denniston 170, ii).

μακρὰ γοηθείς: the adverbial use of the adjective in the neuter plural is Homeric. In the sense ‘loudly, cf. Il. 2.224 μακρὰ βοῶν, 18.580 μακρὰ weuurws, which are

a formular adaptation’ of the μακρά referring to distance, qualifying βιβάς, etc. in Homer; see Kirk on Il, 2.224. In the Anthology, cf. Antigonus AP 9.406=1,1 HE τὸν οὐκέτι μακρὰ βοῶντα / βάτραχον. Γοᾶν is conventional in sepulchral poems and generally in a context of mourning, especially on the part of the parents; cf. Il. 21.123f. and 22.352f., 24.664, Nonnus D. 29.119, 35.382, al. Cf. Crin. 45,3f.

5 The usual meaning of χερμάς is ‘pebble’; in the Anthology, cf. Paul. Sil. 6.84,4, Antip. Thess. 9,3=106,4, Bianor 9.272=11,5 GP. A bigger block of stone is denoted at Lyc. 20 and 616. See LSJ s.v. II.

178

AP 7.371=15

6 Ἴναχος: the name is rare; Bechtel (1917, 555) lists it among other names deriy. ing from rivers. It appears in two inscriptions from Pergamon (II Bc and II-] Bc; see LGPN VA s.v.). It also occurs in an inscription from Athens (ap [-1ὴ see MDAI (Athen), 67 (1942), 219, n. 8,2. Peek 1729 (Kos, II-I sc) is an epitaph

on an Inachus, presumably a slave (see also Raffeiner 29f., Galan Vioque 2001,

365-6). The name also appears in inscriptions from the Black Sea (SEG 16.4411, CIRB® 397,1). Ivaxidas occurs in Argos, II-I pc (LGPN ΠΙᾺ, s.v.). Names

derived from rivers are independent of the region where the river is; cf. the examples of Inachus, mentioned above. Also cf. Attic slave-names as Σκάμανδρος, Σαγγάριος, [Ἀμυμ]ώνη; see Fragiadakis 339, 367f., s.vv.’ A Persian slave jg called Μυφράτης in Diosc. AP 7.162=28,1 HE; cf.

Gow- Page and Galan Vioque

ad loc. (Galan Vioque on 36,1).* Note the delay before the name appears, as elsewhere in Crinagoras (4, 9, 10, 23, 40, 42, 43); see also Intr., Language and

Style, Structure. The delay of the appearance of the name of the deceased is common in sepulchral epigrams; cf. Antip. Sid. 7.218=23, Leon. 7.440=11 HE,

Antip. Thess. AP7.39=13 GP, anon. 7.691, Mart. 5.37, 6.29, 6.76. See Grewing on Mart. 6.28,4 and Canobbio on Mart. 5.37,14-17. εὐπειθής.... θεράπων: θεράπων denotes a personal attendant in Homer: I]. 1.321, 5.48, 6.53, 7.122, al. It also describes a slave at Peek 480=119,1 Kaibel, Peek 213=623,1 Kaibel, Peek 737,6, 1202,1, 1430,1 (II-III ap); for the occurrence of the

term in epitaphs on slaves, see Raffeiner 95f. Maintaining Gschnitzer's categorization of the terms applied to servants, Raffeiner remarks that, as θεράποντες were primarily free attendants who no longer existed in the classical period, the term can be regarded as a synonym of οἰκέτης in regard to classical and later times; οἰκέτης stresses the human relation between master and servant, the

‘helper. See Gschnitzer,” 130ff. and Raffeiner 47, n. 2, 96, n. 5. Raffeiner (29) further underlines the trustful relationship between Crinagoras and Inachus. For the affection between servants and masters in slaves’ epitaphs, cf. also

Grewing 216} Εὐπειθής in the sense ‘obedient’ is a mainly prose word, frequent in Plato: for

instance, Leg. 715c, 890c, Phaedr. 271d, al. For the use of prosaic words and

* Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporiani (Leningrad 1965). 7 Ὁ Fragiadakis, Die attischen Sklavennamen (Mannheim 1986).

* For names of men derived from rivers, see L. Robert, ‘Les inscriptions de Thessalonique, RPh 48 (1974), 206 and R. Parker, “Iheophoric Names and Greek Religion, in $. Hornblower et al. (eds.) Greek Personal Names (Oxford 2000), 60f.

* E Gschnitzer, Studien zur griechischen Terminologie der Sklaverei, 1. Grundzüge des vor-

hellenistichen Sprachgebrauchs (Wiesbaden 1963). © Rafleiner further observes that, in contrast to the practice employed in inscriptions recording emancipation, where the slave is described as σῶμα ἀνδρεῖον or γυναικεῖον, these terms are never used in epitaphs (with only one exception, ἀνδράποδον in Peek 1835,2, Iconion, ap II). Such a practice in epitaphs shows that nothing contributes to the realization of the equality of all men more than death. See Raifeiner 95f with n. 7.

AP 7,371] =15

179

expressions in Hellenistic poetry, see on Crin. 30,1 ὅπου. For epithets which describe servants in epitaphs, cf. Raffeiner 95, further citing ἑτοῖμος, edvovs, Amos, πιστός, φιλοκύριος, σώφρων, al. On the dead servant's devotion, affection,

and that he is worthy of his master’s sorrow, cf. also Stat. δὴν. 2.6 passim and 10F. pium sed amore fideque / has meritum lacrimas. Kpwayöpov: the poet mentions his name, as elsewhere in his epigrams. Cf. 1,2; 3,5; 4,6; 5,4. Rubensohn

changed

Language and Style, Dialect.

to Kptvaydpeos

unnecessarily;

see Intr.,

AP 7,376 = 16

δείλαιοι, ri κεναῖσιν ἀλώμεθα θαρσήσαντες ἐλπίσιν ἀτηροῦ ληθόμενοι θανάτου; "Hy ὅδε καὶ μύθοισι καὶ ἤθεσι πάντα Σέλευκος ἄρτιος, ἀλλ᾽ ἥβης βαιὸν ἐπαυρόμενος ὑστατίοις ἐν Ἴβηρσι τοκέων δίχα τηλόθι Λέσβου κεῖται ἀμετρήτων ξεῖνος em αἰγιαλῶν. bd

΄

"ἤ

5.

a

?

“~

u

é

,

4

3

id

AP 7.371 [C] Κριναγόρου [J] εἰς Σέλευκον νέον τελευτήσαντα Pl ΠΙΡ 5 (εἰς ἄνδρας οὐκ

ἐπισήμους), 13 Kpivaydpov 2 ἀτηροῦ PPI: -ῶι C | ληθόμενοι Salm.: αἰθ- P, αἰσθ- Pl [θανάτου P: -wı C, βιότου Pl 5 τοκέων Scripsi: τόσον PPl Brunck n. 45, Rubensohn n. 15

Wretched men, ous death? This ing only briefly his parents, far

why do we wander trusting in empty hopes, forgetful of ruinSeleucus was perfect in all, words and character, yet, enjoyhis prime, among the outermost Iberians he lies, away from from Lesbos, a stranger on unmeasured shores.

Epitaph for Seleucus, a fellow-countryman of Crinagoras, who has died away from home, very plausibly in Spain. The epigram is particularly graceful with its simple and overwhelming expression of grief and has the ring of sincere pain. Without strikingly sophisticated language or allusions, it starts with an introductory generalizing couplet and then conveys the sad news. The poet builds up emotional tension by means

of the plaintive recollection of the youth’s happy past (central couplet) and the announcement of his sorrowful fate in the concluding climax (last couplet);

note that the actual information on the death appears in the last line of the poem, condensed in the verb κεῖται. It is remarkable that after a short (but powerful, due to its minimalism) complaint about Seleucus’ youth in 1. 4, the weight is placed on the statement that the principal factor in the misfortune is

the fact that the death has occurred far from home; this account fills the last

couplet and is elaborated with the tricolon of |. 5 and with the elegant melancholy of |. 6. Bowie (2008, 234) remarks that ‘Crinagoras effectively brings out the sadness of the death of an ephebic Greek in a distant land that has only been

brought into Greek horizons by Roman conquest. The parts of a full epicedion are introduction, laudatio, lamentatio, descrip-

tiones (of illness, death, funeral), consolatio: see Van Dam 66f., Henriksén on Mart. 9.86, intr, note. Literary epitaphs are usually balanced somewhere between the content of funerary inscriptions and that of epicedia and contain some of the components of the epicedion. In the present epigram, we have an intro-

duction conveying lamentatio (ll. 1-2), the laudatio (ll. 3-4), and finally the

inscriptional convention referring to the place of burial (Il. 5-6). The pessimistic philosophical view of life which opens the poem is not absent from sepulchral inscriptions. Cf. the instability of life at Peek 789=699,5f. Kaibel (Rome AD III) ἄστατος ὄντως / θνητῶν ἐστι Bios καὶ βραχὺς οὐδ᾽ ἄπονος. Cf. also the pessimism in Latin epitaphs: e.g, F. Bücheler and E. Lommatzsch, Carmina Latina Epigraphica (1895-1926) 801,1 (Rome) Quid sumus aut loquimur, vita est quid deni[que nostra?, etc.; see Lattimore 263, Lier 470ff.' Inscriptional epitaphs opening with a gnome are listed by Peek, 1636-69. Peek 1679-82 are epitaphs that open with a rhetorical question on the uselessness of human efforts and qualities. The brevity of development of the laudatio of Seleucus here, together with the burial fopos in the final couplet, lessens the distance between the present poem and inscription; whether it was a real epitaph or not is impossible to decide. As far as Crinagoras’ other sepulchral epigrams are concerned, the subdivisions of the epicedion occasionally appear, also intermingled with the inscriptional topoi, to a greater or lesser extent. In 14 we have lamentatio and laudatio throughout; in 17 the major part of the poem is occupied by an interesting and original laudatio (since it is combined with exploitation of the features of the burial place), while the final couplet conveys the common topos of terra levis; 18 is a laudatio combined with information on the unusual natural phenomenon that accompanied the death of the deceased; finally, 15 and 19 are closer than any other poem to inscriptional form. In the former, we have the conventional information on the death and burial place, and a brief descriptio morbi and laudatio; the latter is a short epigram consisting in the topos of the question about the injustice of the mors immatura, integrated with the lamen-

tatio, after the opening laudatio. In all epigrams the descriptio mortis is restricted to a single verb, or a very short phrase, as befits a real inscription: οἴχεαι 1B. Lier, ‘Topica carminum sepulcralium latinorum, Philologus 62 (1903), 445-77. For the instability of life and fortune as a motif in consolations, see Kassel 62-9. Now, epitaphs sometimes

convey a consolation asserting that death is unavoidable to all men (for the Stoic as well as Epicurean notion of death as something natural and inherent in the order of the world in consolation literature, see Kassel 73-5). On other occasions the epitaphs employ a lighter tone to stress the

need to enjoy life as much as one can, since death will deprive one of such pleasures. See Lattimore 250ff., 260ff.

AP 7,376= 16

(14,3),

κεῖμαι

(15,5), κεῖται

(16,6),

ὑπεθήκατο

βώλου

(17,5,

here descriptio

funeris), δυομένην εἰς Ἀίδην (18,4), ἥρπασας ... AidSy (19,3). Seleucus was in all probability a member of the ‘Third Embassy (26-25 Bc)

Gow- Page observed that the pairing of ‘words and thoughts’ stresses the youth's quality as a diplomat who died either on his way to meet Augustus at Tarragona or on his way back. This reasonable assumption reinforces the view that the Iberians mentioned are those of Spain, and not those of Asia, as Brodaeus pro.

posed. See further below, on ὑστατίοις ev Ἴβηρσι. Peek takes the poem to be inscriptional (Peek 1682), listing it with other inscriptional epitaphs that open

with a rhetorical question. if.: at AP 7.286=14,3 GP Antipater of Thessalonica ponders on the usefulness

of wealth in the face of the reality of death. For a philosophical introduction

in funerary poems in the Anthology, cf. Call. AP 7.519=44,1 HE, Automedon 7.534=12,1 GP, anon, 7.327,1f, and Diotimus 7.420=3,1 HE, a line similar to the

present passage as far as the motif of ‘light hopes’ is concerned. Epigrams occasionally open with a question in order to express lament: such are Crin, 14, 20, and 37, Call. AP 7.519=44, Antip. Sid. 9,151=59 HE, Agath. 9.153, anon. 7.328; see further Siedschlag 21. Plaintive τί questions in a context of mourning occur also at (τίη. 14,1 and 19,3f. (see also ad loc., on τῶ; also at Diotimus AP 7.261=4,1 HE, anon. 7.667,1, Peek 1012,5f. (ap 1), 1195,] (ap 1), 1680,If.

(III-II sc), 1681,1f. (TI-I Bc), 1729,9f. (II-I Bc), 1873,16 (Il Bc). See further Siedschlag 20, n. 6. For Crinagoras’ poems that open with a gnome, see on 22 and 30, intr. notes; see also Intr., Language and Style, Structure. δείλαιοι: the adjective never occurs in Homer in the uncontracted form.’ In the Anthology, it is usually associated with the misfortune of death: anon. 7.334,4 μητέρα δειλαίην, Eutolmius 7.6112 δειλαίη μήτηρ; it is very often used for the dead, Perses 7.730=7,1, Leon. 7.654=16,5, Theocr. 7.662=9,3 HE=16 Gow, Erycius 7.397=8,1, Automedon 7.534=12,3 GP. Crinagoras opens another epi-

taph with this adjective, again addressing the dead, and again introducing a τί question (14,1). At verse-opening, also for the deceased woman, he uses the

adjective at 46,4. xevatow.../ ἐλπίσιν: for such ‘empty hopes, see on Crin. 48,1. Jacobs’ compared Mac. Cons. AP 10.70,3f. βροτὸς δ᾽ εὖ olda καὶ αὐτός / θνητὸς ἐών: δολιχαῖς δ᾽ ἐλπίσι παιζόμενος ἰ... γέγηθα πλανώμενος and Horace Od. 1.4,15 vitae summa

brevis spem nos vetat inchoare longam; 7.420=3,1 HE.

Stadtmiller compared

Diot. AP

? Δειλός, however, is very usual: in vocative, e.g. Il. 11.441, Od. 11.618, 18.389.

AP 7.376= 16

183

In a construction with θαρσεῖν, cf. Aesch. Pr. 536f. ἡδύ τι θαρσαλέαις / τὸν

μακρὸν βίον τείνειν ἐλπίσι. For the verb construction governing the dative, see LSJ s.v. 13.

ἀλώμεθα: for the figurative use of the verb with reference to a state of mind, cf. Soph. Aj. 23 ἴσμεν γὰρ οὐδὲν τρανές, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλώμεθα, on which editors comment that it constitutes a unique occurrence of ἀλᾶσθαι in this sense, the metaphor elsewhere formed by πλανᾶσθαι (cf. Hdt. 6.37). See Jebb, Kamerbeek, Stanford,

and Finglass on Soph. loc. cit. ἀτηροῦ.... θανάτου: the (non-Homeric) adjective is a mainly poetic word, often occurring in tragedy to describe a misfortune. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1484 ἀτηρᾶς τύχας, Pr. 746 ἀτηρᾶς Sins, Eur. Andr. 353, Aristoph. Vesp. 1299. Elsewhere in

the Anthology only at Antip. Thess. 9.23=71,6, Flaccus API 211=14,2 GP. Planudes’ αἰσθόμενοι βιότου does not offer a satisfactory meaning.’ P’s αἰθόμενοι (a participle denoting opposition, “why do we wander encouraged by empty hopes, although we are burnt by ruinous death’), in combination with C’s datives, creates an expression otherwise unattested, that of being ‘burnt by death. Except for the common metaphor of burning with love,* other metaphorical expressions with the verb αἴθειν / αἴθεσθαι are Ap. Rh. 1.1245 λιμῷ δ᾽ αἰθόμενος (whereon the Scholiast comments τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον οὐχ ὅτι 6 λιμὸς θερμασίας ἐστὶ ποιητικός, ἀλλὰ τὸ αἴθεσθαι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ σπεύδειν ἐστίν), Qu. Sm.

3.492 ὀδύνῃσι μέγ᾽ αἰθόμενος κέαρ ἔνδον, 10.277-80 ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε τις νούσῳ «τε; καὶ ἀργαλέῃ μέγα δίψῃ / αἰθόμενος κραδίην ἁδινὸν κέαρ αὐαίνηται, /(...) ὡς τοῦ ὑπὸ στέρνοισι καταίθετο θυμὸς avin, Oenomaus AP 9.749=1,1f. FGE οἴνῳ αἴθεσθαι κραδίην. At Philip AP 6.5=8,8 GP codices transmit πολλοῖς αἰθόμενος

καμάτοις, changed by Scaliger to ἀχθόμενος due to the uncommonness of the notion ‘being burnt by labours. The two similar occurrences of rare expressions with αἴθεσθαι together with the fact that C, who corrects here ἀτηροῦ θανάτου to ἀτηρῷ θανάτῳ," probably draws his corrections from an exemplar (see on

Crin. 14,3 ὦ χαρίεσσα γύναι) might cast doubt on the need to change anything in either case. Still, however, the correction ληθόμενοι here, attributed to

Salmasius by editors, accepted by all editors, does offer the most straightforward possible meaning, the corruption of AH®, or rather of AIO, as Dibner suggested (an easy spelling mistake, due to the iotacism), to A/® being explicable in capital script. The oblivion of death (cf. Pall. AP 11.62,4 λήθην τοῦ θανάτου) may constitute a play on the common notion of death as the place of

5 For the sense have perception of, see LS] s.v. αἰσθάνομαι II and cf. for instance, Plato Polit. 285a-b ὅταν... τὴν τῶν πολλῶν τις πρότερον αἴσθηται κοινωνίαν, Philo Spec. Leg. 1.62,3 καὶ οὐκ αἰσθάνεται τὰς τοῦ βίου φροντίδας, AApp 4.100,2 τῆς τοῦ θανάτον πικρίας οὐκ αἰσθάνῃ,

4 E.g. Theocr. 2.134 and 7.102, Ap. Rh. 3.296f.

5 Dismissed by editors. As regards other critics, cf. Finsler (52), who describes this correction as ‘unrichtig.

“Λήθη. Cf. ‘Simon? AP 7.25=67,6 FGE, Aristoph. Ran. 186; also Theogn. 705, Antip. Sid. AP7.711=56,6, id. 7.498=55,8 HE, al.“

3. ἣν öde... Σέλευκος: for the imperfect ἦν, referring to the happy past in

sepulchral poems, cf, Skiadas (1967) 86, discussing Peek 868 (Puteoli, III-N Bc) and Peek

1021=565,1

Kaibel (Rome,

ap

I-II); cf. also CEG

717=Peek

902=Kaibel 254,1 (Paphos, early III ac). On the opening of Theocr. 7 Gow comments that the words imply that ‘the epoch referred to is closed, or the state of affairs no longer existing, not that it belongs to the distant past. The ‘contrast theme’ between past and present is typical in a funerary context; see

Lattimore 174ff. The demonstrative pronoun often occurs in sepulchral epigrams, although it

usually refers to the tomb. For a reference to the dead, cf. the fictitious epitaphs Diosc. 7.410=20,1 HE Θέσπις ὅδε, AApp 2.98,1 and 100,1. See further Galan Vioque on Diosc. 20,1.

καὶ μύθοισι καὶ ἤθεσι: cf. the Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον βουλῇ καὶ μύθοισι

(i. 4.323). The eloquence of the deceased youth is stressed at Asclep. AP 13.23=33,4 HE rexva καὶ σοφὸν λέγοντα; for the attribution of σοφία to the dead in epi-

taphs, see Sens ad loc. Cf. also the moral qualities of the dead at Peek 755=103,1 Kaibel (-100 Bc?) τὸν ἔξοχον ἐν πραπίδεσσι, Peek 1696,3 (AD III) ἥτις Shoe

καλῶς Ke (Sic) σεμνῶς, 1773,3 (AD III?) ἠνορέης καὶ σωφροσύνης μέγα ἄγαλμα; cf. also CEG 535=Peek 1755=Kaibel 41 (IV ec), CEG 545=Peek 1757=Kaibel 90 (IV Bc), Peek 1758 (III Bc), 1761 (ap I?), 1764 (Ap I-II), 1925=560 Kaibel (ap I?),

al. See Skiadas (1967) 66ff. and below, on ἄρτιος.

πάντα: in a praise of the dead, cf. Greg. Naz. AP 8.108,1 ἄκρον ἅπαντα, excelling in everything. Σέλευκος: the name is very common in all areas of Greece. See LGPN all volumes s.v. ἄρτιος: Seleucus’ ‘perfection’ in μύθοισι and ἤθεσι recalls the Homeric use of the adjective (though in a different sense, that of ‘becoming’) of both ‘words’ and ‘thoughts’: Il. 5.326 and Od. 19.248 of φρεσὶν ἄρτια ἤδη, Il. 14.92 and Od. 8.240 ἄρτια βάζειν (for the etymology of dpreos, from the root of ἀραρίσκω, see Garvie ad loc.). As Gow-Page comment ad loc., the adjective is seldom used of persons in this sense of perfection. Cf. the same meaning and construction at Diod. Sic. 3.33,6 ἀρτίους... τοῖς σώμασιν.

° The concept of Hades as the place of λήθη, λησμονιά, often occurs in traditional modern Greek lamentations. Οἱ, for instance, Κόρη μου, σε κλειδώσανε κάτω στὴν AAnopdvy (Politis 206,1); see Skiadas (1967) 87, n. 3.

AP 7.3765 16

185

Conventional epithets which describe the virtues of the dead are ἄριστος In IG 2? 12300, ayadwraros (dyadwrarn, for a young lady) in IGUR’ 2.720,

χρηστός quite frequently; see Tod? 184ff. For the laudatio of the dead in sepul‘chral epigrams in general, see Lattimore 285-99, Grewing on Mart. 6.28,6f. castus moribus, integer pudore, / velox ingenio, decore felix.

ἀλλ᾽ Seleucus was perfect in everything, and yet he died; the idea that death does not spare the good constitutes a complaint, rather than a consolation: see Lattimore 259. The ‘paradox’ of someone dying despite his qualities occurs in an epitaph of V1 sc from Athens (CEG 68=Peek 1223=Kaibel 1a,2,) ds καλὸς dv

ἔθανε; this antithesis is a tragic aporia expressing ἃ restrained protest against

Death who does not respect youth and beauty, as Skiadas observed comment-

ing on the inscription.’ ἥβης... ἐπαυρόμενος: the verb, usually governing the genitive, first appears in Homer: 1]. 1.410, 13.733, 15.17. In a funerary context, [Ὁ 12.7.302,2-5 ov Bidroto / οὐδὲ φάους γλυκεροῦ πολλὸν ἐπαυρόμενον. For the motif of brevity of life in sepulchral poems, see further Grewing (215) on Mart. 6.28,3. The expression ‘to taste’ life is common in epitaphs; cf. Kaibel 421,1 (AD V) τυτθὸν γευσαμένη βιότου φωτός, Peek 878,4 (AD II) καὶ γλυκεροῦ μερόπων γευσαμέναϊν βι]ότου, Peek 974=Kaibel 587,1 (An I-II), Peek 975=576,1 Kaibel (ap II), al.'°

On the common motif of the ἥβη of the deceased in sepulchral poems, cf. ‘Simon? AP 7.300=73,2 FGE

ἐρατῆς ἥβης πρὶν τέλος ἄκρον

ἰδεῖν, Leon.

7.466=71,1f. HE ἐν ἥβης / ἀκμῇ, Agath. 7.602,3, Paul. Sil. 7.560,8, al. In ἃ context of death, ἥβη first appears in Homer to describe the youth ‘left behind’ together with manhood

(Il. 16.857 and 22.363). See further Skiadas (1967)

39ff. with n. 2. βαιόν: as an adverb, βαιόν is mainly poetic and occurs often in Sophocles: Aj. 90, Ph. 20, al.; cf. Kamerbeek and Stanford on Aj. 90.

5: for the tricolon, cf. Hom. I], 1.30 ἡμετέρῳ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ ἐν Ἄργεϊ τηλόθι πάτρης,

mentioned as a stylistic parallel by Bowie (2008, n. 39 and 2011, 190).

” L. Moretti, Inscriptiones graecae urbis Romae, 4 vols (Rome 1968-90). * M. Tod, ‘Laudatory Epithets in Greek Epitaphs, ABSA 46 (1951), 182-90. * See Skiadas (1967) 32. Cf. Peek 868,4 (III-II B.c.) οὐδέ of einepdev κάλλος ἔρυκε μόρον;

see Skiadas (1967) 87. For the notion that the best and those beloved by the gods die young, see Lattimore 183, 259f., Griessmair 901f. This complaint is a common topic of modern Greek lamentation as well; see Skiadas (1967) 33. On the other hand, the idea that death is inescapable and

common to all mankind, even to the best of men, heroes, and children of gods, is a traditional motif of consolation; see Kassel 72-3. 10 Griessmair (22) remarks that the verb γεύεσθαι, apart from expressing the joy of life (cf. the adjectives γλυκύς, ἡδύς, ἱμερτός, ποθητός conventionally applied to ζωή and βίος). further implies

the temporary character of the pleasures of life.

vorariois ἔν Ἴβηρσι: remoteness of peoples in literature is traditionally described with ἔσχατος. Cf. Od. 1.23 Αἰθίοπας, roi διχθὰ δεδαίαται, ἔσχατοι ἀνδρῶν; also Il. 10.434 (of the Thracians), Od. 6.204f. (of the Phaeacians), Cf. also anon. AP7.626=1,1 GP ἐσχατιαὶ Λιβύων Νιασαμωνίδες, Agath, 4.3,88,

Theocr. 7.77. For the sense of remoteness in regard to western peoples, cf. Hat, 2.33 Κυνησίοισι,

of ἔσχατοι

πρὸς

δυσμέων

οἰκέουσι

τῶν

ἐν τῇ

Εὐρώῃ

κατοικημένων, 4.49, Call. H. 4.174, CE also Catullus. 1.0 ulti- / mosque Britannos Ὑστάτιος is a poetic word for ὕστατος, seldom used locally; cf. I. 15.634 πρώτῃσι καὶ ὑστατίῃσι βόεσσιν. Brodaeus suggestion (297, and in Brodaeus-Obsopoeus 311) that the people

mentioned might be the Iberians of Asia (like, e.g., Ἴβηρ at API 39,1) is not plausible, although the region had indeed developed diplomatic relations with Rome (see OCD s.v. Iberia), Crinagoras’ participation in the embassy to

Augustus in Spain supports the possibility that the poet was moved by, and wrote an epigram on, the death of a friend of his and fellow-diplomat. τοκέων δίχα: the codices’ reading τόσον δίχα is difficult to accept, as, in the sense ‘so far from, it is actually a repetition of the following τηλόθι Λέσβου.

Repetitions in general can be supported by tautologies, such as, for instance, that of Anyte AP 7.646=7,3f. HE pédas.../...xudveos θάνατος, defended by

Geoghegan (87) on grounds of a comparable Homeric expression; cf. Od. 7.34 νηυσὶ θοῇσιν τοί ye πεποιθότες wieinat.'' It is enough to observe that the pres-

ent poem's consecutive repetition δίχα τηλόθι Adaßov is a quite different case, Desrousseaux’s suggestion of τόσων diya (depouille de tant de qualites, τόσων referring to the qualities of Seleucus previously described, printed also by Conca-Marzi-Zanetto) points to the need of a genitive with δέχα, but this construction and meaning is neither natural nor logical. Stadimiiller mentions, but rejects, the possible emendation to γονέων; it seems, however, that the most plausible suggestion would involve a reference to Seleucus’ parents at this point. Emending to τοκέων δίχα would offer a satisfactory meaning: Soph. El. 1137 κακῶς ἀπώλου σῆς κασιγνήτης δίχα, Peek 754,9=242a Kaibel (Elaia, II Bc) τηλοῦ μὲν τοκέων, τ[ηλοῦ δ᾽ ἀλόχοιο ποθεινῆς) / ὥλετο καὶ πάτρης ἀΐμμορος

Αὐσονίης], Paul. Sil. AP 7.560,2 τῆλε θάνες γονέων, Qu. Sm. 5.540f. ἀποτηλόθι πάτρης / καὶ roxéwy εἴρυσσας. Toxéwy could be easily corrupted to τόσου; -ov can be explained by the proximity of βαιόν in the previous line. For the syniz-

esis at this sedes’? in Homer, cf. πολέας at Il. 1.559 and 2.4, πελέκεας at Il. 23.114, ἐπηετανόν (-a) at Hes. Op. 607 and h. Merc. 113 respectively (cf. Richardson ad !! For various views of the phrase, see Stanford, Hainsworth, and Garvie ad loc.; for the use of synonyms in Homeric formulae, see Hainsworth (1968) 82f.

'? Although in the Anthology synizesis of words like τοκέων usually occurs before a caesura (e.g. Crin, 11,2 and 49,2 Μουσέων, Mel. 4.1=1,58 Movoeom, Call. 5.6=11,6 HE Μεγαρέων, Diocles 6.186=2,6

GP ἡμέων, Theocr. 6.338=3,4 HE=10,4 Gow ουσέων, al.), other positions are not impossible. Cf. the synizesis of the same vowels (ew) in Crinagoras 48,5 Mouaean, 32,3 διφέω, both at the arsis of the first

tool. In Apollonius, a synizesis at this sedes occurs six times, 1.665, 2.903, 3.162, 3.207, 3.289, 4.1429.

loc.), ixérew at Il. 24.158, 187, ἐρέω at Hes. Op. 202. For the feature, see Christ”? 97f., K-G I (1) 227, 2, West (1966) 100; note πολέων at Il. 16.655. In Apollonius,

a synizesis of a trisyllabic word, such as the one suggested, occurs six times in this sedes, almost always followed, too, by a word belonging with it, often an adverb or a preposition in anastrophe 1.1243 ΠΠηγέων σχεδόν, 2.50 στηθέων ἐξ, 2.845 Μουσέων ὕπο, 3.755 στηθέων ἔντοσθεν, 3.962 στηθέων, 4.896 Μουσέων pia. Cf, also at this sedes, Solon 13,51 LEG Movaéwv πάρα. Moreover, this reading gives the line a neat construction, forming a harmonious tricolon; cf. Crin.

5,1 χάλκεον

ἀργυρέῳ με πανείκελον Ἰσθμικὸν ἔργον. For the figure, cf. Lausberg

325f.,$ 733; 419f., § 933. The asyndeton thus formed is a word-group asyndeton; see Lausberg 316, § 711, 1, Ὁ. τηλόθι Λέσβου: the theme of death away from one's homeland is common in sepulchral poems. Cf. Posid. 102,4 Austin-Bastianini, Leon. AP 7.715=93, Phalaecus 13.27=4, Theodoridas 7.722=11 HE; cf. Viansino on Agath. 8=AP 7.552,6 and Seelbach 102. Comparable to the present expression are Peek

1334=186,5 Kaibel (AD II) τηλόθι γὰρ πάτρης Βειθυνίδος ὥλεσα θυμόν (Corcyra, AD II), Antip. Thess. 7.398=65,5 GP κεῖται δ᾽ Αἰολίδος Σμύρνης ἑκάς, Paul. Sil.

7.560,2 τῆλ᾽ ἔθανες γονέων. For the common motif of death away from the fatherland in epitaphs, regarded as a great misfortune, see Lattimore 199ff., Pircher 16, Galan Vioque (2001) 333. For the survival of the idea in traditional Modern Greek lamentations, see Skiadas (1967) 91, n. 2.

6 κεῖται... ἐπ᾿ αἰγιαλῶν: Aldus (1503) and heirs of Giunta (232)'* printed

αἰγιαλῷ,

and

Obsopoeus

(353;

311 in Brodaeus-Obsopoeus)

suggested

ἀμετρήτῳ. Brodaeus (1549, 291) accepts in the text duwetpytw...aiyiaAd. The

alteration is unnecessary; cf., for instance, the similar image and construction in Damagetus, AP 7.497=9,6 HE γυμνὸς ἐπ᾽ afelvov κείμενος αἰγιαλοῦ. The

motif is common

in sepulchral epigrams on shipwrecks: Antip. Thess.

7.286=14,2 GP κεῖσαι δὴ ξείνῃ γυμνὸς ἐπ᾿ ἠιόνι. Cf. Xenocritus 7.291=1,6 FGE,

Leon. 7.652=15,6 and 7.665=14,7f. HE. Cf. Virgil's use of the image at Aen. 5.871 nudus in ignota, Palinure, iacebis harena: for Virgil's exploitation of the epigrammatic topos, see Bruss'?” passim. The present poem does not mention the circumstances of Seleucus’ death.'® It is plausible to assume that here ‘shores’

stand for ‘land’ and indicate that Seleucus is lying dead in a foreign country. Cf. Mart. 10.26,4 hospita Lagei litoris umbra iaces, on a Roman centurion who died

13 W. Christ, Metrik der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig 1879). 14 For the Juntine edition’s repetition of the first Aldine, see on Crin. 11,3 Ἑκάλης.... καλιήν, with the relevant notes.

15 J, S. Bruss, ‘Famous Last Words: Aeneid 5,870-1 and the Hellenistic Cenotaphic Epigramme, Latomus 64 (2005), 325-35.

16 For the omission of information known to the audience of the epigrams, see Intr., Language

and Style, Brevity.

188

AP 7.376 = 16

in Egypt. ‘Shores’ stand for ‘land’ also at Ov. Met. 1.96 nullaque mortales Praeter sua litora norant, Mart. 3.1,1f. longinquis mittit ab oris / Gallia, etc.; Fusi (108) compares, inter alia, Auson. 11.22,19 Green longinquis posthac Romae defunctys

in oris. Crinagoras attributes the adjective ξεῖνος to the dead man himself, rather

than the land which is more usual; similarly Peek 731=702,1f. Kaibel (Rome, ap II-III) ξένον ἐνθάδε κε

μ[αι / παιδίον.

ἀμετρήτων.... αἰγιαλῶν: Gow-Page suggest that the adjective ‘unmeasured? in the sense of ‘untrodden, seems more suitable here; cf. Waltz’s ‘inexploré

This sense is supported by a parallel in Quintus Smyrnaeus: ἀτρυγέτοισι map’ αἰγιαλοῖσιν in 6.334; cf. 9.402 ἐρημαίοισιν em’alyındotaı.'” Crinagoras may also

have in mind, and be playing with, the vastness of the sea (cf. Antiphilus 9,34=32,1 GP, anon. ‘length’ of the shore. αἰγιαλοῖο, Opp. Hal. On the vastness of

9.362,4 ἀμετρήτοιο θαλάσσης) in combination with the Cf. Il. 2.210 αἰγιαλῷ μεγάλῳ, Ap. Rh. 4.1288 δολιχοῦ..͵ 1.246 δολιχοῖσι.... αἰγιαλοῖσι. the sea, cf. Ov. Ib. 147 sive per inmensas iactabor naufragus

undas, Tr. 1.2,39 nescit in inmenso iactari corpora ponto. The adjective immensus occurs often in Ovid at the same sedes of the pentameter as ἀμετρήτων in Crinagoras; cf. Am. 2,11,24, Tr. 3.7,40 and 4.8,38, Ε 4.944.

‘7 After demonstrating that Anytes ῥαδινάν.., ἠιόνα (AP 7.215=12,6 HE) indicates a ‘long’ beach, Geoghegan goes on to suggest that the ‘long beach is a ‘sandy beach’ (cf. Pfeiffer on Call. fr, 602,2 δολιχὰς θῖνας) and also that ‘the notion of a “long beach” refers in Greek not to the length of the beach seen as running parallel to the coast-line, but to the length of the sandy area stretching,

at right angles to the coast-line from where the waters break up to where the sand finishes and gives way to vegetation. He compares Anyte’s dolphin which, having become stranded, died in the shallow waters of such a sandy beach with Crinagoras’ sailor who drowned and was buried on a ‘long beach, and maintains that the same notion as that of a ‘long beach’ is expressed by βαθύς and evpus, also applied to beaches: Theocr. 22.32 θῖνα βαθύν, Ap. Rh. 1.1361 ἀκτὴν εὐρεῖαν (one can add Leon. AP 7,652=15,6 HE εὐρεῖ ἐπ᾽ αἰγιαλῷ, also on a shipwrecked man lying on a beach far from home, as in Crinagoras’ poem (cf. Hecker 1852, 316)). The correspondence of Anyte’s and Crinagoras’ expression disappears if we accept the interpretation of the adjective ἀμέτρητος as ‘untrodden. Yet, even in the sense of ‘vast, it is difficult to imagine ἀμέτρητος as referring to the breadth of the shore which, for all its possible extension, can hardly be described as ‘immeasurable, while its length easily could.

AP 7.628 =17

Ἡρνήσαντο καὶ ἄλλαι ἐὸν πάρος οὔνομα νῆσοι ἀκλεές, ἐς δ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἦλθον ὁμωνυμίην'" κληθείητε καὶ ὕμμες Ἐρωτίδες" οὐ νέμεσίς τοι, Ὀξεῖαι, ταύτηνἣν κλῆσιν κλῆσιν ἀμειψαμέναις. ἀμειψαμ Παιδὶ γάρ, ὃν τύμβῳ Ains ὑπεθήκατο βώλου, οὔνομα καὶ μορφὴν αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν Ἔρως.

?

5

Ὦ

7

Vv

χθὼν γθὼν σηματόεσσα σημ

ci

a

Ea

-

καὶ ἡ ἡ παρὰ παρ θινὲ θάλασσα,

παιδὶ σὺ μὲν κούφη κεῖσο, σὺ δ᾽ ἡσυχίη. —

AP 7.628 [C] Kpwayspov [J] eis παιδίον εὐμορφότατον ἐν νήσῳ τελευτῆσαν Kat taper, ἐξ οὗ αἱ νῆσοι Epwriöes et ad v, 7 eis παιδίον map αἰγιαλὸν τεθαμμένον, supra quod lemma C notavit ζήτει ef ἕν ἐστι τὸ ἐπίγραμμα PLIII* 20 (eis νέους καὶ νέας],

12 Κριναγόρου 3 ὕμμες Stephanus: ἄμμες PP]

4 Ὀξεῖαι Stadtmüller: ὄξει P, ἕξει C, ὄξει an ἔξει Pl,

inter quod et ταύτην lacunam unius vel duarum litterarum reliquit Pl 5 Ains Kaibel pro nomine personae sumpsit et Brodaeus sensu Diae insulae’: δίης PPI | ὑπεθήκατο Hecker: -arePPl 7 χϑὼν Lascaris: χθὸν PPI Brunck n. 46, Rubensohn n. 18

Other islands also have renounced their own inglorious name and have come to be called after men; so be you called ‘Love’ islands’; no wonder, Oxeiai, if you take this name in exchange. For Eros himself gave his name and beauty to the boy whom Dies laid in a grave, beneath a heap of earth. Graveyard land and you, sea near the shore, lie the one light on the child, the other calm. On a beautiful boy named Eros buried in the islands called Ὀ ξεῖαι. Crinagoras exploits the possibilities the boy’s name offers him, as he does with Prote (14), Ge, the mother of his servant Inachus (15), and Cleopatra-

Selene (18); cf. Garzya 135, who speaks of the ‘gusto di Crinagora per la pointe verbale: The pivotal point of this epigram is of course the boy's beauty, perfectly suitable to his name and to the poet's request that the islands be renamed after him. This point occupies the two central couplets, while the first and the last

one are an introduction (reference to antecedents justifying what will follow)

and a conclusion (conventional wish for peace for the dead, although the convention is here elegantly adjusted to the circumstances and to the marine context; see below, on 7f.). As usually in Crinagoras, the principal information is delayed. Only in the third couplet do we hear an explanation of the content

of the first two, learning the important news all together: a lovely boy named

Eros was buried by a Diés on (one of) the islands. Furthermore, the whole

poem is permeated by the crucial notion of ‘name’: οὔνομα (1), ὁμωνυμίην (2), κληθείητε (3), κλῆσιν (4), οὔνομα (6). The etymological interest is also implied in the juxtaposition of cognate terms suggesting fame through naming (ἀκλεές in 2, κληθείητε in 3, κλῆσιν᾽ in 4), perhaps echoing a similar play by Apollonius (see below, on οὔνομα... ἀκλεές and on κλῆσιν). As Ecker points out,? one’s

name, from Homer onwards, is anyway crucial for one's personality, and the inscription on the grave is a means of preserving the name in people’s memory and thus also a means of preserving the dead man’s fame. Crinagoras asks the islands to adopt the name of the dead buried on one of them. He thus invites the islands themselves to become the tomb which announces the dead man’s fame; now the tomb will cease to be an isolated and obscure place and will become a

geographical location which will contribute to the fame of the dead and which will also acquire fame for itself, since it will abandon its previous ovvopa ἀκλεές, For epicedia, see on Crin. 16, intr. note, and for epitaphs on slaves, see on Crin, 15, intr. note and passim. Here the poem is built on an elaborate laudatio, and ends with a conventional sepulchral topos, that of the terra levis. The praise of the beauty of the deceased lady is a commonplace in epitaphs; for a slavewoman, cf. Peek 1164=Kaibel 727=n. 12,12f. Raffeiner (ap II-III). The praise of

male beauty also occurs in sepulchral poems and refers to a young man ora boy. Cf. the eighteen-year-old youth at Peek 586,1f. (An II-III), the eight-yearold boy at Peek 575,1f. (AD II-III) ὡς φυτὸν ἀρτιθαλές, δροσεροῖς παρὰ νάμασιν αὖξον, / ὡς ῥόδον dpripues mpopaver, καλὸν ἄνθος ἐρώτων, the thirteen-year-old boy at Peek 810,6 (Ap I). Cf. also Peek 1420=233,1 Kaibel (I Bc), Peek 1732,4--6

(AD III-IV), Stat. Silv. 2.1,41-5; see further Grewing on Mart. 6.29,5/6. In the present epigram a sexual relationship between the boy and his master is implied. Cf. the same possible implication in Mart. 6.28,3, where the boy is described as cari deliciae breves patroni (see Grewing ad loc.), and 1.31,2 Encolpos, domini centurionis amor. For the relationship hinted at between youth and master in Stat. Silv. 2.1, see Van Dam 73; cf. below, on αὐτός... "ἔρως. From IG 12.2.35b,15 (see Intr., Testimonia) we learn that one of Crinagoras’

fellow-envoys to Rome in 45 ΒΟ was called A/H 2. Cf. below, on |. 5. It is logical to assume, therefore, that his servant Eros died during the journey and was buried on the nearest island. The poem can thus be dated to this year. A ? For the connection of κλέος with καλέω, see Chantraine (1968) s.v. καλέω. ? U. Ecker, Grabmal und Epigrammi (Stuttgart 1990), 45-50.

‘comparable etymological play is provided by Apollonius Rhodius in his account of the etymology of the name of the Muse Erato (3.3-5). If. Gow-Page mention some examples of island names that have undergone change: Thasos (not Paros, as Gow-Page state) was previously called 'Hepin,

according to Archilochus (in Euseb. Praep. Ev. 6.8 p.256b), Zacynthos Ὑρίη, according to Pliny NH 4.12,54. We can add Callimachus’ account of Delos, previously Aorepin (H. 4.40), Samos, previously Παρθενίη (ΕἸ. 4.49: see Mineur ad loc.), the island of Hephaestus, Lipara, previously MeAcyouvis (H. 3.47f.). Furthermore, Corcyra was previously called Drepane, which is the only name Apollonius uses for the island; cf. Mineur on Call. H. 4.156, O'Hara 30. According to Ap. Rh. 2.295-7, the Zrpodaöes took their name because it was there that the Boreades ὑπέστρεφον after pursuing the Harpies, although previously the islands were called Πλωταί, Gow-Page remark that Crinagoras’ own

island came to ἀνδρὸς ὁμωνυμίη, formerly Issa and then Lesbos, after a son of Lapithes (cf. Lyc. 219f. with Hornblower ad loc.). An alternative name of Lesbos

was also Makaria, after Makar: cf. on Crin. 44,1 ποιμὴν ὦ μάκαρ. For a person giving his name to an island cf. Apollonius’ account (1.623-6) about Sicinus. Cf.

also the report of the same poet (4.1762-4, following Callimachus, fr. 112,1) on Thera; see below, on ἀμειψαμέναις. Similar to the situation of the present poem

are the cases of the island which became Diomedes’ place of burial (Strabo 6.3,9) and of Icaria, formerly Doliche, renamed by Heracles, who buried Icarus into it (Apollod. 2.132-3). For more examples illustrating the etymological interest of Hellenistic poets in place names, see further O’Hara 21-42, Hollis (1990) 350 with ἢ. 56. For Hellenistic interest in the μετονομασία of islands, see

Mineur on Call. H. 4.37, Capovilla® 97, Pfeiffer* 135. It is interesting that Crinagoras, following the practice of accounts given by previous poets of the

renaming of islands, asks Oxeiai to change their name to one he remarkably and exceptionally chooses himself. Thus he places himself in the literary tradition of the treatment of perovojacia, thereby bringing about a playful innovation through his self-confident involvement in the very process of name-giving.

For the rhetorical use of the exemplum, see on Crin. 21,1f. Cf. also Crin. (?) 24,7f.

ἠρνήσαντο.... οὔνομα: in the sense of ‘renounce, cf. Aristodicus AP 7.473=1,2 HE ζωὰν ἀρνήσαντο, Colluth. 175f., Nonnus D. 5.581. The phrase became common in Christian writers, in regard to faith in God. For instance, Apoc. 3.8,4

δ G, Capovilla, ‘Saggi callimachei, Helikon 8 (1968), 77-138. ‘ R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 2 vols. (Oxford 1968, 1976).

192

AP 7.628 = 17

οὐκ ἠρνήσω TO ὄνομά μου, St Justin Apol. 96.2,7 ἀρνεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ «Χριστοῦ.

ἐόν: ‘their own’; cf. Nonnus D. 38.152. See further below on οὔνομα... ἔδωκεν,

Here the use of the pronoun is emphatic; cf. on Crin. 18,2. πάρος: the word is Homeric (Il. 4.73, 11.573, 18.245, 22.403, al.) and frequent in tragedy. οὔνομα... .] ἀκλεές: Crinagoras may be referring, with an oppositio in imitando, to a similarly playful passage about the etymology of a nymph’s name: Ap. Rh. 1.1068f. ἣν καλέουσιν / Κλείτην, δυστήνοιο περικλεὲς οὔνομα νύμφης (for which see O’Hara 28). Cf. also the epic formula ὄνομα κλυτόν (Od. 9.364, 19.183), See

Wifstrand 132, Kost on Mus. 186. és... ὁμωνυμίην: for post-Homeric phrases with ἔρχεσθαι ἐπί or eis (‘come to, into’), see LSJ s.v. B, for instance Hdt. 6.86, Soph. OC 1164 ἐς λόγους μολεῖν,

Thuc. 2.39,4 és αὐτὰ ἐλθοῦσι, ‘come to the test. Ὁμωνυμίη is a prose word; see LSJ s.v.” Its only other occurrence in the Anthology is Crin. 8,4; also cf. AApp. 6.298,5. Ὁμώνυμος, however, isa Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 17.720) and occurs often in poetry. See below on κλῆσιν.

3 κληθείητε καὶ types: the Aeolic and epic form types (see Chantraine 1958, 268f.), a correction of Etienne (260), occurs only once more in the Anthology, anon. 9.134,4. Crinagoras is using the milder optative, instead of an imperative, as he does at 12,3 νεύσαιτε; see ad loc. His phrasing recalls the similar Homeric imperatives Il. 1.274 ἀλλὰ πίθεσθε καὶ bupes, 23.469 ἀλλὰ ἴδεσθε καὶ ὕμμες, both at the same sedes. Note that in the rare occurrences of the form in Hellenistic poetry, it usually appears as the subject of an imperative: Ap. Rh. 4.195-7 ἀτὰρ ippes.../ (...) / σώετε (same sedes), Theocr. 7.115-18 dupes 8’.../ (...) / βάλλετε and 8.67 μηδ ὕμμες ὀκνεῖθ'. Ἐρωτίδες: in Theocr. 4.59 we have τὰν κυάνοφρυν ἐρωτίδα, which Gow trans-

lates as ‘the dark-browed darling’ and maintains that the word is to be taken as a noun, though it is an adjective at Nonnus D. 32.28. If it represents an islandname, it can be regarded as a noun. Cf. Epwris as a proper name; see LGPN, all volumes s.v. Another group of islets also in the Corinthian Gulf is today called Adxvovises νῆσοι; cf. Strabo 8.2,3. οὔ νέμεσις: the phrase in Homer is taken to mean ‘no cause for anger that, as νέμεσις in Homer implies the wrath of gods or men for an erroneous act; see

Kirk on Il. 3.156. The meaning of the phrase in later literature, however, has

° For the use of prosaic words in Hellenistic poetry, see on Crin. 30,1 ὅπου.

AP 7533=17 caused much controversy: in Call. AP 7.525=29,5 ΗΕ" it has been explained as idque ei merito contigit Jacobs’), nec mirum (O. Schneider, Callimachea, vol. | (Leipzig 1870) 76), Test justice’ (Cahen), etc.; see Gow-Page and Pagonari-

Antoniou ad loc. Its occurrence in other passages, however, such as Call. H. 3.64, the present poem, and later passages from Nonnus, demonstrates that it

has become a standard expression meaning ‘no wonder’; see Kéhnken’ 430ff, The scholar draws a parallel (435, n. 39) between the present epigram and Greg, Naz. AP 8.152 on the grave of Helladios, whose burial with the other martyrs should not cause surprise, as he was a martyr himself. The phrase occurs usually in the same sedes in Nonnus, for instance D. 5.290, 19.134, 34.324, al.; the comparison of Cadmus with Eros at D, 4.238f. is perhaps inspired by Crinagoras epigram: Αὐτὸς Ἔρως πέλεν οὗτος ὁ ναυτίλος" οὐ νέμεσις yap υἷα τεκεῖν πλωτῆρα θαλασσαίην Ἀφροδίτην.

rou: cf. the use of τοι in exhortations; Denniston (540-1, 4). At Il. 2.298 αἰσχρόν τοι δηρόν τε μένειν κενεόν τε νέεσθαι, the exhortation is also realized with a

third-person phrasing. 4 Ὁξεῖαι: Lascaris printed ἥξει δὴ ταύτην, though his apographs of Pl, Paris. Gr. 2863 and 289) (for which see Intr, Manuscript Tradition, Codex Marcianus Graecus 481 [Pl] and its apographs) have ἔξει. Similarly de Bosch (2.206; see also 5.54);* ἥξει was proposed also by Scaliger” and Huet (25). Brunck, followed by Jacobs’, has ἥξει τοιαύτην. The most plausible candidates are Geist’s and Hecker’s (1843, 277 and 1852, 308) Ὀ ξείαις, It is enough to observe that a verbal

form is unnecessary here: only by reading some form of Ὀξεῖαι do we actually hear the island’s former name. Gow-Page, who print the vocative Ὀξεῖαι, remark that metrical reasons cause the conflation of the expected construction

of οὐ νέμεσις governing a personal dative and infinitive, ὑμῖν ἀμείψασθαι, with a dative participle, ἀμειψαμέναις, It can be noted, however, that the expression can be found without the infinitive: cf. Jul. Aeg. AP 9.739,3 οὐ νέμεσις δὲ μύωπι, Clem. Al. Protr. 4.55,1 οὐ νέμεσις τοίνυν οὐδὲ Ἵππωνι

amaßavarllovrı τὸν

° If the final couplet does belong to the epigram, see the discussion of Gow- Page and Pagonari-

Antoniou ad loc. ” A. Köhnken, ‘Schlußpointe und Selbstdistanz bei Kallimachos, Hermes 101 (1973), 425-41. * ‘This is one instance of dissent between Brodaeus-Obsopoeus (who print “ἔξει δή, 376) and de

Bosch, although de Bosch's text basically relies on the text of the Wechel Anthology; see Hutton (1946) 293. Another (slight) differentiation between the (wo editions in the present epigram is Ains printed with capital in de Bosch (where, however, Bradaeus’ idea is followed). See further below, on Ains... Berdou.

* In the Stephanianae reserved in BNF Res. Yb. 355 and Res. Yb, 356 (see Inte, Manuscript Tradition, Short note on old editions and emendations with unrecorded sources); in addition, the

correction appears in a 1566 Stephaniana, now in the university library of Leiden (756 D 9).

194

AP 7.628 = 17

θάνατον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ. Although

Stadtmiiller’s Ὀξεῖαι,

accepted by Paton and

Gow-Page, makes the expression more lively thanks to the direct address to the

islands,'® it would be also possible to retain Hecker’s and Geist's Ὀξείαις͵ accepted by Rubensohn, Dibner, Beckby, Waltz, and Conca-Marzi-Zanetto,

and translate ‘no wonder then if Oxeiai take that name in exchange’; then we

would have a switch of person comparable to Crin. 6,1f. εἴαρος ἤνθει μὲν τὸ πρίν ῥόδα, νῦν δ᾽ Evi μέσσῳ / χείματι πορφυρέας ἐσχάσαμεν κάλυκας.

For Oxeiai, a group of rocky islands in the Corinthian Gulf, at the mouth of the river Achelous, see RE 18.2.2003. Antipater of Thessalonica mentions the islands at AP 7.639=59,2 GP as dangerous for ships. At Od. 15.299 a group of islands are described as ἔνθεν δ᾽ αὖ νήσοισιν ἐπιπροέηκε Honor, on which the scholiast comments that the adjective is a metaphor for ‘sharp, ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ κίνησιν ὀξέος ἐπὶ τὸ κατὰ σχῆμα. Strabo (8.3,26) identifies them with the Ὀξεῖαι: Θοὰς δὲ εἴρηκε τὰς Ὀξείας" τῶν Ἐχινάδων δ᾽ εἰσὶν αὗται, πλησιάζουσαι τῇ ἀρχῇ τοῦ Κορινθιακοῦ κόλπου, KrA.; also Strabo 10.2,19, on which Hoekstra is

sceptical (see on Od. loc.cit.)."" The Echinades retain their name to the present

day and one of them is still called Ὀξειά. κλῆσιν: Crinagoras avoids the repetition of οὔνομα here, while at |. 6 it is remote enough not to annoy; cf. his variation Μήνη - Σελήνη in 18,2f. (see ad loc.). For the etymological play between cognates (ἀκλεές, κλῆσιν, κληθείητε, οὔνομα, ὁμωνυμίη), perfectly appropriate for a poem on an etymological association

itself, see above, intr. note. The juxtaposition of words containing the same stem in two neighbouring lines is in fact a feature of Hellenistic and late Greek

epic poetry. Cf. Ἐνυάλιον - Ἐνυώ in two consecutive lines at Crin. 26,4f.’7 In the sense of ‘name; the word is rare and mainly prosaic. Cf. Plato Polit, 262d, 287e,

3056, ἀμειψαμέναις: ἀμείβω, -ομαι is usually constructed with an accusative and a genitive. Cf. Il. 11.547 γόνυ youves ἀμείβων, Soph. Tr. 736f. Adous φρένας / τῶν νῦν παρουσῶν τῶνδ᾽ ἀμείψασθαι, Eur. Hel, 1186f. πέπλους μέλανας... λευκῶν

ἀμείψασ; see Diggle'? 63 with n. 67. The occurrence of the genitive is not necessary; cf., for instance, Solon 27,6 IEG χροιῆς ἄνθος ἀμειβομένης and also the use

of Apollonius in a passage to which Crinagoras might be alluding: 4.1762-4 Αὐτεσίωνος ἐὺς πάις ἤγαγε Θήρας | Καλλίστην ἐπὶ νῆσον, ἀμείψατο δ᾽ οὔνομα

*° Such addresses are frequent in Crinagoras, both towards persons (3,2 Πρόκλε, 4,6 Λεύκιε, 11,6 MapxkeAde, 20,1 Φιλόστρατε, etc.) and towards places (25,1 ἄγχουροι... χθόνες, 26,1 οὔρεα

Πυρηναῖα, 37,3 Κόρινθε). Cf. 28,1 avroAlaı δύσιες, 43,1 σπήλυγγες Νυμφῶν εὐπίδακες; cf. Intr., Language and Style, Apostrophes. "! For further discussion of the figure of metalepsis in regard to the Homeric passage and the identification of θοός with ὀξύς in the sense ‘fast’ but also ‘sharp’ in this context in antiquity, see Lausberg 259f., $ 571. 12 See H. White (1989) 18f., 39f.

'* J, Diggle, ‘On the manuscripts and text of Euripides, Medea: II. The text, CQ 34 (1984), 50-65.

Onpns ! ἐξ ἔθεν; Thera is another island that takes its name from a man. See

above, intr. note. Crinagoras uses the verb again in 45,5; cf. ad loc. 5 παιδί: it is not easy to decide the age of Eros, as παῖς can describe a child, an

adolescent, but also a young, eighteen-year-old man (Mel. 12.125=117,2 HE).'* It would be plausible to suggest, however, that Eros was an adolescent. The term implies his status as a slave (see LSJ s.v. III), and also hints at Diés’ sexual rela-

tionship with him, especially since the predominant idea of the poem is the

boy’s beauty and association with Love. Δίης . βώλου: Brodaeus (356, and in Brodaeus-Obsopoeus 376) accepted Sins

in the sense ‘Diae insulae, without printing the word with capital δ, however (cf. Herodian in Gr. Gr. 3.1,286,5 εἰσὶ καὶ 8’ νῆσοι Ata: λεγόμεναι). In the same spirit, de Bosch (2.206) printed Ains ὑπεθήκατε (Grotius translation is nam

puero praebet Diae cui gleba sepulchrum). Hecker (1852, 308) suspected the existence of a proper name in the word δίης (but thought of a ‘son of Bolus’) and corrected to ὑπεθήκατο. There is no objection today’® that J/HZ is a proper name. In the commentary of n. 329 Kaibel suggested 4iys and first noted the parallel of this poem with Kaibel 329,1 (=Peek 309,1 Mytilene, ap I-II), which points to the correct reading of Crinagoras’ line: τὴν κύνα AcoPiaxy βώλῳ ὑπεθήκατο BadBos; see also Cichorius 1888, 53. Cf. also Heges. AP 7.276=7,4 HE τῇδ᾽ ὀλίγη θῆκαν ὑπὸ papdbw.'* For τύμβος βώλου as a ‘mound of earth; cf. Peek 1160,12=335,10 Kaibel (AD I?) βαιὸν ἐΐμῃ} τ[ἐϊφρῃ βῶλον ἐπισ[κ]εδάσαι,

Antip. Sid. 7.209=57,2 HE ἠρίον ἐκ βώλου διψάδος. The Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Od. 18.374) βῶλος, a clod of earth, soil (usually fem.), occurs often in sepulchral

epigrams designating the earth that covers the dead man; cf. Diosc. AP7.76=33,4, Mel. 7.470=130,7, Leon. 7.656=18,1 HE, Adaeus 7.238=4,2 GP. See Geoghegan on Anyte 9,4.

One of Crinagoras’ fellow-envoys to Caesar in Rome in 46-45 ΒΟ (see Intr., Life and Work, also Testimonia 5) is called AIH (AIHZ MATPOKAEOY?), and the genitive of the name of the father of another one is 4[OY2, IG 12.2.35b15. A/H2 appears in other inscriptions too, some of which are from Lesbos; see R. W. Parker 127, n. 44-5, Masson (1994) 180. The name also appears in Delos, Lemnos, Athens, Ionia; see LGPN vols. I, II, VA s.v. For the possible kinship of the inscriptions and Crinagoras Diés with the illustrious Mytilenean Potamon (mentioned by Strabo and appearing in the inscriptions from Lesbos: see Intr. Testimonia 1 and 5), see R. W. Parker 127. Inscriptional evidence from

4 See K. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (London 1978), 85f. "5. Rubensohn accepted Van Herwerden’s (1886, 390) ἰδίης ὑπεθήκατε, Brunck, Holtze, Jacobs in his two editions, and Dibner print δίης ὑπεθήκατε, divinae supposuistis glebae (Dibner suggested τύμβῳ βαιῆς.... βώλου, tuntulo ex tenuissima gleba).

!6 Kor ὑποκεῖσθαι and other verbs compounded with ὑπό in epitaphs, see St. Schröder, "Überlegungen zu zwei Epigrammen des neuen Mailänder Papyrus, ZPE 139 (2002), 28.

Delos documents the genitive form A:dous; see Robert’” 180f. with n. 4, Dow

312,'* Masson (1994) 182. The genitive Aijous is also attested in Delos; see Dow 312, Masson (1994) 182. On an inscription from Abydos we also have the form

Aieos; Aious appears in an inscription from Ilion; see Masson (1994) 180-1.'9 ἃς far as accentuation

is concerned,

Bechtel

(1917, 134 and

151) accepts

Aing

(>AiFns), in accordance with Ἐλευθύης and Ζώης. The genitive in τητος is not attested for ins, as it is for Ζώης, but the two names share the genitive in -co¢ (Δίεος, Zoéos, the first attested in Abydos, the second in Cyprus): these genitives are to be explained through the presence of the genitive A peos. See Masson (1994) 183 with n. 116. For Ἄρης -Apovs (and, inter alia, Apyros), cf. Herodian

Gr. Gr. 3.2,682,10-15, Chandler?” 180, $ 639. In the present passage, it seems

better to accept Ains, the formation of which is supported by the genitive forms in the Eolid and the islands, rather than the contracted Aıys > Atéas (for which see Masson 1994, 183-4).

6 οὔνομα.... ἔδωκεν: for similar puns on the name of the deceased in sepulchral poems, cf., indicatively, Peek 412=342,1 Kaibel (ap II-III) ἄνθος ἀνερχόμενον Lrepavynpspos ἐνθάδε κεῖται, Peek 629=659 Kaibel (ap III) [ἄνθος] ὁρᾷς γαίης τὸ ποθούμενον ἐν στεφέεσσιν" | οὔνομά μοι τόδ᾽ Edu’ "Yarıvdos ἐνθάδε κεῖμαι, Peek 1038=577,1f. Kaibel (ap III?) ἄνθος ἐγὼ Aeyounv.../ ἀνθήσας δὲ καλῶς ἔτεσιν δυσὶν οὐκ OAoKAnpos, KrA.; see also on Crin. 14, intr. note.

αὐτός... Ἔρως: for the emphasis, cf. also Crin. 51,1; see ad loc. The idea that the

beautiful boy is ‘shaped by Eros himself’ recalls the Meleagrian AP 5.155=48 HE Ἐντὸς ἐμῆς Kpadins τὴν εὔλαλον Ἡλιοδώραν

ψυχὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἔπλασεν αὐτὸς Ἔρως.

Ἔρως as a proper name is not rare. Cf. Peek 401 (Rome ap II-III), 618 (Argolis I Bc), LGPN, all volumes s.v., [G 2? 11346-8; in IG 2? 11348 Eros is the

name ofa slave. The name also occurs in a sepulchral inscription from Mytilene: IG 12.2.430, Ἕρως χρη-]στὲ χαῖρε. Cf. Martial’s epitaphs for a slave girl called Erotion (5.34, 5.37, 10.61); cf. Vallat 562. For slave-names formed from Eros, see

Howell on Mart. 5.34,3. The name of Dies’ slave suggests a sexual relationship with his master (see above, intr. note); the same erotic implication has been

‘7 L. Robert, Etudes épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris 1938). '® §. Dow, ‘A Leader of the Anti-Roman Party in Athens in 88 Bc CP 37 (1942), 311-14.

15. In Posidonius FGrHist 87 F 49,32=253,51 Edelstein-Kidd the genitive Aiots or ΖΔιέους is Kaibels conjecture for the deus of the cadex; see Jacoby’s and Edelstein-Kidd’s apparatus. The reading Arevs could be perhaps retained, as such contracted genitives occur, apart from poetry, in prose and in inscriptions. See K-G | (1) 435. Ὁ Ἢ W. Chandler, A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation (Oxford 1881).

argued for the name Erotion of Martial’s six-year-old slave girl.?' For slaves with ‘speaking names, cf. Mart. 6.52, where the dead slave boy is called Pantagathus; see Grewing ad loc. |. 2 and on 6.28,4. Another slave boy is called Encolpos,

perhaps a nickname given to him by his master (see Citroni and Howell on Mart. 1.31,2), while yet another is called Earinus, and Martial makes the most of the connotations of this name; cf. 9.11,2, 9.12,1, 9.13,4, 9.16,2.

7£. for the apostrophe to both earth and sea with the request that they be gentle towards the dead, cf. Mart. 6.68,12 (also in the concluding pentameter) sit, precor, et tellus mitis et unda tibi (cf. Autore 39, Grewing on Mart. loc. cit.).

Commenting on the phrasing and style of the concluding couplet of this epigram, Vérilhac (2.254) remarks: ‘le balancement que crée la symétrie interne de chaque vers, soulignée dans hexamétre par le retour des mémes sonorités, suggere une atmosphere paisible. La musicalité de ce distique, ot abondent les consonnes douces, contribue aussi 4 cette impression’ It can be further added that the recurrence of the sibilant o, combined with the gentler sounds of @ and the nasal μι and ν, suggests the rhythmical splash and withdrawing of the waves

upon the beach which tranquilly lull the dead youth, in accordance with the idea which closes the poem as its last word, ἡσυχίη. 7 ὦ χθών: Lascaris corrected (the correction also in Lascaris’ Paris. Gr. 2863 and 2891) Pl's obvious mistake to χθών. The apostrophe to earth is a funerary topos. Cf., for instance, Antip. Sid. AP 7.14=11,1 HE, Erycius 7.368=6,5f., Bassus 7.372=3,1 GP, anon. 7.321=47,1 FGE, Mac. Cons, 7.566,1. In Greek lament, the earth is frequently addressed with the request to treat the dead kindly. See Alexiou 45, and also below, on κούφη keico. σηματόεσσα: the epithet only here. For other ἅπαξ or rare adjectives of the

same formation, cf. πινόεν in Ap. Rh. 2.301 and πινόεσσα in Antip. Sid. AP 7.146=7,3 HE, πνιγόεσσα in Alcaeus 7.536=13,3 HE and Nic. Th. 425, powders,

-εσσα in Nic. Al. 470, Leon. 6.293=54,3 HE, and Antip. Thess. 11.158=97,3 GP, κυκλόεσσα in Anyte 7.232=21,4 HE (for which see Geoghegan on 21,4),

δειματόεις in Apollon. 9.244=16,1 GP, ὑαλόεσσα in Rufinus 5.48=19,) Page, καμπυλόεσσα in Jul. Aeg. 6.28,2, ῥακόεσσα in anon. 6.21=18,3 FGE and (-es) in

Antiphilus 11.66=51,1 GP, ὀλισθήεσσα in Paul. Sil. 9.443,3. παρὰ Ovi θάλασσα: the usual Homeric expression is παρὰ Hiv’ ἁλός (IE 1.316, 327, 11.622, Od. 6.94, al.) or θαλάσσης (Il. 1.34, 9.182, Od. 13.220, al.); Crinagoras’

ἡ παρὰ almost occurs or the

Ovi θάλασσα is a variation of the Homeric phrasing. The phrase is always found as παρὰ θῖνα; with the dative Qu. Sm. 7.413. Παρά often in sepulchral poems to describe the location where the death took place tomb is situated; see Geoghegan on Anyte 12,6. On the appeal to the

2! See P. Watson 261ff. Watson argues that when the girl was still small, as is Erotion, there was no actual intercourse but only play graduating to a full relationship when she grew up.

calmness of the sea, cf. the fear of dead men, buried on the shore, that the seg

may wash them out and away: Asclep. AP7.284=30 HE, Diocles 7.393=1 GP. Cf. Leon. 7.283=63 HE, Philip 7.382=25 GP; see further Guichard and Sens on Asclep. 30, intr. note.

ὃ κούφη κεῖσο: the prayer that the earth (sometimes 7.372=3,6, Philip 7.554=27,5 GP) which covers the dead the close of the poem, is a topos in sepulchral epigrams, mostly κοῦφος, ἐλαφρός, γῆ. χθών, and κόνις. Cf. Theocr.

the tomb: Bassus 4p be light, commonly at the words used being AP 7.658=7,4 HE=15,4

Gow, Call. 7.460=47,2f., Mel. 7.461=124,2 HE, Diod. 7.632=7,5f. GP, Peek 559,4

(I Bc), 567,1 (AD II), al. The motif first appears at Eur. Alc, 463f.; cf. Hel. 851-3,

The common phrase in Latin epitaphs is sit tibi terra levis; see further Welles?? 82f., Lattimore 65-74, Cumont”’ 46, L. P. E. Parker on Eur. Alc. 463-4, Verilhac 2.253-6, Henriksén on Mart. 9.29,11, Grewing on Mart. 6.52,5/6, where the prayer is likewise that earth may be light on a young slave boy. The same wish

for a slave girl at Mart. 5.34,9f.; see also Canobbio 346f. and Laurens 319. It is interesting to note that at 41,8f. Crinagoras curses a dead villain with the wish that earth may not lie light on him, with comparable antithetical phrasing to that of the present poem: ὦ χθὼν σηματόεσσα - χθὼν ὦ δυσνύμφευτε; παιδὶ σὺ μὲν κούφη κεῖσο, σὺ δ᾽ ἡσυχίη -- μὴ κούφη κέκλισο, μηδ᾽ ὀλίγη. ἡσυχίη: the rare adjective is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 21.598, ἡσύχιον... μιν

...€xmeute), Also, Pind. P 9.22f., Hdt. 1.107. In regard to the tranquillity of the sea, cf. anon. AP 9.362,3 (on the river Alpheus) ἡσύχιος τὸ πρῶτον.

>? C. B. Welles, ‘The Epitaph of Julius Terentius, Harvard Theological Review 34 (1941), 79-102. >? E Cumont, Afterlife in Roman Paganism (New Haven 1922).

AP 7.633 =18

Kat αὐτὴ ἤχλυσεν ἀκρέσπερος ἀντέλλουσα Μήνη, πένθος ἑὸν νυκτὶ καλυψαμένη, οὕνεκα THY χαρίεσσαν ὁμώνυμον εἶδε Σελήνην ἄπνουν eis ζοφερὸν Övouevnv Alönv' κείνῃ yap καὶ κάλλος ἑοῦ κοινώσατο φωτός A / / en , au καὶ θάνατον κείνης pikev ἐῷ Kvedel. eo

s

»

5

ὔ

>

€

/

\

7

[4

3A?

—

AP7.633 [C] Κριναγόρου [J] eis Σελήνην τινὰ [Ὁ] γυναῖκα [J] ὁμώνυμον σελήνης δι᾽ ὑπερβολὴν κάλλους [{[τεθνηκυῖαν erasum]] caret Pl

5 κείνῃ Ap. Β.: -vn P Reiske n. 733, Brunck n. 38, Rubensohn n. 19

The moon herself darkened as she rose at nightfall and veiled her mourning with night, on seeing her graceful namesake Selene setting breath-bereft into gloomy Hades; with her she had shared the beauty of her light and with her death she mingled her darkness. On the death of a lady called Selene. The two first and the two last lines are built on the idea of contrast and, at the same time, mixture of light and darkness: ἤχλυσεν--ὠἀντέλλουσα-νυκτί, κάλλος φωτός--κνέφεϊ, This is parallel to the close relation, but also contrast, between moon and lady. The crescendo of the presentation of this relation is formed in the central couplet, where the ‘one’ Moon sees the ‘other’ setting in Hades, an image which suggests simultaneously two opposite ideas: the mortality of the human Selene and the very paradox of this mortality, since δνομένην implies her identification with the celestial Selene but ἄπνουν and Hades reminds us of her tragic human state. The poem is constructed on contrasts mingled with one another: human-celestial, life (light)-death (darkness) and the extreme ends of

sublimity and depth: the Moon is rising in the sky, but the lady goes down into Hades. For the construction of Crinagoras’ epigrams, see further Intr., Language

and Style, Structure.

The poem is thematically similar to Antip. Sid. AP7.241=25 HE, on the death

of a Ptolemaic prince which was followed by an eclipse of the moon. Cf. also Posid. 50,1f. Austin-Bastianini κυάνεον νέφος ἦλθε δι᾽ ἄστεος ἡνίκα κούρην |

τοῦθ᾽ ὑπὸ σῆμα τιθεὶς ἔστενεν Herta (with Petrovic in F. Angiö et al., Der Neue Poseidipp, ad loc.). Regarding the present poem, the Budé commentators sug. gested that the words might imply that the moon was covered by a cloud, or that A peine est-elle sortie de lombre quelle y rentre, spontanément. An eclipse

coinciding with Cleopatras death, however, being a much more striking phe. nomenon, seems more likely to be referred to here. Cf. the same circumstances in Antip. Sid. 7.241=25,7f. HE. Moreover, eclipses are traditionally connected with death and misfortune. Cf Od. 20.351-7 (see Préaux 123-8). In an article of

1959, Mugler offered an interpretation of the term καθαέρεσις of the moon,! demonstrating its relation to death: the Homeric terminology for closing the eyes of the deceased

is ὀφθαλμούς

ὄσσε καθαιρεῖν (Il. 11.453, Od.

11.426, 24.296),

Likewise, an eclipse οἵα celestial body is in fact the deity behind it closing his/her eyes, as the notion of stars ‘seeing’ everything is common in Greek poetry (see below on Myvy...elde). Cf. also the examples of celestial bodies conceived as ‘eyes of the sky that Ludwig’ cites in his discussion of ‘Plato’ AP 7.670=2 FGE (see

below, on ὁμώνυμον... Σελήνην): Aesch. Sept. 389f. λαμπρὰ δὲ πανσέληνος /... vurtos ὀφθαλμός, πρέπει; of the sun, Soph. Tr. 102, Aristoph. Nub. 285, Eur. IT 194. For historical misfortunes, deaths, and other calamities associated with

eclipses, see Préaux 125ff,

It is generally accepted, since it was put forward by Geist” and, later, Wolters (345), that the poem refers to Cleopatra-Selene, daughter of Antony and Cleopatra, on whose marriage with Juba king of Mauretania it is most plausible that Crinagoras wrote another epigram (25). Argentieri (2003, 196-9) argues that the author of AP 9.752=44 HE is Antipater of Thessalonica rather than Asclepiades and that, accordingly, the Cleopatra of that poem is to be identified with Cleopatra-Selene. For Selene, the lady's name, see Plut. Ant. 36.5 προσαγορεύσας τὸν μὲν Ἀλέξανδρον, τὴν δὲ Κλεοπάτραν, ἐπίκλησιν δὲ τὸν μὲν “HAtov, τὴν δὲ Σελήνην, Dio Cass. 50.25,4; cf. Suet. Cal, 26,1. Roller (2003, 78-9) observes that Selene is

a traditional counterpart to Helios and that it reflects the identification of the children’s mother with Isis and her depiction in art as Selene (Dio Cass. 50.5,3).

Cleopatra-Selene was born c.40 Bc. After her parents’ death she followed Octavian to Rome where she walked, together with her twin brother Alexandros * Lunar eclipses were traditionally attributed to magic, especially that of Thessalian witches, and καθαίρεσις, ‘drawing down, was the term used to describe the phenomenon before the time of

Democritus (cf. Schol. on Ap. Rh. 3.533). For the interpretation of the term, see Mugler (1959) 517 ? W. Ludwig, ‘Plato's Love Epigrams, GRBS 4 (1963), 59-82. ὁ In Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft 7 (1849), 320, where Geist also accepted Hulleman’s view that in AP 9.235 the poet is celebrating Cleopatra-Selene’s marriage to Juba. See on Crin. 25, intr, note.

AP 7.833=18

Helios, in his triumph in 29 ΒΟ; cf. Dio Cass. 51.21,8. She was raised by Octavia, Antony's deserted wife, and in c.20 Bc she married Juba II, the son of Juba I, king of Numidia, born c.48 Bc, who had been also brought to Rome and had walked in the triumph of Julius Caesar, after the latter's victory over Juba I in 46 Bc. Cf. Plut. Caes. 55, Ant. 87. See Gsell 8.207, 217f., Macurdy (1932) 224-5, (1937) 53, Roller (2003) 59, 83, 86-9. Juba II married Glaphyra, daughter of

Archelaus of Macedonia, some time after 7 Bc (death of Glaphyra’s first husband): their marriage lasted until about AD 4-5, i.e. until Glaphyra’s third marriage, which was brief, as she died in ap 5-6. Cf. Macurdy (1932) 227, (1937) 53, 58f., and Roller (2003, 247-9) who dates Juba's and Glaphyras marriage between AD 2 (sojourn of Juba in Archelaus’ court) and ap 5. Regling’s publication of coins from El Ksar, of which some bear Cleopatra's name, dateable to ap 11-17,

has cast doubt on the assumption that Juba was a widower when he married Glaphyra or that he divorced Cleopatra, who anyway died at some time after her divorce. Regling assumed that either coins with the queen's head continued to be struck after her death, or that the couple were remarried after Juba’s separation from Glaphyra, and that Cleopatra died sometime between Ap Il and

17. A couple’s remarriage is frequently attested in history (Regling 12).° Now, astronomical data for total eclipses of the moon at its rising (ἀκρέσπερος

ἀντέλλουσα, |. 1 of the present poem), together with historical plausibility (that is, the assumption that Cleopatra was dead when Juba married Glaphyra), point to the eclipse of23 March, 5 Bc, at five minutes past six in the evening (the

other astronomically matching years being 9 and 8 Bc and aD 7, 10, 11, and 14). See Ancey 141, Macurdy (1937) 61f., Coltelloni-Trannou 39;° also see Roller (2003) 249-51, who rejects the possibility that the couple reunited, explaining the appearance of Cleopatra's head on the coins as a commemoration of the raising of Cleopatra’s son Ptolemy to joint rule at the time. 1 καὶ αὐτὴ ἤχλυσεν: cf. the emphasis on the same reaction of Selene on the

death of the Ptolemaic prince at Antip. Sid, AP 7.241=25,7 HE καὶ δ᾽ αὐτὰ διὰ πένθος ἁμαυρωθεῖσα Leddva/ ἄστρα καὶ οὐρανίας ἀτραπιτοὺς ἔλιπεν. The moon has become dimmed also (but this time by the shining of the sun) at Leon.

9.24=30,1 HE. For the emphatic expression, cf., for instance, Pind. N. 1.50 kai yap αὐτά, Soph. Aj. 1365, Eur. Or. 763. Cf. the emphatic reference to other gods at (τίη. 17,6 αὐτός... Ἔρως and 51,1 αὐτός... Φοίβοιο πάις. * Regling 11-12. Macurdy in 1932 (228) accepted (with reservations) the possibility that the couple were remarried, while in 1937 (55f.), following Gsell (8.220f.), she inclined somewhat towards the view that the coins were struck after Cleopatra's death. > See further the introductory essay of Gow-Page ad foc. For coins of Juba and Cleopatra with acrescent, see also N. Moutsopoulos, G. Dimitrokalis, Ἡ 'EAAyrırn ἡμισέληνος (Athens 1988), 67. For further appearances of the moon in the form of a crescent on Greek and Roman coins, reliefs,

and sepulchral steles, often related to beliefs for the catasterism of the soul, see MoutsopoulosDimitrokalis 73ff. 6 M. Coltelloni-Tranou, Le royaume de Maurétanie sous Juba II et Ptolémée (Paris 1997).

AP

/,053= 18

As Gow-Page remark, this is an extreme example of Crinagoras indifference to hiatus (for which see Intr., Metre, Hiatus). Apographs and older editors tried

to avoid il by correcting to καὐτὴ δή ῥ᾽ (Ap. G. and Ap. B., both in margine, followed by Brunck and Jacobs’), καὶ αὐτή δ᾽ (Reiske 1754, 148 and 1766, 125), καί ῥ᾽ αὐτή γ᾽ (Jacobs?, Geist), καί ῥ᾽ αὐτὴ

(Dübner); cf. Antip. Sid. AP7.241=25,7

HE καὶ δ᾽ αὐτά... Σελάνα. P's reading, however, can be defended by similar cases: Jacobs” compared Ap. Rh. 1.886 καὶ Ὑψιπύλη ἠρήσατο and 1.602 Θρηικίη, ἡ τόσσον. Cf. also Antip. Thess. AP 6.335=41,1 GP Καυσίη, ἡ τὸ πάροιθε (although

the correption in the latter case makes the hiatus more tolerable: see Intr., Metre, Hiatus). For a hiatus at this sedes, see on Crin. 14,5 σοί, The spondaic opening

here adds gravity and seriousness to the tone of the poem. ἤχλυσεν: the form is a Homeric rarity (Od. 12.406, 14.304). The verb is rare in

Hellenistic poetry: Call. fr. 319,1, Ap. Rh. 3.963. Cf. also Qu. Sm. 1.597f, on Penthesileias defeat, dpi δέ of vie / ὀφθαλμοὺς ἤχλυσε.7 Cf. the occurrence of ἀχλύς, together with the ζόφος of death and an eclipse of the sun in the ominous

vision of Theoclymenus at Od. 20.356f.° For nature's participation in the lament for divine or heroic figures (cf. Theocr. 1.132f., Bion Ad. 31-9) but also for humans ([Moschus]’ Bion 1-7), see Reed on Bion loc. cit., Alexiou 56, 166. Cf. below, on δυομένην,

ἀκρέσπερος: at the end of the evening, at nightfall. At Nic. Th. 25 dxpéomepos evöns the scholiast correctly explains κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς νυκτός. See Gow on Theocr. 24.77, where we have the adverbial neuter ἀκρέσπερον ἀείδουσαι, denoting also the late evening. For more examples of ἄκρος indicating time, see also H. White ad loc.: Pind. P 11.10 ἄκρᾳ σὺν ἑσπέρᾳ, Arat. 775 ἄκρῃ νυκτί, Theocr. 11.37 χειμῶνος ἄκρω;" for compounds in -eowepos, frequent in Hellenistic poetry, cf. Giangrande (1965) 280. In the Anthology, Diosc. 7.31=19,7 HE φιλέσπερον ἄνθος, Dosiadas 15.26,11 τριεσπέροιο, anon. 5.305,1 ὑφέσπερα. In Crinagoras another compound with axpo- (ἀκρόπτερον in 4,1) occurs at the same sedes: cf. ad loc.

7. Aydds, the ‘mist’ in one’s eyes, is a common Homeric formula (Hl. 5.127, 15.668, 20.321); as a

metaphor of death: Il. 5.696, 16.344, 20.421, Od. 22.88. See Irwin 174. Cf, Mugler’s thesis that the slars are eyes which see everything from the sky (1959) 52f, and passim.

δ For celestial bodies participating in earthly mourning, cf. the sky and stars dimming and the

moon being bloodstained or setting in grief for Christ (see Alexiou 71 and 221, n. 40) in Anaphora Pilati, Tischendorf 417A σελήνη δὲ τὸ φέγγος ὡς αἱματίζουσα διέλιπεν, and in traditional Modern

Greek laments on the Crucifixion: Βλέπει τὸν οὐρανὸ θαμπὸ καὶ τ᾿ ἄστρα φουρκωμένα καὶ τὸ φεγγάρι τὰ λαμπρὸ στὸ αἷμα βουτημένο

(Laographial934, 251.571) Ὃ οὐρανὸς ταράχτηκε καὶ ἡ θάλασσα στεριεύει καὶ τὸ φεγγάρι τὸ λαμπρὸ καὶ κεῖνο βασιλεύει (ibid, 255.42-3) 5 Here probably in the sense of ‘the middle of the winter’; see Gow and Hunter ad loc,

AP 7,633= 18

ἀντέλλουσα: for the rising of the moon, cf. Aristoph. Nub. 754 ef unrer’avareAdoı σελήνη, Nonnus D. 1.175, 28.230f. For the poetical form ἀντ-, cf., for instance, Theocr. 13.25, Marc. Arg. AP 9.87=22,4 and 10.4=28,7 GP, Strato 12.225=68,1

Floridi with Floridi ad loc. 2f. Myvy...ef5e: Crinagoras uses the alternative name of the moon, so as to refer to Cleopatra with her second name, Σελήνη, in the next line, without repeating the term. For the use of synonyms by Hellenistic poets, see on Crin. 17,4 κλῆσιν; cf. also the variation LeAjvy-Myvy at Nonnus (D. 4.221{., 6.75f., 11.186-8, al.). Μήνη is a comparatively rare word, occurring only twice elsewhere in the Anthology: Marc. Arg, 5.16=1,1 and 5.110=8,6 GP. Elsewhere, N. 19.374, 23.455, h. XXXII 1, Sappho fr. 96,8 L-P, Pind. O. 3.20, Aesch. Pr. 797,

Ap. Rh. 3.533 and 4.55, and a few more occurrences. See Gow-Page on Marc. Arg. 1,1 GP.

For the concept of the moon ‘seeing’ from the sky what happens on earth, cf. Marc. Arg. AP5.16=1,1 GP Μήνη χρυσόκερως, δέρκῃ τάδε, Ap. Rh. 4.55 φοιταλέην ἐσιδοῦσα θεὰ ἐπεχήρατο Μήνη. The notion of sun and stars ‘seeing’ human affairs is common in Greek literature: Il, 3.276f., Od. 11.109, 12.323, h. Cer. 70, al. Also, cf. anon. AP 9.384,2, Catullus 7.7f. aut quam sidera multa.../ furtivos

hominum vident amores. See Mugler 1959, 52f., Irwin 176 with n. 43, Richardson on h. Cer. 70, Fordyce on Cat. 7.8. πένθος ἐόν: Gow-Page remark that the moon may have a special interest in her namesake, but the stress of the possessive pronoun seems excessive (for the emphasis the pronoun conveys, cf., for instance, Il. 23.295 τὸν ἐόν re [1odapyor;

also Hes. Op. 58, Pind. P. 2.92). Already in Homer, however, the pronoun does not necessarily have the emphatic sense ‘his own, but can simply mean suus, eius: cf., for instance, I, 1.533 ἐὸν πρὸς δῶμα, Od. 8.524 eis πρόσθεν πόλιος, 13.52

ξεῖνον πέμπωμεν env ἐς πατρίδα. See Ebeling s.v. ἐός. The emphatic use of the pronoun is apt for Crin. 17,1 é6v... οὔνομα. In the present poem the two further occurrences of the pronoun, Il. 5-6 ἑοῦ... φωτός, ἐῷ κνέφεϊ, do not seem to

convey any particular stress; cf. Ap. Rh. 4.26 «dace δ᾽ ἐόν re λέχος, 3.847, 4.1113. In the Anthology, cf. Antip. Sid. 6.219=64,8, Alc. Mess. 7.412=14,4 HE. For

similar phrases in a context of pain, cf. Palladas AP 9.183,5 viv ὁσίως στένε καὶ σὺ τεὸν πάθος (on the goddess Fortune), Jul. Aeg. AP! 113,2 ἄλγος ἐόν (the pain of Philoctetes).

For the moon's πένθος, cf. Antip. Sid. AP 7.241=25,7 HE.

νυκτὶ καλυψαμένη: the image of covering something/someone with ‘night’ is Homeric; at Il. 5.23 and 507 a god is protecting men with the darkness he sends to the field of battle. ‘Covering with darkness, however, primarily indicates death (Il. 13.424£.). On eyes: τὸν δὲ σκότος ὄσσε κάλυψεν (II. 4.461, 4.503, 6.11,

13.575, al.; cf. Tarrant 182). Cf. also Aesch. Sept. 403 θανόντι νὺξ ἐπ᾿ ὀφθαλμοῖς

πέσοι, Eur. Ph. 950, Anyte AP 7.646=7,3f,, Leon. AP 7.440=11,1 HE, Peek 1880=99,2 Kaibel (ap III-IV).’° Cf. the metaphor for Christ in the Epitaphiog Threnos of Good Friday, ὑπὸ γῆν ἐκρύβης, ὥσπερ ἥλιος, νῦν καὶ νυκτὶ τῇ τοῦ θανάτου κεκάλυψαι (Stasis 1.30: see Alexiou 66). Καλύπτειν is further appropriate in this context, as covering of the head (with a dark cloth) was a sign of mourning. Cf. Eust. on Il. 24.93f. (1340,62ff.) ὅτι διὰ πένθος τὸ ἐπὶ Ἀχιλλεῖ, καὶ ταῦτα ζῶντι

ἔτι, κάλυμμα ἡ Θέτις Ede κνάνεον, ὡς εἰκὸς τοὺς ἐπὶ νεκροῖς παθαινομένους; also Plut. Mor. 2678. See further Richardson on Iı. Cer. 42.

οὕνεκα: Crinagoras uses the conjunction in its Homeric sense ‘because, ‘since’ quia: Il, 1.11 οὕνεκα τὸν Χρύσην ἠτίμασεν, 1.111, 2.580, 6.386, al. See Cunliffe s.v,

3. In the same sense and sedes in the Anthology: Phaedimus 6,271=1,3, anon, 7.714=52,3 HE, Erycius 7.377=13,3 GP, al.

xapieooav: for the adjective, see on Crin. 1,3. ὁμώνυμον.... Σελήνην: as elsewhere (Eros 17, Prote 14), Crinagoras exploits the

associations provoked by the name of the deceased. Cf. Diog. Laert. 3.29 on the epigrams Plato is supposed to have written for a pupil of his named ‘Star, AP 7.669=1, 7.670=2 FGE.

Ouwrupos occurs always at the same sedes in the Anthology: Mel. 7.421=5,11 HE, Antip. Thess. 11.24=3,3 GP, anon. 9.646,] and 15.7,7, as well as in Homer (ἅπαξ), Il. 17.720; it does not recur in early epic.

4 ἄπνουν: the Budé commentators suggest that the term implies the ἅπνοια as a phase of the agony of death, used by the medical writers. The word, however, indicating simply the dead (‘breath-bereft; ‘lifeless’), occurs often in literature: cf. Diosc. 7,229=30,1 ἐπ᾿ ἀσπίδος ἥλυθεν ἄπνους, Leon. 7.652=15,6 HE τεθρήνητ᾽ ἄπνους, Marc. Arg. 7.374=19,3f. GP ἀλλά με daiuwr / ἅπνουν αἰθυίαις θῆκεν ὁμορρόθιον (same sedes), Peek 731=702,1 Kaibel (An II-III) Evéade keine ἄναυδον, ἄπνουν, Eévov.../ παιδίον. Cf. ἄπνοος at Ap. Rh. 4.1403. See further Galan Vioque on Diosc. 26,1.

ζοφερόν.... Ἀίδην: the adjective occurs at Hes. Th. 814 ydeos Lodepoto, imitated by Nonnus ἢ, 7.111 Xaeos ζοφεροὺς πυλεῶνας. On death, cf. Peek 1511,8 (II Bc)

πικρὸς ὅδε ζοφερᾷ τύμβος ἔδεκτίο κόνει), Peek 992=310,3 Kaibel (ap II-IID, Peek 1164=727,15 Kaibel (ap II-III). The association of Hades with ζόφος first

appears in Homer (Il. 15.191 Ἀίδης δ ἔλαχε ξόφον ἠερόεντα); for the conventional association of light with life and of darkness with death, see Lattimore 161-3, Skiadas (1967) 41, n. 1, Irwin 173-82, Alexiou 153, 168f., 187-9; cf. Tarrant 182. In

the present poem, Hades stands for the Homeric ‘house of Hades: Cf. next note.

‘© For more examples of death approaching the eyes, see Geoghegan on Anyte 7,3f.

Note the ὁμοιοτέλευτον in 11. 3 and 4 (Σελήνην — Ἀίδην) and the alliteration οὖν

in the same lines"! ϑυομένην: for the setting of the moon, cf. adesp. 58,1f. PMG δέδυκε μὲν d σελάνα / καὶ Πληϊάδες, Bion fr. 11,56 τήνα (sc. ceAavata) /...överr. The concept of the dead having ‘set’ in Hades is Homeric: Il. 3.322 τὸν δὸς ἀποφθίμενον δῦναι δόμον

Ἄϊδος εἴσω, 7.131, Od. 10.174f. The image of a lady named Selene ‘setting’ into Hades, moreover, recalls the Homeric threat of Helios that he will go down to Hades and shine there: Od. 12.383 δύσομαι eis Ἀΐδαο καὶ ἐν νεκύεσσι φαείνω.

This reversal of the natural order is paralleled by the ‘paradox’ whereby

Crinagoras’ Selene sets into the gloom of Hades.'” Note also the contrast between the real moon ‘rising’ in the first line, and her namesake lady ‘setting’ in the fourth line which is the core of the poem, as it conveys the main, delayed, information, that the beautiful lady is dead. Cf. a similar contrast in Peek 585=568,3f. Kaibel (ap II-III) ὅτις ἐνὶ ζωοῖσιν ὅκως ἀνέτελλεν Ewos, / νῦν δύνει δ᾽ ὑπὸ γῆν ἕσπερος ἐν φθιμένοις. Autore (36) compared Mart. 1.101,5 ad

Stygias... descenderet umbras. The shadows of Styx is a commonplace in Latin poetry: cf., for instance, Ov. Met. 1.139, 10.13, Mart. 6.18,2, 9.51,3, 11.84,1, 12.52,12. 5 κείνῃ: the correction to keivnisin Ap. B., and not in Ap. G., as Gow-Page and Page (1975, 306) report.

κάλλος... φωτός: for the idea of the beauty of the moon's light, cf. h. Mere. 141 καλὸν δὲ φόως κατέλαμπε Σελήνης (see Allen-Halliday-Sikes ad loc.). Cf. also

h, XXXII 7, Sappho fr. 34,1 L-P, Pind. O. 10.74f, Aristoph. Nub. 614{.}} The notion of the ‘shining’ beauty of a human is Homeric: Il. 3.392 κάλλεϊ re στίλβων καὶ eiuacıv, Od. 6.237 with Garvie ad loc. Cf. also Agath. AP 11.64,8 μαρμαρυγῆς κάλλους, Mel. 12.84=114,4 and 12.110=105,1 HE; cf. Il. 6.295 and Od.

15.108 ἀστὴρ δ᾽ ὡς ἀπέλαμπεν. Jacobs’ remarked that poets were in the habit of comparing beautiful men and women to the moon, and cited h. Ven. 89f. and

Musaeus 55-7. One can add further examples; Hes. fr. 142,4 Θηρώ τ᾽ εὐειδέα U For the ὁμοιοτέλευτον between the hemistichs of the pentameter in Crinagoras, see Intr., Metre, Pentameter, Homoeoteleuton and agreement between pentameter ends,

2 Cf. the image of Christ, compared to the sun, setting beneath the earth, and Mary, compared lo the moon, fainting/fading away in the Epitaphios Threnos of Good Friday: δύνεις ὑπὸ γῆν, Σώτερ, ἥλιε τῆς δικαιοσύνης" ὅθεν ἡ τεκοῦσα σελήνη σε ταῖς λύπαις ἐκλείπει, σῆς θέας στερουμένη (Stasis 2.25). Cf. also the idea of Christ's ‘setting beauty, & γλυκύ μου ἔαρ, γλυκύτατόν μου τέκνον, ποῦ ἔδυ σου τὸ κάλλος; (Stasis 3.16). For the comparison of the beloved one, who is now lost, to a star, closely related to the contrast between life (light) and death (darkness), cf. also Eustathius

Macrembolites’ Hysmine and Hysminias 10.10,34. Cf. also the comparison of cities with stars: for instance, anon. API 295,2 (Colophon); in laments, cf. Polystratus AP 7.297=2,1 HE (of Corinth) and the image of the fallen Constantinople the Thrénos for Constantinople ἤσουν φωστῆρας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἄστρον τῆς Ἀφροδίτης (see Alexiou 66-71, 169, and 188).

}3 Lor expressions describing the moon's light in Greek poetry, see Ch. Mugler, ‘La lumiére et

la vision dans la poésie grecque, REG 73 (1960), Al.

ἰκέλην φαέεσσι σελήνης, Sappho fr. 96,6-9 L-P viv δὲ Λύδαισιν ἐμπρέπεται yuvai- | Keoow

ὦς ποτ᾽ deXiw | δύντος a βροδοδάκτυλος

Tunva / πάντα mep

éxota®

ἄστρα, fr. 34 L-P (see Bowra 1961, 234, Kirkwood 128), Theocr. 2.79, Qu. Sm,

136-41, Triphiod. 514-21. Cf. Nonnus D, 5.487f., 18.115, Heliodorus 3.6,17, Claudian 10.243f., al.14

κοινώσατο: shared’ the beauty of her light. Note that the only other occurrence of the verb in the Anthology is Crinagoras’ 25,3 on Cleopatra's wedding. The

verb is used mainly by the dramatists; cf., for instance, Soph. Ant. 539 οὔτ᾽ ἠθέλησας οὔτ᾽ ἐγὼ ᾿κοινωσάμην, Eur. fr. pap. 65,10 (C. E L. Austin, Nova Fragmenta Euripidea in Papyris Reperta (1968)) κοινώσεται χοροῦ παρθένος.

Cf. also Pind. N. 3.11f. with Bury ad loc. 6 wi£ev: the form occurs at the same sedes at Paul. Sil. AP 5.290,4. In a context of grief, cf. anon. API 83,4 δάκρυα τοὺς λύπης πάντας ἔμιξε πόνους. Reiske (1754, 148 and 1766, 125) printed δεῖξεν (in fact deifev), but there is no reason to change

the verb, especially since it corresponds to κοινώσατο of the previous line, as Jacobs’ observed. Jacobs further compares Antiphilus AP 7.375=26,4 GP σεισμῷ δ᾽ ἄλλον ἔμιξα φόβον. κνέφεϊ: Jens (332) printed νέφεϊ (Hutton (1946, 279, n. 41) believed this was an

error for xvédei). Elsewhere in the Anthology only at Diosc. 6.220=16,5 HE. Hesychius has κνέφας' ἑσπέρα, σκοτία νύξ, κενὴ φάους. The usual declension of the noun is κνέφας -ατος: cf. Suda s.v. κνέφας. As Gow-Page observe, the statement of Suda s.v. κνέφει" σκότῳ, ἀπὸ τῆς Kvépos εὐθείας. Οὕτως Aidaves,

explains the editors’ κνέφει at Aelian NA 5.43, while codd. give κνέφαι. This lemma of the Suda is Aelian’s fr. 153 Hercher=156 Domingo-Forasté; cf. fr. 342,1

Hercher=339,1 Domingo-Forasté where codex F of the Suda gives κνέφει."ὅ These are the only occurrences of the dative κνέφει in extant literature (for the

dative xvéda, cf. Xen. Hell, 7.1,15, Cyr. 4.2,15 ἅμα xvéda: the word here has the sense of ‘morning twilight’ as at Aristoph. Eccl. 290). For the declension of the noun as κνέφος -ous, cf. Aristoph. Eccl. 290 mp@ πάνυ τοῦ xvédous,'® Et. M. s.v. κνέφας: εἴρηται δὲ καὶ κνέφος ὡς οὖδας odöos, Photius Lex. s.v. κνέφας and

κνέφος. The occurrence of the word in this context is further apt. Cf. the common Homeric image of the setting sun going into κνέφας: Il. 1.475, 11.194, 17.455, Od. 3,329, 5.225, 9.168, al. 1% For more examples and for a detailed account of comparison of a person to the moon in literature, see Kost on Musaeus 57, Gerlaud on Triphiod. 514-21, Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. Od. 2.5,19. Cf. also Skiadas (1965) 79.

15. Ὁ, Hercher, Claudii Aeliani de natura animatium libri xvii, varia historia, epistolae, fragmenta (Leipzig 1864-6), D, Domingo-Forasté, Claudius Aelianus: Epistulae et Fragmenta (Stuttgart 1994). For a discussion of the dative κνέφει in Aelian, see L. Rodriguez-Noriega Guillén, ‘Aelian and Atticism. Critical Notes on the Text of De Natura Animalium, CQ 55 (2005), 458. ‘© Note the uniqueness of this form of the genitive commented on by Eustathius, 1354.1ff (cf. κνέφατος in Polyb. 8.26,10 and κνέφαος in Od. 18.370, Arat. 472 and 872). For discussion of the

formation of κνέφος from κνέφας, see Hust. loc.cit,, Herodian in Gr. Gr. 3.1,393,29, 3.2,281,13.

AP 7.643 =19

‘Yuvida τὴν Εὐάνδρου, ἐράσμιον αἰὲν ἄθυρμα οἰκογενές, κούρην αἱμύλον eivafrın, ἥρπασας, ὦ ἀλλιστ᾽ Aidn, ri ππρόωρον ἐφιείς μοῖραν τῇ πάντως σεῖο TOT ἐσσομένῃ; __ AP7.643 [C] Kpivayspov [I] εἰς παιδίσκην Ὑμνίδα τὴν παίστριαν τὴν Εὐάνδρου Pl III’ 11 (εἰς γυναῖκας), 10 ᾿Κριναγόρου 2 εἰναέτιν Salm.: οἰναέτιν ΡΒ ἐνναέτιν Pl 4 τῆ. .. ἐσσομένῃη D’Orville: τὴν εὐ

3 αλλιστ᾽ P*: ἄλιστ᾽ PP, ἄλληστ᾽ Pl

τὴν PPI | σεῖο ποτ᾽ Pl, σοὶ ποθὴ P

Brunck n. 42, Rubensohn n. 22

Hymnis of Evander, an ever-lovely toy born in the house, a nine-year-old maiden of wheedling ways you have seized, ruthless Hades; why did you

send an early doom to her who would be anyway yours someday? An epitaph on Hymnis, a slave girl; Peek takes it to be inscriptional (1586).

Commenting on the presentation of Hymnis in the first half of the poem, Griessmair (50) remarks that rather than dealing with the lost future of the

child, the poet deals only with the description of the child herself. It can be further added that stress is placed on the sharp contrast between the graces and qualities of the girl on the one hand (accumulation of nouns and adjectives) and the pitilessness of Hades on the other. These two elements stand in perfect balance and are accurately divided, as the girl’s merits occupy exactly the first

half of the poem (first couplet) and death and its cruelty occupy exactly the second half (second couplet). The first couplet conveying the description of Hymnis is built on a tricolon, the three word-groups being symmetrical to each other and each one adding to our knowledge new features of the girl: Hymnis of Evander (presentation of a female ‘belonging’ to someone), lovable toy in the house (neutralization, as it were, of the girl who is described in terms of an

object), a charming nine-year-old maiden (return to her female identity with a reference, finally, to her age). This ‘grammatical’ ambiguity and hesitation as to

the expression of the girl's gender is in accordance with her wavering identity

208

AP 7.643 = I>

and role, oscillating between that ofa child and that of a woman. Note also the musicality that accompanies Hymnis with the alliteration of p in the first line and that of the smooth consonants μα and » in the first two lines, appearing together with the presentation of the girl; the smooth consonants suddenly stop when the theme of death is introduced with the first word of the third

verse (Ypmacas), and the cruelty of death is further underlined by the change from the alliteration of μ and v to that of the sibilant ¢ which accompanies Hades in the first hemistich of the third line. The juxtaposition of eivadrır and

ἥρπασας puts additional stress on the idea of the fate’s injustice and harshness. See also below, on σεῖο ποτ᾽ ἐσσομένῃ.

Of the components of a full epicedion we here have laudatio and a restricted lamentatio, contained in the topes of mors immatura; for epicedia, see on Crin. 16, intr. note. For sepulchral poems on slaves see on Crin. 15, intr. note and passim. For epitaphs on children see Griessmair 47-52. We have Martial's epitaphs

for a six-year-old slave girl, Erotion, 5.34, 5.37, 10.61, and a seven-year-old one, Canace, 11.91; cf. Kay ad loc., intr. note. Epitaph for a Libyan slave girl, who died before marriage, is Antip. Thess. AP 7.185=16 GP. The approach of the whole poem is diminutive and the child is described in terms of a pet, a delicium, a

small slave child, such as those kept by the Romans; cf. Octavian’s children from Mauretania and Syria (Suet. Aug, 83). In epigrams, cf. Mart. 5.34,1f. puellam / oscula commendo deliciasque meas, 6.28,3 cari deliciae breves patroni; also

Stat. Silv. 2.1,71 tu modo deliciae, dulces modo pectore curae. For a discussion of the delicia and their role in the household, see further Slater (1974) passim, Van Dam 72f.; cf. also T. P. Wiseman, ‘Camerius Again, LCM 6.6 (1981), 155, and

Marquardt 153, n. 1. Delicia served, inter alia, as amusements during banquets; this function is strongly suggested by the name of the girl here: see below, on 'Ypvida. For the suggestion of an erotic aspect in the relationship of Hymnis with her master, see below, on ἐράσμιον and ἄθυρμα. 1 Ὑμνίδα: in addition to being a title of a play by Menander (frr. 362-7] K-A) and appearing in Lucian D. Mer. 13, the name also occurs in several inscriptions covering the whole of Greece from Ionia, Macedonia, and Thrace to Crete and Magna Graecia; for instance, IG 22 8376 (Athens, II-I Bc, on a woman from Argos), /G 3 App. 75a5 (Athens, III Bc?), SEG 45.1589 (Ephesos, ap II-III). See

further LGPN, vols. II, ITIA, IIIB, IV, VA s.v. Commenting on JG 3 App. 75a5, Bechtel (1917, 565) cites the name among women’s names after the Muses and

further suggests that it must be a diminutive of Πολυμνίς and that it belongs to an hetaira, as it does in Lucian. Cf. also the fictional courtesans named Ἁβρότονον in Menander's Epitrepontes' or Movodprov in Lucian D. Mer. 7, * It can be noted that names of hetairai in Middle Comedy were taken from real, although not necessarily contemporary, courtesans, See T. B. L. Webster, Studies in Later Greek Comedy (Manchester 1953), 63f.

typical tasks of the hetairai being singing and playing instruments. For the girl’s association with the Muses, see also below on ἐράσμιον. The possibility that the child was trained to play music and sing at symposia is implied by her name, as happens with the (typically Greek) names of other delicia (Euphrosyne, Thallusa, Methe, Talia) in Roman households; see Slater (1974) 137, P. Watson 262, n. 55.” Hymnis’ name and her probable status as a delicium suggest that she

js a young slave girl in a Roman house and, accordingly, that the poem was written in Rome and not in Mytilene. Εὐάνδρου: according to Geist (46; followed by Beckby), this Evander was the

freedman of M. Aemilius Avianius. He is the sculptor mentioned by Cicero (Fam. 7.23 and 13.2) and Pliny (NH 36.4,32) as Avianius Evander, and who was prought to Alexandria by Antony, and then taken to Rome after Actium as a prisoner of war.” Although the identification is not certain, due to the com-

monness of the name,’ it is probable, since this Evander must be a person belonging to the poet's lofty social and artistic entourage, among those who afforded such decorative delicia.

ἐράσμιον: the Muses and their music are often accompanied by ἐρατός or ἐρατεινός. Cf. Archil. 1,2 JEG Movo

ἐρατὸν δῶρον ἐπιστάμενος, h. Merc.

423, 455, Apol. 515, Eur. El. 718, anon. AP 7.10=31,8, and anon. 9.571=36(b),7f. FGE; Crinagoras attributes to the girl an epithet reminiscent (like her very name)

of the goddesses and their art.” Ἐράσμιος, however, also has erotic implications. The word is mainly prosaic; in poetry, cf. Aesch. Ag. 605, Semon. fr. 7,51f. JEG, Anacr. 30,1f. PMG, Anacreont, 15,1 West, [Moschus] Bion 20, Nonnus D.

32.27. Elsewhere in the Anthology at Pompeius 7.219=1,1 GP and Leon. Alex. 9,344=21,3 FGE. For the adjective's placement in an erotic context, see Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 605, who cites, apart from Semonides and Anacreon, also Platonic passages, dealing with matters associated with ἔρως, where the adjective appears (for instance Phaedr. 250d, Rep. 402d). See also below, on ἄθυρμα.

αἰέν: αἰέν usually accompanies some verbal form (which may be omitted); for αἰέν qualifying a noun’s adjective, cf., indicatively, Hom. Od. 11.575 χερσὶν ἔχων ῥόπαλον παγχάλκεον, αἰὲν aayes, Nic. Th. 818 σαλαμάνδρειον δόλιον δάκος αἰὲν * For evidence of slaves’ training in music, see for instance C. A. Forbes, ‘Supplementary Paper:

"Ihe Education and ‘Iraining of Slaves in Antiquity, TAPA 86 (1955), 329f. * Cf. Porphyrion’s comment on Hor. Sat. 1.3,91. That Horace is referring to the sculptor Evander

at this point, however, has been doubted. See A. Palmer (‘The Satires of Horace, New York 1905), P Lejay (Oeuvres d’Horace, Satires, Paris 1911), P. M. Brown (Horace, Satires I, Warminster 1995) and

Gowers ad. loc, See also RE s.v. Euandros, 10. For Evander and his career in Rome after 30 Βα, see further C. C. van Essen, ‘Literary Evidence for the Beginnings of Roman Art, JRS 24 (1934), 159f.

* Cf. LGPN all volumes, s.v. " Ἐρατώ is the Muse of lyric poetry and Polymnia is the Muse of hymns and pantomime, but the exact names and arts of the Muses are not stable. Cf. anon. AP 9.504,6, schol. on Ap. Rh, 3.1-5:

Ἐρατὼ δὲ ὄρχησιν, Πολύμνια δὲ λύραν; also West on Hes. Th. 78, Gow on Theocr. 11.6 and GowPage GP 2.306.

ἀπεχθές, Qu. Sm, 3.463 ἄχος αἰὲν ἄφυκτον, Peek 264=450,1 Kaibel (AD IT) μνῆμα: + με ὁρᾷςa περικαλλές, ἀοίδιμον αἰὲν ὁδίταις.

ἄθυρμα: in anon. AP 7.483=47 HE the dead child is also ἃ παίγνιον, but ἐν δώμασι Φερσεφονείοις (see below, on jpracas). The word might imply the girl’s possible musical skilfulness (see above on Ὑμνίδα): cf. Bacchyl. 9.87 Maehler, where the song is Mouc[dv...d@]upza; in fact, Crinagoras ἐράσμιον ἄϑυρμα might be a variation of ἐρατεινὸν ἄθυρμα in h. Merc. 52 (of Hermes’ lyre). For the association of ἄθυρμα and ἀθύρειν with music and song, see further Maehler on Bacchyl. 9.87. However, παίγνιον or ἄθυρμα is anyway used of young slaves, Cf. Plut. Ant. 59.8 ὁ δὲ δάρμεντος ἦν τῶν Kaloapos παιγνίων παιδάριον, ἃ δηλίκια Ρωμαῖοι καλοῦσιν, Philostr. VS 490 ἦν οὗτος Ἰνδὸς μὲν... ἄθυρμα δὲ

Ἡρώδου τε καὶ Φαβωρίνου. Lusus is also used among deliciae, pupus, and other terms; see Slater (1974) 133 with nn. 12 and 13. For slave children described as

delicia and delicata in Latin epitaphs, cf. CIL 9.1721, 3.2414. See further Lattimore 282, Van Dam 73, Grewing on Mart. 6.28,3. Cf. Martial’s account about young

slaves, 5.37,17 nostros amores gaudiumque lususque (on the six-year-old slave girl Erotion), 7.14,2 amisit lusus deliciasque (on a twelve-year-old boy), Mart. 4.87,1£ infantem.../...lusus deliciasque vocat, with Moreno Soldevila on |. 2. Actors and other performers can also be described as the city’s ‘toys. Cf. Mart. 11.13,4, on a pantomimist. The word might also imply the girl's function in the household, as children slaves could be pueri conlusores for the masters’ children. Cf. Hist. Aug. 4.6, Plaut. Capt. 19f., 982, Juv. 14.169; see Slater (1974) 133 with n. 4. P. Watson (261ff.) argued that the role of the delicia could be that of erotic objects

for their masters (not participating in full sexual intercourse before growing up; see further on Crin, 17,6 adros..."Epws), mentioning, inter alia, that Ausonius’ young slave Bissula is called /udus, amor voluptas (17.4,1 Green). Watson (261f., n. 51) sees Crinagoras’ description of Hymnis in the present poem in the same light of master-slave girl relationship. The sexual connotations of delicium are discussed also by Van Dam 72f. and Grewing on Mart. 6.28,3. 2 οἰκογενές: the word reveals that the girl is Evander’s slave, not daughter, as Paton, Le Maitre in the Bude edition, and Beckby translate. Ofa slave born in the house, cf. Dio Chr. 15.25 τοὺς παρὰ σφίσι γεννηθέντας obs οἰκογενεῖς καλοῦσι, Plato Meno 820,4; also the P. Oxy. XXXI 2582 (P), a contract on a slave's sale in ap 49. ‘These slaves were called vernae in Latin; cf. Mart. 5.37,20 vernulae (of Erotion). The

position ofa slave born in the house or acquired in childhood than that of one bought later in his life. Cf. the praises on dead 2.1,76 hic domus, hine ortus, Mart. 6.29,1 non de plebe domus catastae, with Grewing ad loc. and Van Dam 110. Cf. also the

was always better slaves at Stat. Silv. nec avarae verna pride of the shep-

herd at Soph. OT 1123 δοῦλος οὐκ ὠνητός, ἀλλ᾽ οἴκοι τραφείς with Jebb ad loc.

κούρην: for the attribution of the term to a child in sepulchral poetry, οἷ, for instance, Peek 1236=346,2 Kaibel (same sedes; AD I, four years old), Paul. Sil, AP

7,604,1 (twelve years old).

αἱμύλον: as Gow-Page comment (see also Griessmair 49), the adjective normally has an uncomplimentary sense in literature, with the exception of sepulchral epigrams. Cf. the positive nuance of the word at Peek 840,2 (Demetrias

jII-II Bc, on a three-year-old girl), 1512,1 (Smyrna, II sc, on a two-year-old girl) αἱμύλα κωτίλλουσα (the phrase taken from Hes. Op. 374 where it describes a deceptive woman), Peek 698,1f. (Cyprus, II BC) ἡ στερχθεῖσα.... οὕνεκα τερπνῆς / alpurtns.

εἰναέτιν: similar feminine adjectives denoting age are to be found, for instance, in the epitaphs for girls cited above: Peek 698,3 ὀκταέτις, 840,1 τριέτις, also Peek 1162=151,] Kaibel (AD II) dxtwxatdetiv. Also Diosc. AP 7.166=39,4

εἰκοσέτιν, Perses 7.487=6,4 HE τεσσαρακαιδεκέτιν, al. As far as the form is con-

cerned, the correction εἰναέτιν, attributed to Salmasius by editors and generally adopted by modern editors, is likely to be correct; cf. the Homeric adverb elvderes (Il. 18.400, Od. 3.118, al.). However, Pl’s ἐνναέτιν is not to be totally

disregarded; the form ἐνν- appears at Theocr. 26.29 ἐνναετής. The years of the girl form a further allusive connection with the Muses, as the number of the years recall the number of the Muses. ‘This is the age of the companions that Artemis requests from her father at Call. H. 3.13f. 3f. ἥρπασας: for the common idea of Hades ‘seizing’ people, see on Crin. 15,3f. ἐκ δέ... ἥρπασεν. Ihe form at the same sedes also in a plaintive question to Hades at anon. AP 7.221,6.

ἄλλιστ᾽ Aidy: Brodaeus (321, and in Brodaeus-Obsopoeus 339), Scaliger® and Brunck proposed ärAnor’ (for this suggestion, see also Luck 44; John Upton also has it in the margin of the BL Stephaniana shelfm. 11335h31).’ Cf. Χάρων amAnore in Bianor AP 7.671=5,1 GP and Peek 1588,1 (AD II-III). Brodaeus locc.

citt, explains ἄλληστε as ἄλαστε, σχέτλιε, ἁμαρτωλέ, Obsopoeus (388, and in Brodaeus-Obsopoeus 339) explains it as ἀλάθητε, ‘non obliviscente Orce’;; Lascaris (also thus in his Paris. Gr. 2863 and 2891), Nicolini Sabienses (135),

and Aldi Filii (135) print the adjective as dAnor.® Since we have P’s reading,

however, there is no reason why this should not be retained, since in the present context the idea of Hades’ pitilessness is appropriate and aAAıoros, the epic form of ἄλιστος, is not unattested (for Crinagoras taste for rare words, see Intr.,

° In the margin of his copy of the 1566 Stephaniana, now in the university library of Leiden (756 D 9).

” For this British scholar (1707-60), whose handwritten notes appear on editions of Aratus and of the Iliad as well, now in the British Library, see Dictionary of National Biography 1885-1900, 58 (1899), 39. ® This coincidence is due to the fact that the third Aldine (printed by Aldus’ son Paolo Manuzio

shortly after the Nicolini edition) repeats Nicolini's edition, which, although it was a reprint of the second Aldine (1521), was revised in the light of Lascaris’ edition. See Hutton (1935) 220 and 2306. However, Hutton’s assertion that Paolo Manuzios edition ‘is an exact replica’ of the Nicolini edi-

tion is not entirely true; see on τίη. 11,3 EraAns... καλιήν.

Language

and

Style,

ἅπαξ

λεγόμενα).

For

ἄλλιστος,

cf. Euphorion

fr. 98,4

Powell=102,4 Van Groningen ἀλλίστοιο πύλας ἔβαν Aidovjos (with Van Groningen ad loc.), Peek 2013=697a,2 Kaibel (ap U-III) ἀϊλλίστου ταχέως

ἀντιάσαντ᾽ Ἀίδεω. On the inexorability of death, cf., for instance, Hom. Il. 9.158 Ἀίδης τοι ἀμείλιχος ἠδ᾽ ἀδάμαστος, anon. AP 7.483=47,] HE Ἀίδη ἀλλιτάνευτε καὶ ἄτροπε, Lucian 7.308,2. For this motif in sepulchral poems, see further Verilhac 2.195-9. For Hades as the god responsible for deaths in epitaphs, see for instance Lattimore 147f. For adjectives usually attributed to Hades in epitaphs, see Skiadas (1967) 87, n. 3.

The Stephaniana reserved in BNF, Res. Yb. 353, has pro dAaore superscr. rt: Peek 1585-91, ‘Simon. AP 7.515=70 FGE, Philip 7.186=24,5f. and 7.187=77,2

GP, anon. 7.483=47,1f. HE are plaintive questions (‘why...’) to Hades, Charon,

Persephone, and the like. For ri questions in a lamenting context, see further on Crin. 14,1 τίσε... εἴπω: and on 16,1f. The present question "Why have you stolen

the youth, would he be not yours some day?’ is a variation of the formula. C£. Bianor AP 7.671=5 GP Πάντα Χάρων ἄπληστε, τί τὸν νέον npravas | αὕτως Ἅταλλον; οὐ σὸς ἔην κἂν θάνε γηραλέος; (with Gow-Page ad loc., intr. note), Peek 975=576,3f. Kaibel (Ap 119), Peek 1038=577,5f. Kaibel (Ap III?), Peek 1588, Peek 1589=578 Kaibel, Peek 1591 (aD II-III); cf. also Peek 1590 (ap IT). For this motif,

see also Verilhac 2.193-5.

mpowpov: a rare word for ‘untimely, earlier only at Phalaecus AP 13.27=4,8 HE, Cf. Peek 849,1 (Flaviopolis, Phrygia, AD 1) πέντ᾽ ἐπὶ πεντήκοντα «μόνον» τελέσαντα πρόωρον / μῆνας Μηνιανὸν Μοῖρα βίου στέρεσεν. As Gow- Page comment, the common word is πρόμοιρον (e.g. Lucill. AP 11.159,3). Cf. also ἄωρος

or ἀώριος at Theocr. AP 7.662=9,1 HE, Julian 7.600,1, Greg, Naz. 8.119,3.° ἐφιείς

μοῖραν: μοῖρα as fated doom, i.e. destiny of death, already appears in

Homer: Il. 6.488, Od. 11.560. For ἐφέημι on the imposition of death, cf. Od. 19.550 μνηστῆρσιν ἀεικέα πότμον ἐφήσω, Aesch. Eum. 502 πάντ᾽ ἐφήσω μόρον.

With μοῖραν, cf. Nic. Th. 768 θανάτοιο... μοῖραν ἐφείη. Among modern editors

the participle is preferred by Brunck, Jacobs’ and ?, Geist, Holtze, Stadtmiiller, Beckby, Waltz, Gow-Page, and Conca-Marzi-Zanetto, while Rubensohn and Paton prefer the imperfect ἐφίεις and Dübner prints edins (present). If the par-

ticiple is kept, a comma should appear after A/5y (this is how Stadtmüller, Waltz, Beckby, Gow-Page, and Conca-Marzi-Zanetto print the line), so that the

ri question becomes a part of the previous sentence. Similar constructions (with the interrogative pronoun accompanying a participle and, occasionally, delayed) are listed in K-G II (2) 101: cf., for instance, Plato (?) Alc.

1126a ἄμεινον

δὲ διοικεῖται καὶ σῴζεται (sc. ἡ πόλις) τίνος παραγιγνομένου ἢ ἀπογιγνομένοιο; A

a

/

° For the motif of an ἄωρος death in epitaphs, see for example Lattimore 184ff., Griessmair ΠῚ

The imperfect, in a new sentence with a semicolon after Aééy, renders the syn-

tactic coherence difficult after ἥρπασας, since an aorist would be expected in

the new sentence to parallel the aorist of the first one. Cf., moreover, the typical aorist of ἐφίημι in expressions denoting the imposition of death/mourning: Il.

4,396, Od. 4.339 ἀεικέα πότμον ἐφῆκεν, Il. 1.445, 21.524 κήδε᾽ ἐφῆκεν, also Kaibel

add. 306a,6 πένθος ἐφῆ[κε πικρὸν μοϊρἾ ὀλοὴ γενέταις. Ediecs could be perhaps ‘ustified through the Homeric use of the imperfect instead of the aorist, espe143f; cf. cially with verbs like βάλλειν, διδόναι, ἱέναι, ἱστάναι, etc. See K-G II (1)

1, 17.596 νίκην δὲ Τρώεσσι δίδου, ἐφόβησε δ᾽ Ἀχαιούς. The form has anyway a

jong ı here: for the occasional long quality of the ı of ing in the epic, in contrast

to its normally short quality there, see Veitch s.v. tyju, end of article.

πάντως: for the adverb ‘in strong affirmations, see LSJ s.v. II. In Homer followed by οὐ and meaning ‘by no means’ (Il. 8.450, Od. 19.91, 20.180). Anthology again for instance at Philod. 5.126=25 GP=22,5 Sider, “Diog. 7.115,4, anon. 7.621,3; at the same sedes at Antip. Thess. 9.72=95,4 GP,

always In the LaertStrato

12.223=66,4 Floridi, Agath. 11.354,14, anon. 12.151,4.

σεῖο ποτ᾽ ἐσσομένῃ: the idea of Hymnis belonging to Hades echoes the idea in the first line that her master possesses her. Thus, the epigram opens by defining

the girl as the possession of Evander and closes by declaring that she is now in the possession of Death. The girls identity as a slave, who changes owners with the passage from the first to the second couplet of the poem, renders all the more apposite the statement regarding her present condition that she is the

property of Hades. The idea is also latent that the girl is now married to Hades, a conventional motif found in ancient epitaphs: see on Crin. 41,7 χθὼν ὦ δυσνύμφευτε. P reads σοί of? Jacobs? conjectured σοί ποτ᾽ ἐφεσπομένῃ, Stadtmüller σοί ποτ᾽ épetAopnevy.'” Pls reading can be retained,'' as Planudes does occasionally

offer better readings, although it is hard to know if these readings represent the original lectio (see Gow-Page HE 1. xxxix, Sider 50). If P’s σοί is correct, a possible suggestion is σοί ποτ᾽ ἐῤεψομένῃ, an alteration of the conjecture of Jacobs (who explains the alteration of ποτ᾽to ποθ᾽ as occurring together with

the omission of é¢-).

© Ἰὐφείλομαι, related to fate and death, [5 ἃ common funerary formula: Theodor. AP7.732=12,2 HE, Flaccus 7.290=3,6 GP, ‘Simon: AP 10.105=79,2 θανάτῳ

πάντες ὀφειλόμεθα, Leon. Alex.

7.547=9,2 FGE πότμον ὀφειλόμενον, Peek 1589=578,2 Kaibel. For the concept of death as a repayment ofa debt, see Lattimore 170f,, Skiadas (1967) 36. 4 Early editors of Pl, before Etienne (234), though not Lascaris (his apographs, Paris. Gr. 2891 and 2863, for which see Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Codex Marcianus Graecus 481 (Pl) and its apographs, as, anyway, Planudes and all Planudes’ apographs, read σεῖο), printed σοῖο instead of σεῖο.

The case of the participle and its article must be dative (hence the emend.

ation of D’Orville, 1750, 130), since Hymnis is logically the indirect object of ἐφιέναι and doom is the direct object, as is the case in the Homeric passages and the sepulchral Kaibel add. 306a,6 (there with πότμον, πένθος; see above, on ἐφιείς / μοῖραν).

AP 7.645 = 20

Ὦ δύστην᾽ dABoto Φιλόστρατε, ποῦ σοι ἐκεῖνα

σκῆπτρα καὶ αἱ βασιλέων ἄφθονοι εὐτυχίαι alow ἐπῃώρησας ἀεὶ βίον, ἢ ἐπὶ Νείλῳ «ἢ ev Ἰου»δαίοις ὧν περίοπτος Opots; Ὀθνεῖοι καμάτους τοὺς σοὺς διεμοιρήσαντο, σὸς δὲ νέκυς ψαφαρῇ κείσετ᾽ ἐν Ὀστρακίνῃ. lod

€

3

Ὁ

5

A

\

>

€

7

5"

5

\

,’

?

£4

v

[4

nD

“

3

\

[4

[4

“A

ld

,ὔ

u

39

3

’ὔ

__— AP 7.645 [C] Κριναγόρου [J] eis Φιλόστρατόν τινὰ πλούσιον Kal εὐτυχῇ ἐπὶ ξένης

τελευτήσαντα PLIII 5 (εἰς ἄνδρας οὐκ ἐπισήμους), 10 Κριναγόρου 3 et 4 inverso ordine in P leguntur 44 ἐν Ἰουδαίοις Norden: δαίοις, spat. vac. relicto, PP], κεῖσαι Tov- supplevit manus recentior in P ὅροις Ph: öppıs P Brunck n. 44, Rubensohn n. 23

O Philostratus, unhappy in your prosperity, where are those sceptres and

the abundant kingly blessings on which you always supported your life, a conspicuous man whether by the Nile or in the boundaries of Judaea? Strangers have divided among them the fruits of your labour, and your dead body shall lie in the sandy Ostracina. On Philostratus, once in royal courts, now in exile. The first two couplets, which employ a rhetorical question to express Philostratus’ past happiness and grandeur, according to the present reconstruction of the fourth line, are full of nouns and adjectives denoting splendour and affluence: ὄλβος, σκῆπτρα, βασιλεῖς, ἄφθονοι, εὐτυχίαι, περίοπτος. In the

first line of the last couplet, which transfers the reader to Philostratus’ unhappy present state, the prosperity previously depicted with several positive terms is

now conveyed by a single word of negative overtones (καμάτους) and is presented as being forever lost (d6vetor... διεμοιρήσαντο). The luxury and magnificence described in the first four lines is in direct contrast to the notion which closes the epigram, that of death and destitution, through the image of a tomb in a dry and, consequently, poor land in the last line; furthermore, βίον of |. 3 is

the exäct opposite of νέκυς of |. 6.

The misery sketched in the last couplet, and

especially in the last line, is already foreshadowed in the first actual word of the poem, δύστηνε, thus creating once more the notion of a circular movement, as

is often the case in Crinagoras; see Intr., Language and Style, Structure. The alliteration of σ recurs throughout the poem. “EAcos is aroused by the contrast between a personis previous happiness and present misery (Apsines On Epilogue

21, p. 210 Dilts-Kennedy); a similar technique is used by Crinagoras in the poem for Corinth; see on Crin. 35, intr. note.

Πάθος is furthermore created by

the διαπόρησις (Apsines On Epilogue 53, p. 210 Dilts-Kennedy, Martin 162) to which the rhetorical question opening the present poem also belongs (see also on Crin. 14, τί σε... εἴπω). See also below, on If. Although the poem should be placed in the ninth book, it was included in the seventh, thanks to a misunderstanding probably arising from the last lines xeiaeras well as from its overall lamentative tone. As critics observe (for

instance Gow-Page, Buraselis 40 with ἢ, 58, Luccioni 556), the tone of the epigram is compassionate, rather than scornful or sarcastic, as Weisshiiup! (47) had felt.’ In fact, the sympathetic spirit of the poem was discerned early on. Cf, Obsopoeus (352; 310 in Brodaeus-Obsopoeus): ‘huius itaque vicem Crinagoras condolens, sic eum alloquitur, etc. The mood of the poem is similar to that of Crin. 22 on Nicias, whose fate the poets treats sympathetically; see ad loc, intr. note. Luccioni (557 and passim) discerns certain similarities

between the present epigram and Mart. 10.26 (the person referred to has a

glorious past, dies in Egypt, there is a mention of literature and of ‘untrustworthy’ locations/situations associated with locations: the fallax Nile, for Martial’s Varus, the belied hopes depending on the Nile-Egypt and Judaea for Crinagoras Philostratus). Philostratus was a man of learning at the court of Cleopatra: Plut. Cat. Min. 57, Philostr. VS15 οἶδα Φιλόστρατον τὸν Αἰγύπτιον Κλεοπάτρα μὲν ξυμφιλοσοφοῦντα τῇ βασιλίδι, σοφιστὴν δὲ προσρηθέντα, ἐπειδὴ λόγου ἰδέαν πανηγυρικὴν ἥρμοστο καὶ ποικίλην, γυναικὶ ξυνών, ἦ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ φιλολογεῖν τρυφὴν εἶχεν, ὅθεν καὶ

παρῴδουν τινὲς ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ τόδε τὸ ἐλεγεῖον' Πανσόφου ὀργὴν ἴσχε Φιλοστράτου, ὃς Κλεοπάτρᾳ νῦν προσομιλήσας τοῖος ἰδεῖν πέφαται. (AApp 5.28)

From Plut. Ant, 80 we learn that, after the battle of Actium, Philostratus was pardoned by Octavian, although he disliked him, thanks to Arius Didymus, Crinagoras' poem reveals that he was later banished to Ostracina; see further Bowersock (1965) 33, Fraser 1.490 and 2.710f. See also below, on ἢ Ei... ὅροις. As regards the question concerning under what circumstances Crinagoras knew ' Placing it in the ‘scoptic epigrams of Book 7 of the Anthology.

philostratus, Cichorius (1922, 315f.) suggested that Cleopatra, accompanied by yarious intellectuals, was in Rome in 45 Bc, at the time of Crinagoras’ Second Embassy to Caesar: there, Cichorius suggests, the poet must have met philostratus. It has been also suggested that the poet may have spent some time

in Alexandria (see Roller 2003, 87). In any case, at the time of the poet's Third

Embassy, Arius Didymus was in Rome and must have informed Crinagoras of the expulsion of Philostratus. Cf. also Buraselis 40 with n. 58, comparing

Crinagoras’ acquaintance with Philostratus with his acquaintance with Nicias;

see on Crin. 22, intr. note. As elsewhere in Crinagoras (see Intr., Life and Work,

and on 37, intr. note), an anti-Roman note can be heard in the term ὀθνεῖοι (see further below, ad loc.) which, as Gow-Page observe, should be avoided by a

ubilant flatterer of Octavian.

if, the question ‘where is your past beauty, glory, etc., is a characteristic feature of Greek lament. Cf. Antip. Sid. AP 9.151=59,1f. ποῦ τὸ περίβλεπτον κάλλος σέο, Δωρὶ Κόρινθε, κτλ., Mel. 7.476=56,7 HE αἰαῖ, ποῦ τὸ ποθεινὸν ἐμοὶ θάλος:.

For rhetorical questions in a context of lament, see further on Crin. 14,1 τί σε... εἴπω;. Also, see on 16,1, on 19,3 τί, and on 37,1 οἵους ἀνθ᾽ οἵων.

ὦ Svarnv’ ὄλβοιο: as Gow-Page observe, the word in the genitive with δύστηνος or τλήμων usually denotes misery (cf. Eur. Hel, 240 ὦ τάλαινα συμφορᾶς), but it can also denote the subject that has caused the trouble; see K-G II (1) 389. Cf.

Eur. Jon 960 τλήμων σὺ τόλμης, Hipp. 554 ὦ τλάμων ὑμεναίων, Hec. 661 ὦ τάλαινα σῆς κακογλώσσου Bons with Matthiessen ad loc. Le Maitre in the Bude edition translates the present phrase as ‘pauvre victime de ton opulence. Sardis (destroyed by an earthquake in Bianor AP 9.423=16 GP) was likewise full of ὄλβος (1. 4), but is now δύστηνοι (L 5).

Both δύστηνος and ὄλβος are Homeric words; ὄλβος occurs in this epic genitive only here and in Eudocia’s De Mart. San. Cypr. 2.204. σκῆπτρα: for the use of σκῆπτρα as a metaphor for royalty, see on Crin. 25,6. βασιλέων... εὐτυχίαι: for the obsession of Antony and Cleopatra with the idea

of kingship, cf. Plut. Ant. 54.6-7. Kings are typically associated with wealth and happiness. Cf. Theocr. 15.24, 17.75, [Theocr.] 25.24f., Call. H. 1.84-6. For εὐτυχία in the plural (‘blessings, ‘pieces of good luck’), cf., for instance, Hdt. 3.40 ai cai μεγάλαι εὐτυχίαι (on the tyrant Polycrates), Eur. Ion 482 and 1505, Aristoph. Eccl. 573. See also next note. The plural βασιλέων, together with the two places mentioned in the epigram,

suggests that Philostratus frequented, apart from Cleopatra’s, also Herod's court. See below, on ἢ ἐπί... ὅροις. ἄφθονοι: the epithet does not occur in Homer. ἄφθονοι implies that εὐτυχία

here has also the nuance of material welfare, like ὄλβος (‘prosperity’), which

218

AP 7.645 = 20

Crinagoras has already mentioned in the first line. Paton’s correction of edruyia, to ἐντυχίαι (meetings with kings’) is not necessary, not only because happiness is a feature of kings (see further prev. note), but furthermore because ἄφθονοι

matches εὐτυχίαι much more naturally than ἐντυχίαι. For abundance in regard to wealth, cf., for instance, h. Ap. 536 ἄφθονα πάντα πάρεσται, Hes. Op. 117£

xaprov.../... πολλόν τε καὶ ἄφθονον (with West ad loc.), Solon 33,5 IEG πλοῦτον

ἄφθονον. For the sense ‘abundant’ of ἄφθονος at Aesch. Ag. 471 ἄφθονον ὄλβον, see Fraenkel ad loc. In the Anthology the adjective accompanies a similar abstract noun, also being at the same sedes as here, at Agath. 11.365,4 ἄφθονος εὐπο pin;

likewise at CEG 593=Peek 1889=35,2 Kaibel (Athens, IV Bc) ἄφθονος εὐλογία. 3f. ἐπῃώρησας ... βίον: Rubensohns suggestion αἷσιν ἐπ᾿ ἡώρησας is not necessary, as ἐπαιωροῦμαι is perfectly sound. Jacobs’ cited Herodian Hist. 2.9] κούφαις καὶ ἀδήλοις ἐπαιωρουμένου ἐλπίσι and compared the present epigram’s construction with dvaprdy ἑαυτόν τινι πράγματι, referring to the commentary on Phalaris of Van Lennep who cited (on Ep. 136,2 in Hercher’s edition, ἀπηρτημένας) Lucian Tim. 5,6 κἀκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ νεύματος ἀνηρτημένοι and 36,10f. ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐμοῦ τὰς ἐλπίδας ἀπαρτήσασά μοι τοῦ βίου (see Van Lennep 187), Add also Lucian Alex. 16,3f. ἀνθρώπων... ταῖς ἐλπίσιν ἐπαιωρουμένων. The past émnwp- occurs often in Nonnus.

ἐπὶ Νείλῳ: the phrase occurs at the same sedes at Call. H. 4.185, ‘Emi + dat. denoting proximity to rivers is Homeric: Il. 5.36 καθεῖσεν em’ ἠιόεντι Σκαμάνδρῳ, 7.133,

8.489f. ‘On the Nile’ can mean ‘in Egypt’: cf. Aesch. Supp. 70 τάν ἁπαλὰν Νειλοθερῇ παρειάν, with schol.: τὴν ἐν τῷ Νείλῳ θερισθεῖσαν, 6 ἐστι βλαστήσασαν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ,

Leon.

Alex. AP 9.352=29,1 Νεῖλος

Νειλαιεύς... ἀοιδοπόλος,

9,355=32,2

ἑορτάζει

(=the Egyptians), 9.353=30,4

NetrAoyevots...

Aewvidew,

6.321=1,2

FGE

Νειλαίη Μοῦσα Aewvidew. A logical and syntactical link between Egypt and Judaea is needed; see next note.

ἢ ev... ὅροις: the supplement Ἰουδαίοις is the most plausible suggestion. The

supplement κεῖσαι Ἰουδαίοις, however (added by a more recent hand in P and also printed by Aldus (1521, 124), followed by all Planudean editors since then), creates a problem, as κείσετ᾽ἐν Ὀστρακίνῃ at 1. 6 would be both an awkward

repetition and also a contradiction, since κεῖσαι implies that Philostratus is already dead, which contradicts the future κείσεται in the last line (for this reason scholars have suggested various corrections for κείσεται; see ad loc.). Apart from this, the disjunctive ἢ before ἐπὶ Νείλῳ is all in all hard to combine with the supplement κεῖσαι Ἰουδαίοις, hence the change of ἢ to 7, first in Badius

(139), accepted by Etienne 213, where it is printed by mistake as ἦ ἐπεί. To treat ? ‘In Stephani editione, typothetae vitio, excusum est ἦ ἐπεὶ Νείλῳ, quod servavit Wecheliana, as Brunck puts it. The mistake in Wechel’s edition (Brodaeus-Obsopoeus) 310 and Lubin 444.

the hiatus, Obsopoeus 352 suggested ἢ p’ ἐπὶ Νείλῳ (see also Brodaeus 297), appearing as ἦ ρ᾽ ἐπί in Brodaeus’ comment in Brodaeus-Obsopoeus 310, and

also suggested and printed by Brunck, printed by Jacobs’ and approved by Jacobs’ in the commentary. *H ἐπί appears in all modern editions as well, apart

from Holtze,* Beckby, and Gow-Page. Beckby’s suggestion ἢ ἐπὶ Νείλῳ /

>

[4

2

n>e

οὔθ᾽

,

FIN

7

x

3

\

3

,

ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἂψ ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἀπ᾿ οὐρανόθεν προτράπηται, we

33

51.

>

x

a

3

3

3

7

7

9

the first two lines repeated in Hes. Th. 759-60. In the Homeric passage as well as in the present poem, the rising and setting of the sun are symmetrically arranged in the two successive verses. Ἥλιος... ἀνιών: Homeric (cf. Il, 8.538, 18.136, Od. 12.429, al.), but here again

(as with γῆς περάτων) with the Attic form, instead of the epic #éAtos.’° For the form ἥλιος in the Anthology, cf. Philip AP 11.347=61,3 GP, Strato 12.178=19,4 Floridi, ἅλιος at anon. 7.125=35b,1 FGE. For the expression, cf. Ap. Rh. 2.164f. ἠέλιος... ἐκ περάτων ἀνιών, Qu. Sm. 8.1f. ἠελίοιο φάος... ἐκ περάτων ἀνιόντος. Crinagoras does not say that the sun rises from the πέρατα, but, since the account of Armenia and Germany, which the sun sees upon its rising and setting, explains and develops the first couplet of the poem, it is evident that the ® E. Kurtz, ‘Crinagorae Mytilenaei epigrammata edidit, prolegomenis commentario verborum indice illustravit Maximilianus Rubensohn, Blätter für das Bayerische Gymnasialschulwesen 25 (1889), 349,

9. Fora discussion of the preference of ἐπιδέρκεται over καταδέρκεται, see Heubeck on Od. 11.16.

10 See also Intr., Language and Style, Dialect.

our

296

API 61 =28

poet regards these two areas as marking the πέρατα (here situated in the eagt and west), that is, the geographical outer limits of the world. /Teipara is alse

used as the boundary line between earth and sky, i.e. the horizon, in Apollonius, probably in this particular case employed to denote the extreme eastern limit of the world; see Mooney ad loc., Mineur on Call. Η. 4.169."

Appeviny: cf. Hor. Epist. 1.12,26f. Claudi virtute Neronis / Armenius cecidit. Ἀρμενίην, printed by all Planudean editors, appears in apographs (for instance,

Apostoles Paris. Gr. 2739, Lascaris Paris. Gr. 2863 and 2891); not in Q. See also below, on εἶδε.

ὑπὸ χερσὶ δαμεῖσαν: ‘subdued,

acommon Homeric expression, that denotes kill-

ing in battle. Cf. Il. 2.860, 3.352, 10.452 ἐμῇς ὑπὸ χερσὶ δαμείς, al.; for this construction of ὑπό in Homer, see Chantraine (1963) 140f. § 208. Cf. Hor. Od.

1.12,53f. Parthos.../...domitos (cf. above, intr. note). In the Anthology, cf. Alc. Mess. 9.518=1,3 HE χθὼν μὲν δὴ καὶ πόντος ὑπὸ σκήπτροισι Φιλίππου | δέδμηται, Antip. Thess. 9.406=1,3 GP ὑπὸ σοὶ δεδμημένον Ἄρεα Βεσσῶν (on Pisos defeat of the Bessi).

xeivov: the pronoun, same sedes, refers again to ‘Nero’ (Tiberius) at Apollon.

9.287=23,5 GP; Crinagoras uses it again for ‘Caesar, probably Augustus, at 36,6. Teppaviny: in placing Γερμανίην and Appeviny in the corresponding sedes of two successive lines so as to form ἃ ὁμοιοτέλευτον at the caesura of the hexameter

and the diaeresis of the pentameter respectively, the poet stresses the similarities between the situation of the subdued Armenia and the subjugated Germany. These similarities are further suggested by the smooth regularity of the movement of the sun which traverses each the areas, and which symbolizes

vividly Nero's universal achievements. Γερμανίη is at the same sedes and has the same prosody at Crin. 27,2. See ad loc, εἶδε: for the notion of the sun watching human affairs, see on Crin. 18,2f. For

the image of something seen on one’s arrival and departure, cf, Call. H. 4.41-4 (Delos is seen by the sailors who came to Ephyra, but no longer seen by them ** The appearance of Helios in the present poem may perhaps also refer to Rhodes, the island of the Sun (cf. Pind. O. 7.54-74; cf. also the literary exploitation of the Sun's island in regard to

Tiberius’ residence there in Apollonides AP9.287=23 and, perhaps, in Antiphilus 9.178=6 GP), and may thus be a further piece of flattery aimed at Tiberius, If indeed there is a reference here to

Rhodes and thus indirectly to Tiberius’ residence there, then the campaign celebrated in our

poem, and thus the composition of the poemi, is to be dated to after Tiberius’ sojourn on the island (6 8C-AD 2; cl. Suet. Tib. 10.2-11.1, Bowersock 1965, 77), thus making his residence in Germany in AD 4-6 the only possible period for the events referred to in the present poem. On the other hand, since 16-15 kc is on other grounds a more likely date for Tiberius’ activities in Germany (see

above, intr. note), it does not seem probable that we do have a reference to Rhodes here, unless it was triggered by Tiberius’ visit to the island on his way home from Armenia in 20 sc, for which

see RE 10.1.481, Seager 29 with n. 5.

API 61 =28

on their way back). As

Gow- Page

297

(cf. also Beckby’s apparatus) observe, Pl has

εἶδε and not εἶχε, as Jacobs, followed by Dübner and Rubensohn, reported in his editions, and as old editors (from Lascaris to Lubin (628)) have. It is note-

worthy that Q has εἶδε, Apostoles’ Paris. Gr. 2739 has εἶχε, and Lascaris in Paris. Gr. 2891 has the correct εἶδε but in 2863 there is a scribble resulting in a reading

which looks like efye. This might be one more indication that Lascaris’ model for his edition was 2891. See on Crin. 27,2 Feppavin... πίῃ and Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Codex Marcianus Graecus 481 [Pl] and its apographs.

κατερχόμενος: κατέρχεσθαι is seldom used of the setting of the sun. Cf. Arat. 584 ἠελίοιο κατερχομένοιο. The participle twice in Homer (Od. 9.484, 9.541). 5f, δισσόν: not in Homer, common in drama. See Geoghegan on Anyte 20,3.

At verse-opening in the Anthology, Leon. 6.200=38,4, Polystratus 12.91=1,1 HE, Thallus 7.373=4,1, Antip. Thess, API 131=86,4 GP. ἀειδέσθω: for the middle form in the sense of ‘to be sung; ‘praised, cf. Pind. P. 5.24 κᾶπον Ἀφροδίτας ἀειδόμενον, 8.25f, πολλοῖσι μὲν yap ἀείδεται / νικαφόροις

ἐν ἀέθλοις (Aegina). Cf. Soph. OT 1094 χορεύεσθαι, with Jebb ad loc. In the Anthology, cf. Mel. 4.1=1,44, Antip. Sid. 7.14=11,2 HE, anon. API 42,4. πολέμου κράτος: cf. ‘Simon, AP 7.296=45,7f. FGE μέγα δ᾽ ἔστενεν Ἀσὶς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν | πληγεῖσ ἀμφοτέραις χερσὶ κράτει πολέμου, on those who fell in Cimons

last campaign in Cyprus in 449 ΒΟ. For κράτος as ‘victory, cf. Il, 6.387, 11.753, Od. 21.280, Soph. Ph. 838. For the phrasing, cf. El. 85 νίκην... καὶ κράτος τῶν δρωμένων and Dem. De fals. leg. 130 κράτος πολέμου καὶ νίκην; see further Jebb

on Soph. EI. 84f. and Finglass on 85. oldev.../...mwöpevor: Latin court poets occasionally refer to rivers in conquered areas. Cf. Hor. Od. 4.14,45-52 te fontium qui celat origines / Nilusque et Hister, te rapidus Tigris, / te beluosus qui remotis / obstrepit Oceanus Britannis, | (...) /. . venerantur (with Thomas on Il. 45-8 and 45-6), Mart. 7.80,11 captivo...ab Histro, 7.84,3, 9.5,1 summe Rheni domitor (with Henriksén ad loc.),

Sil. It. 15.79f. CF. also the series of rivers in Messallas triumphal procession in Tib. 1.7,11£.; see Murgatroyd on Il. 11-12. In a similar context, of the subdued people who ‘drink’ the rivers of their areas, cf. Hor. Od. 4.15,21f. non qui profundum Danuvium bibunt | edicta rumpent Iulia, Mart. Spect. 3.5 qui prima bibit deprensi flumina Nili. Cf. below, on Apa£ns / καὶ Ῥῆνος and on πινόμενοι.

οἶδεν: Rubensohn compared the phrasing with Gaetulicus AP 7.71=4,3-4 FGE olde Δυκάμβης, / wupdpevos τρισσῶν ἅμματα θυγατέρων; also comparable is Palladas AP 9.165,7 ofSev Ὅμηρος, / καὶ Δία συγγράψας τῇ γαμετῇ χόλιον. The

Araxes and the Rhine retain their traditional quality as waters ‘being drunk’ by the inhabitants of the area, but have also become the subjects who ‘know. A variation of Crinagoras’ image (οἶδεν at the same sedes) seems to be anon. API 183,5f, ofdev ἅπας μοι} ἠῴον δμηθεὶς Ἰνδὸς am’ Ὠκεανοῦ (of Dionysus’ skills at

298

APl6I=28

war). Rhine ‘knows’ the emperor’s arrival in Mart. 8.11,1 Pervenisse tuam iam te

scit Rhenus in urbem.

Ἀράξης ! καὶ ἹΡῆνος: Crinagoras elsewhere uses the Araxes and the Rhine to represent Germany (27,2) and Armenia (38,1f., cf. ad loc.). The two rivers are

mentioned, in the context of captive peoples and, metaphorically, their rivers (Euphrates, Rhine, Araxes) led in Augustus’ triumphal procession at Virg. Aen. 8.727f. For the idea of the enslaved Rhine, cf. also Stat. Silv, 1.1,51, Mart. 2.2,3, See Henriksén on Mart. 9.1,3. Cf. also Lucan 1.19f. sub iuga iam Seres, iam barbarus isset Araxes (if it were not for the civil war), δούλοις: δούλη only twice in Homer (Il. 3.409 and Od. 4.12). As an adjective

it occurs less often. Cf., for instance, Soph. OC 917, Tr. 53, 302, Alc. Mess. API 5=5,3 HE. ἔθνεσι: in Homer the word designates groups of animals, while it is used of races and nations in later epic: Ap. Rh. 2.1205, 4.646, Theocr. 17.77, with Rossi and Hunter ad loc.; see also Chryssafis on [Theocr.] 25.185. In the Anthology, cf. anon, 6.343,1f. ἔθνεα Βοιωτῶν καὶ Χαλκιδέων δαμάσαντες | παῖδες Ἀθηναίων ἔργμασιν ἐν πολέμου, Agath. 9.641. Cf. also Mart. 7.7,4{. domantem regna perfidae

gentis / te, 7.84,4 perdomitis gentibus, 8.65,8 domitis gentibus (for the application of the word gens to foreign nations in Latin, cf. Galan Vioque 2002, 82). πινόμενοι: Cf, Crin. 27,2 Γερμανίη ‘Pivov ἅπαντα πίῃ (see ad loc.), 38,1f.

Ἀράξεω /

ὕδωρ πιλοφόροις πίνεται Ἀρμενίοις, Drinking a river’ is ἃ common expression denoting dwelling in the area where the river is located: Il. 2.824f., Aesch.

Ag. 1157, Pind. O. 6.85f., Call. H. 1.40f. In Latin, Hor. Od. 2.20,20 Rhodanique potor, 4.15,21, Mart. 7.88,6. See further Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. Od. 2.20,20, Thomas on Od. 4.15,21, Norden (1917) 673, McLennan on Call. loc. cif., Clausen

on Virg. Ecl. 1.62, Hine on Sen. Med. 373-4, Galan Vioque (2002) 475. Seneca uses the expression with Araxes (Phtaed. 58, Med. 373). In an opposite image,

Araxes, as the river of an enslaved country, is drunk by the Roman people at Lucan 7.188 Armeniumque bibit Romanus Araxen. For enslaved nations in regard to the rivers of their areas, see above, on oldev.../... πινόμενοι.

AP 9.419 =29

5.

Kv μυχὸν Ὀρκυναῖον ἢ és πύματον Σολόεντα ἔλθη καὶ Λιβυκῶν κράσπεδον Ἑσπερίδων Καῖσαρ 6 πουλυσέβαστος, ἅμα κλέος εἶσιν ἐκείνῳ πάντῃ" Πυρήνης ὕδατα μαρτύρια. Οἷσι γὰρ οὐδὲ πέριξ δρυτόμοι ἀπεφαιδρύναντο λουτρὰ καὶ ἠπείρων ἔσσεται ἀμφοτέρων.

_—— AP 9.419 Κριναγόρου εἰς τὸν σεβαστὸν Καίσαρα [Ὁ] τὸν Αὔγουστον θαυμαστόν caret Pl

2

ἔλθῃ apogrr: -ns P

Reiske n. 664, Brunck n. 21, Rubensohn n. 24

Whether to the depths of Ercynaean forest or to the outermost the fringe of Libyan Hesperides should most august Caesar accompanies him everywhere; the waters of Pyrene are witness in which not even the neighbouring woodcutters ever washed will be baths indeed of both continents.

Soloeis and travel, glory to it. These, themselves,

On the Baths of Augustus on the Pyrenean mountains. The opening word (μυχόν) sets the opening of the poem in an obscure atmosphere and, together with the following πύματον, stresses the distance and

mystery of the places where Augustus fame is spread; thus, Octavians celebrity is emphasized with exaggeration. Gow- Page observe: ‘the grandiloquent opening arouses expectation on a sequel much more significant than the news that

Augustus has taken the waters in an obscure corner of the Pyrenees. Such a magnification of an unimportant event, so that a sovereign be pleased, is paral-

lel, to an extent, with Crin. 23. Noteworthy, in terms of visual effect, is the contrast between the obscurity of the opening and the light that seems to come into the tableau when Augustus is introduced. Muxos recalls shadow and darkness, necessarily associated with insignificance, while the waters are clear and lucid, as is alluded to by ἀπεφαιδρύναντο (1. 5). In this way, Octavian's presence is followed by/identified with light, inextricably linked to fame; this light advances

300

AP 9.419=29

towards the scenery and dominates it along with his appearance. ‘The key word’

that marks the ‘change’ of the environment, according to Octavians movement, is κλέος, placed in the middle of the epigram and presented as ‘following Caesar everywhere. With this statement, fame, attached to Octavian, transforms any place it approaches: the second half of the poem, with terms denoting distinction and recognizability (μαρτύρια, ἀπεφαιδρύναντο, Nreipwv dudorépwy),.

changes the atmosphere and paints with brighter colours the gloomy, remote, and endowed with connotations of isolation landscape described in the first. It is interesting to note that this landscape, occupying the first couplet, is realized . with three phrases that specify locations, which stand in syntactical variation of one another: the first one is formed by noun and place-name adjective (μυχὸν ‘Opxuvaiov), the second by adjective and place name (πύματον Loddevra), and the third by noun and genitive consisting of place-name adjective and proper noun in hyperbaton (Aiud κράσπεδον Ἑσπερίδων).

The tone and imagery of the praise of Octavian is parallel to that of Crin. 28. Geographical extremities and/or specific locations are conceived as celebrating emperors also in Thallus AP 6.235=2, Antiphil. 9.178=6 GP, Leon. Alex. 9.349=26,

9.352=29 FGE. The idea of a place witnessing a man’s deeds recurs at Crin. 26,3. The only source naming the location described here is Ptolemy 2.7,8: μέχρι

τῆς Πυρήνης τοῦ ὄρους Τάρβελλοι καὶ πόλις αὐτῶν Ὕδατα Adyovara.' For the Tarbelli, people of the Pyrenees, cf. Strabo 4.2,1, Pliny ΝΗ 4.108, Caesar, BG 3.27. Aquae Tarbellicae in the Pyrenees were cold and hot springs regarded as curative (Pliny NH 31.4). The city of the Tarbelli is identified with Dax in southwestern France.” Dio Cassius (53.25,7) reports that, after the Cantabrian War (25 Bc), Augustus suffered from an illness and withdrew to Tarragona; accord-

ing to Suetonius (Aug. 81), he treated this illness trying first hot and then cold baths. Crinagoras, who went to Tarragona to meet Octavian as a member of Mytilene’s embassy, is likely to refer to these baths. 1f. the reference to geographical extremities is rhetorical and Octavian's actual sojourn there is questionable. As far as Hercynia silva is concerned, there is no indication that Augustus visited it during his residence in the Pyrenees; as for Soloeis, Augustus had been involved in the politics of Mauretania in 38 Bc (supporting Bocchus against his brother Bogud),? but his visit there is not recorded. * ‘The other Aquae Augustae we know are those of Rome, mentioned by Frontinus (Agu. 11,12). ? See, for instance, B. Campbell, Rivers and the Power of Ancient Rome (Chapel Hill 2012), 356. * Dio Cass. 48.45,1-3 ἐν μὲν δὴ τῇ πόλει ταῦτα ἐγίγνετο, ὑπὸ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον χρόνον d Boyotas ὁ Μαῦρος ἐς τὴν Ἰβηρίαν, εἴτ᾽ οὖν κατ᾽ ἐντολὴν τοῦ Ἀντωνίου εἴτε καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ γνώμης, πλεύσας πολλὰ μὲν ἐλυμήνατο πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ἀντέπαθε, κἀν τούτω τῶν οἴκοι τῶν περὶ τὴν Τίγγιν ἐπαναστάντων αὐτῷ τῆς τε Ἰβηρίας ἐξέστη καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν οὐκ ἐκομίαατο' ot te γὰρ τὰ τοῦ ἰζαίσαρος ἐν τῇ Ἰβηρίᾳ πράσσοντες καὶ ὁ Béxxos προσγενόμενός σφισι κρείττους αὐτοῦ ἐγένοντο. Καὶ ἐκεῖνος μὲν πρὸς τὸν Ἀντώνιον ἀπῆλθεν, ὁ δὲ δὴ βόκχος τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ αὐτίκα τε κατέσχε καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ παρὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος ἐβεβαιώσατο: τοῖς τε Τιγγιτανοῖς πολιτεία ἐδόθη. See also RE 10.310, Roller (2003) 93-4, J. D. Fage (ed.), Ihe Cambridge History of Africa, vol. 2 (2002), 189-90.

AP 9.419=29

301

In any case, Crinagoras here mentions two areas that represent parts of the

‘western end of the empire and belong to two different continents, associated with Octavian's activity through which Rome achieved its expansion. Starting from the distant Hercynia silva, fringes of which perhaps Octavian ‘at most

saw (as Gow-Page observe), and ending at the mythological Garden of the Hesperides, the world of Rome and Octavian’s fame, inextricably linked to it, comprise reality and legend, and are thus elevated to a heroic, almost super-

human level. κἣν... ἢ: G. Williams (137) remarks that ‘the “Even if...” formula marks rhet-

orical amplitude. Cf. Hor. Od, 1.12,53-6 seu Parthos Latio imminentis | .../ sive subiectos Orientis orae / Seras et Indos; for the geographical expansion of the Roman empire, implied in the present passage, see on Crin. 28, intr. note. The phrasing is also similar to Catullus 11.5f. sive in Hyrcanos*Arabasque molles, | seu Sagas sagittiferosque Parthos, where the poet presents in exaggeration the latitude of his possible journeys (see further Fordyce on Cat. 11.1). For the phrasing, cf. Crin. 1,1. μυχὸν Ὀρκυναῖον: Hercynia silva, a forest extending beyond south-western Germany: see Strabo 7.1,5, Diod. Sic. 5.21,1, 5.32,1, Tac. Germ. 28 and 30. Suda s.v. ‘Epxiveot Spujol places the sources of [ster (Danube) in it. Caesar (BG 6.25),

says oritur ab Helvetiorum et Nemetum et Rauracorum finibus rectaque fluminis Danubi regione pertinet ad fines Dacorum et Anartium; hinc se flectit sinistrorsus diversis ab flumine regionibus multarumque gentium fines propter magnitudinem adtingit. Mvyés, which often indicates a part of a region (see Mineur on Call. H. 4.161),

especially the furthest corner of a place (Hom. Od. 3.263, μυχῷ Ἄργεος), also

designates the innermost and dark corner of a house or a cave and the inner part of a harbour (for instance, μυχὸς δόμου, Hom. Od. 3.402, 4.304, al.; also, cf. ἐν μυχοῖς, Soph. Tr. 686, Ant. 1293, Eur. Hel. 820). It is further used for the depths of the sea (Pind. P 6.12, Aesch. Pr, 839, Eur. Herc. 400) and the darkness and

depths of the underworld (Aesch. Pr. 433, Eur. Herc. 607f., Hes. Th. 119, Eur. Supp. 545, 926, Herc. 37, Ion 1239).

The usual spelling of the adjective in Greek is with aspiration, and with initial e, as in Latin. Ὀρκ-, however, is also attested: cf. Ptol. 2.11,5, 10, and Il

Oprvvios (-ov) δρυμός (-ov), Caesar BG 6.24 Hercyniam

silvam, quam

Eratostheni et quibusdam Graecis fama notam esse video, quam illi Orcyniam appellant. For the unaspirated form, cf. also Dion. Perieg. 286 Ἐρκυνίου δρυμοῖο and Aristotle Meteor. 350b5 ἐκ τῶν ὀρῶν τῶν Apkvviwr.

The word here has o, as in Parthenius, fr. 35 Lightfoot ἀφ᾽ ἑσπερίης Ἑρκυνίδος apero γαίης, and Seneca, Med. 713, while the normal prosody (in both Greek * Hercynia silva, of course, being distinct from the country of the Hyrcani which lay along the southern shore of the Caspian Sea; see Fordyce on Catullus 11.5.

and Latin) is with 3 (Ap. Rh. 4.640, Dion. Perieg. 286, Claudian Quart. Cong, Honor. 451, etc.). The normal ending of the adjective is -ıos. Ὀρκυναῖος is drag λεγόμενον and here it seers to be a formation to ‘suit the need of the moment

(Gow-Page). It is possible that Crinagoras starts his poem with an unfamiliar word on purpose, so as to stress the remoteness and exotic colour of the place he mentions. Cf. Caesar’s comment

(BG 6.24) that the forest ‘is known to

Eratosthenes and some Greeks through rumour’ és wipatov.../... Horepidwy: although Soloeis, a promontory recorded in literature (see next note), is not, strictly speaking, identified with the Garden of

the Hesperides, which is a mythical area (as Gow-Page remark), the figure here can be regarded as ὃν διὰ δυοῖν, since both topanyms indicate the same wider location, the western end of the African continent; such a phrasing renders the impression of remoteness and exoticism even more poignant.

πύματον LoAdevra: cf. Catullus 11,2 sive in extremos pentrabit Indos (see also above, on «nv... cv). The adjective, common

in prose, is Homeric (Il. 4.254,

6.118, 10.475, 11.759, al.), occurs once in Apollonius (1.1082), and is frequent in Nonnus and in the Anthology. For the distance of a place remote par excellence, cf, Lucian Trag. 295 πύματα Ταρτάρου βάθη. On distance, cf. Theocr,

7.113 πυμάτοισι rap’ ἰθιόπεασι with Hatzikosta ad loc. See also on Crin. 16,5 ὑστατίοις ἐν Ἴβηρσι.

Soloeis is the furthest western edge of Africa, where Libya ends: Hdt. 2.32 μέχρι SoAdevros ἄκρης, ἢ τελευτᾷ τῆς Λιβύης, 4.43 τὸ ἀκρωτήριον τῆς Λιβύης τῷ οὔνομα δολόεις ἐστί. Cf. Scylax Peripl. 112, Hanno Peripl. 3, Hesych. s.v. Modourris: ἄκρα τῆς Λιβύης. It is identified with modern Cape Spartel or Cape

Cantin.* ἔλθῃ: editors report that the third person sing. is a correction of D’Orville (1750, 423) of P’s -ns. However, ἔλθῃ appears in all apographs containing this epigram, apart from Ap. V. which retains P’s reading. Λιβυκῶν... Ἑσπερίδων: the Libyans are called ‘Eosepira: (Strabo 14.1,39). We

know from Athenaeus that Juba II, in his treatise On Libya, coins the adjective ‘Eoneptxds for the apples of the καλεῖσθαι φάσκειν αὐτὸ παρὰ τοῖς Ἡρακλέα κομίσαι εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα τὰ FGrHist). In a reverse, as it were,

Hesperides: μνημονεύοντα τοῦ κιτρίου, Δίβυσι μῆλον Eorepiköv, ἀφ᾽ ὧν καὶ χρύσεα διὰ τὴν ἰδέαν λεγόμενα μῆλα (fr. 6 phrasing, Crinagoras attributes to the

> ‘The discussion was, for instance, summarized by Macan on Hdt. ad foc. who remarked that the Soloeis of the Peripli must be Cape Cantin, while Herodotus’ account suits better Cape Spartel,

and that probably Herodotus’ geographical knowledge on this was not accurate. See also Gsell 1480-2 and K. Zimmermann, Libyen: das Land südlich des Mittelmeers im Weltbild der Griechen (Munich 1999), 116.

AP Y.4I9=Z9

JUD

Hesperides an adjective of the same formation, λιβυκός, which usually qualifies geographical terms rather than persons, as here; cf., however, Dion. Perieg. 212 Διβυκοῖο θεοῦ.

For the garden of the gods, by the Pillars of Heracles, where the Hesperides

keep the golden apples produced by Earth as a gift to Zeus and Hera who consummated their marriage there, see Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 742-51. Euripides (742) refers to it as Ἑσπερίδων... μηλοσπόρον ἀκτάν. The Hesperides are first mentioned at Hes. Th. 275 and 518. According to Apollonius Rhodius (4.1427-8), their names are AiyAn, Ἑσπέρη, and Epvbyis, and, according to Apollodorus (2.114), they are AlyAn, Ἑσπερία, and Ἀρέθουσα.

Κράσπεδον is used, for the end of a place/land, also in Soph. fr. 602 TrGrF Καρχηδόνος δὲ kpaoreö, Eur, fr. 381 TrGrF σχεδὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς κρασπέδοις

Βὐρωπίας, Xen. Hell. 4.6,8, Dionysius 7.78=1,6 HE, Quintus AP 6.230=1,1f. GP. 3f. πουλυσέβαστος: the adjective, an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, reflects the title Augustus’ (Σεβαστός), given to Octavian in 27 Bc.° For an equivalent formation, cf. the

adjective πολυπότνια of Demeter or Rhea-Cybele: ἢ. Cer. 211 πολυπότνια Ana, Aristoph, Th. 1156 Θεσμοφόρω πολυποτνία, Orph. H. 40,16, Ap. Rh. 1.1125 Μητέρα Δινδυμίην πολυπότνιαν, 1.1151 Peinv πολυπότνιαν.

κλέος... ἰ πάντῃ: ἃ similar praise, in regard to the ends of earth, where someones fame is thought to be spread, through the metaphor of a travelling κλέος, occurs in Kaibel add. 197a (Rhodes) ἥκει καὶ Νείλου mpoyods καὶ én’ ἔσχατον Ἰνδόν / τέχνας Ἐμφιλόχοιο μέγα κλέος ἄφθιτον ἀεί, In Homer, glory ‘reaches the sky’ (Il. 8.192 ἀσπίδα Νεστορέην τῆς νῦν κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει, Od. 9.20 καί μευ

κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει). Πυρήνης ὕδατα μαρτύρια: the sentence bears a striking resemblance to Tib. 1,7,9-10 Tarbella Pyrene / testis.’ The reference is to the western Pyrenees, which took this name from the Aquitanian tribe Tarbelli, after which the modern Tarbes is named.° This identical expression together with the general thematic resemblance of the two poems, both referring to the residence of the poets’ strong friends in the same area,’ might point to the acquaintance of Crinagoras

with Tibullus’ verse. The present epigram can be dated c.25 Bc (see above, intr. note). Tibullus’ seventh ode on Messallas birthday is written after Messalas Aquitanian triumph which took place in September 27 Bc, and the first book of

° Suet. Aug. 7. See also, for instance, Syme (1939) 314, W. Eck, Augustus und seine Zeit (Munich 2009), 18,

” Tarbella being Scaliger’s emendation of tua bella. See Maltby ad loc., on Tarbella Pyrene.

® See Maltby ad loc. * It is noteworthy that the seventh ode is the only laudatory elegy in Tibullus’ first book, which consists mainly of amatory poems.

the Odes must have been published shortly afterwards, late in 27 or early in 26 uc.'° The two poems’ dates might suggest that Crinagoras knew the Latin verse (for the possibility of Crinagoras’ inspiration by Horace and/or the author of the Consolatio ad Liviam, see on Crin. 26, intr. note). If the assumption of

such an influence is correct, the work and its reception as a major and the probable friendship and poets can also be suggested. The typical inanimate ‘witness

importance of the publication of Tibullus’ literary event in Rome is further underlined, exchange of literary views between the two (μάρτυς) in the Anthology is, of course, the

lovers’ λύχνος (for instance, Marc. Arg. 5.127=13,4 GP); also, votive offerings

(Call. 6.311=27,2 HE, a mask; see Gow-Page ad loc.). For μαρτύριον (not Homeric, common in prose), cf. Hedylus 5.199=2,5f. HE μίτραι, / ὕπνου καὶ σκυλμῶν τῶν.

τότε μαρτύρια, Philip 6.236=2,1f. GP EußoAa.../ Ἀκτιακοῦ πολέμου κείμεθα μαρτύρια (same sedes). For natural elements as ‘witnesses’ to one’s acts, see on Crin. 26,3 μάρτυρες, also in a context of praise. 5 note the alliteration of ὃ and p, especially striking in the repetition of the syllable öpv in the second hemistich of the verse. δρυτόμοι: the word is a Homeric rarity (Il. 11.86, 16.633, 23.315); it also occurs at Theocr. 5.64, Opp. Hal. 5.250, and occasionally in Quintus Smyrnaeus and Nonnus. In the Anthology again at Archias 7.191=20,2 GP. ἀπεφαιδρύναντο: the middle compound only here and Qu. Sm. 8.487, also at verse-end; the active compound in Qu. Sm. 5.616. Φαιδρύνω is common: for instance, Aesch. Ag. 1109 (λουτροῖσι), Ap. Rh. 3.1043, 4.671 (δέμας, εἵματα), Call. H.1.32 (χρόα), Paul. Sil. AP 5.227 (χεῖρας). For the middle uncompounded, cf. Hes. Op. 753, Ap. Rh. 3.300, Moschus 2.31. 6 the two continents will be ‘bathed’ in the waters of the Pyrenees because the person whose fame illuminates them takes a bath in these waters; thus, Octavian represents the continents themselves and the power of the empire is embodied in him. On unknown and obscure waters where someone's fame will be spread, cf. Catullus 95,5f.: the poet greets the publication of Zmyrna, written by his friend Cinna, and asserts that the work will be known even around the distant river Satrachus, which is the work‘ setting. καί: for the adversative sense of «ai, see Denniston 292, 9.

16 Ovid (Tr. 2.464) reports that the poet was already well known when Augustus became princeps (27 Bc): ‘iant te principe notus erat’; see further Murgatroyd (1980) 11-12. See also Maltby 40.

AP 9.419=29

305

ἡπείρων.... ἀμφοτέρων: Europe and the rest of the world; Africa/Asia stand for the rest of the world also in Adaeus AP 7.240=5,2, Antip. Thess. 7.369=49,4 GP. More usual is the tripartite division of Earth (Europe, Asia, Africa); cf. Cic. De Nat. D. 2.165, Pliny, NH 3.1,3; see Gandini 56 with n. 146. For the expression,

cf. Soph. Tr. 101 δισσαῖσιν ἀπείροι (cf. Jebb ad loc.), Moschus 2.8. The same

phrasing occurs in Crin. 25,6 (see further ad loc.).

AP 9.516 =30

Ἴρδοι τὴν ἔμαθέν τις, ὅπου καὶ ὑπ᾿ Ἄλπιας ἄκρας Anioral λασίαις ἀμφίκομοι κεφαλαῖς φωρῆς ἁπτόμενοι φύλακας κύνας ὧδ᾽ ἀλέονται" χρίονται νεφροῖς πῖαρ ἔπεστιν ὅσον ψευδόμενοι ῥινῶν ὀξὺν στίβον. Ὦ κακὸν εὑρεῖν oe

-

5.

x

id

pntrepa i

7

id

3

Ld

A

“

,

-

[4

Ὸ»}

2

“ιγύων μήτιες ἢ ἀγαθόν. £

N

wo

0

?

—

AP 9.516 Kpivaydpov ἀδιανόητον παντελῶς Pl 15" 60 (eis πανούργους), 1 Κριναγόρου [om. 1-4]

4 ἔπεστιν ὅσον Heyne: areorıvöooovP ἀγαθὸν P™*sP]: -θῶν P

5xarovPl:xaA-P

6 ῥηίτεραι Pl: -poıP|

Brunck n. 32, Rubensohn n. 39

Every man to his trade; and the shaggy shock-headed bandits under the Alpine peaks, when they set about a theft, escape the watchdogs in this way: they anoint themselves with as much fat as covers kidneys, deceiving the nostrils’ keen tracking. Oh, Ligurian cleverness, readier at finding evil than good! Ligurian bandits anoint themselves with kidney fat to put the hounds off the scent. The main theme of the poem, the Ligurian bandits’ strange habit, is enclosed between an opening and a closing gnome (see also Intr., Language and Style, Structure, and on Crin. 22, intr. note). Other poems of Crinagoras also open with a gnome. See Intr., Language and Style, Structure. 38 ends with a similar proverbial expression: cf. ad loc., on |. 8. A famous example of an opening gnome, followed by examples, is Soph. Ant. 332f. πολλὰ τὰ δεινά, κτλ,, echoing Aesch. Ch. 585ff. See Griffith on Soph. and Garvie on Aesch. locc. citt. respectively, Race 13ff., 89f. For gnome generally as a form of priamel, see also Race 29f. The opening gnome in the present poem stimulates the reader's curiosity for the τέχνη announced, whilst the closing gnome clearly stigmatizes this τέχνη as a κακόν, The main part, the problem faced by the bandits and the solution they find, is neatly distributed through the epigram. Appearing in logical order, the setting

(Alps), the protagonists (Ligurian bandits), and the attempted task (theft) are sharply defined in the first half and so form an attention-grabbing question;

the answer, the Ligurians’ clever device, comes immediately after, as the crucial information and key action (xpiovraı) open the second half of the epigram. Commenting on the rhetoric of the poem, Garzya (124) observed: ‘VE una

punta di malizia, la stessa che ricompare alla fine, nell’invettiva contro i Liguri ingannatori...che si atteggia a sublimita di tono ed & scherzosa.

Another account of a strange AP9.111=18 GP, on the Thracian the deceased happy. For the love events, see Intr., Life and Work.

local custom in the Garland of Philip is Archias habit of mourning newborn babies and calling of Crinagoras’ contemporary poets for strange Epigrams containing criticism/condemnation

of certain characters or practices in the Garland of Philip are, for instance, Automedon AP 11.324=6 (on a greedy temple warden) and 11.346=8 (on a dis-

honest banker), Antip. Thess. 11.20=20 (on pedantic poets), Philip 11.321=60 and 11.347=61 GP (on grammarians). See further Small 144f.

The obscurity of the exact point of the practice of the people in the Alps, which is left unexplained (see below on ὅσον), and the presumably poor condition of the text the scribe was copying, which is to be assumed from the repeated mistakes in our text, probably together account for the scribe's comment that the poem is ἀδιανόητον παντελῶς. For anointing oneself with fat for other pur-

poses, cf. Ael. NA 1.37 θηρίων δὲ ἀλεξιφάρμακον ἦν πάντων πιμελὴ ἐλέφαντος, κτλ; cf. also 10.12. Another peculiar practice is reported by Aelian in 9.54: ἀκούω δὲ ὅτι πρὸς τοὺς κύνας TOUS οἰκουροὺς ἵνα μὴ ἀποδιδράσκωσι τετέχνασται ἐκεῖνο, Τὴν οὐρὰν αὐτῶν καλάμῳ μετρήσαντες χρίουσι τὸν κάλαμον βουτύρῳ, εἶτα μέντοι διδόασιν αὐτοῖς περιλιχμήσασθαι αὐτόν. In 9.55 Aelian describes

how dogs will not bark if one approaches them holding the tail of a live cat, which is then allowed to flee unharmed. Plutarch reports other means of deceiving hunting dogs in his account of how the tyrant Alexander dressed men in the skins of boars or bears and set his hunting dogs upon them (Pel. 29.4). Although the poem does not specifically state that cold destroys human scent, it probably helped the Ligurian bandits to deceive the dogs; cf. Xen. Cyn. 8.2 ἡ γὰρ χιὼν καίει τῶν κυνῶν τὰς ῥῖνας, «ῥήγνυσι» τοὺς πόδας, τὴν ὀσμὴν τοῦ λαγῶ ἀφανίζει διὰ τὸ ὑπέρπαγες. For the ability of the guard dogs to pick up scents, see below on ῥινῶν.

It is possible that Crinagoras learned of the Ligurians’ practice on his way to meet Octavian in Tarragona, during his Third Embassy, 26-25 ΒΟ, as Liguria lies on the road from Italy to Spain. It is difficult to imagine that this knowledge

is the result of ‘personal observation’ as Gow-Page suggest (cf. Griffiths 1970, 218), and it is more likely that the poet heard about this practice while travelling through the area. On the location of the Ligurians, cf. Strabo 2.5,28 ἔθνη de κατέχει πολλὰ τὸ ὄρος τοῦτο (sc. the Alps) Κελτικὰ πλὴν τῶν “ιγύων' οὗτοι δ᾽ ἑτεροεθνεῖς μέν εἰσι, παραπλήσιοι δὲ τοῖς βίοις" νέμονται δὲ μέρος τῶν Ἄλπεων

“08

AP 9.516=30

τὸ συνάπτον τοῖς Ἀπεννίνοις ὄρεσι, μέρος δέ τι καὶ τῶν Ἀπεννίνων ὁρῶν κατέχουσι, 4.6,1, 5.1,10. For their hard life and strong physical constitution, cf Dio Cass. 4.20, 5.39. They occasionally practised agriculture, hunting, and robbery, as well as piracy; cf. Dio Cass. 5.39, Piganiol 25ff. See further RE s.v,

Piganiol passim, Horsfall on Virg. Aen. 11.701. 1 ἕρδοι τὴν ἔμαθέν τις: Aristoph. Vesp. 1431 ἔρδοι τις ἣν ἕκαστος εἰδείη τέχνην. The

phrase is proverbial: ‘every man should practise his own art, with the implication ‘or it will be the worse for him, as Gow-Page remark. See also MacDowell on Aristoph. loc. cit. 'Ihe expression was often used in Latin in the time of Cicero; cf. Cie. Tusc. 1.18 quam quisque norit artem, in hac se exerceat, Ad Alt, 5.10,3, Hor. Epist. 1.14,44, the implication in these passages being the same

as in Aristophanes. Gow-Page cannot understand why phrase at the beginning of the present epigram, which different from what the reader expects to hear after such Crinagoras’ poetry does occasionally display Latin

Crinagoras uses this conveys a story quite an opening. However, influences (see Intr,

Language and Style, Latinisms; also Griffiths 1970, 218) and the proverb in Latin does not always have the implication ‘or it will be the worse for him; cf. Prop. 2.1,46. See A. Otto, Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer (Leipzig 1890), 37. Moreover, Crinagoras may be consciously using

a phrase here that is usually followed by something different from what actually does follow in this case, thus offering the reader a surprise consisting of a typically Alexandrian manipulation of, and playing with, the audience's expectations.

ὅπου: in a loose causal sense. Cf. Xen. Cyr. 8.4,31 4 που αὐτὸς ye πολλὰ ἔχει, ὅπου γε καὶ ἡμῶν ἑκάστῳ τοσαῦτα δέδωκεν. See K-G I] (2) 461; cf. also ΗΚ. 1.68,2,

4.195,2. Comparable is the use of ὁππότε at anon. AP7.543=54,1 FGE, also clarifying an opening gnome with a specific example, πάντα τις ἀρήσαιτο φυγεῖν πλόον, ὁππότε καὶ at, | Θεύγενες, ἐν Τιβυκῷ τύμβον ev

πελάγει. Cf. also

Antiphilus AP 7.176=25,5f. GP, ‘in view of the fact that, attested at Theogn. 748, Xen. Cyr. 8.3,7, Hdt. 2.125,7; see Gow-Page on Antiphilus loc. cit. Cf. also the rare causal sense of ἁνίκα in Call. AP7.519=44,1 HE with Gow-Page ad loc. This prose-orientated use of the word may offer a touch of narrative colour to the account of this strange, ‘Herodotean styled’ practice. For Hellenistic poets’ use of prose words and expressions, see Giangrande (1975b) 15f.; in Crinagoras, see also on 38,3 ἅτε που, ὑπ᾽... ἄκρας: the phrasing is comparable to Ap. Rh. 2.371 Θεμισκύρειον ὑπ᾽ ἄκρην, Opp. Hal. 2.400 προβλῆσιν ὑπ᾽ ἄκραις, although in these passages ἄκρα

has the sense of headland, cape (see 1.5] s.v. 1). At Hom. Od. 8.508 ἄκρη designates the highest point of the acropolis (see Garvie ad loc.) and at Leon. AP!

230=86,3 HE a hill. The Ligurians live under the Alpine crests, that is on the slopes of the Alps; cf. Florus 1.19,4.

AP 9515= 30

AAmas: the accusative plural only here; self-variation with 26,1 AArreıs; for the form, see on Succes, 28,1. For a similar phrase, cf. Paul. Sil. Descr. 520 Ἀλπείων σκοπέλων. Ap. B. and Ap. V. read ἀλυπέας. 2 ληϊσταί: Homer has ληϊστήρ: Od. 3.73, 16.426, al. The lonic form ληϊστῆς

occurs in the Anthology at Leon. 7.654=16,1, Antip. Sid. 7.745=19,1 HE, Apollonides 9.257=47,3 GP. λασίαις.... κεφαλαῖς: cf. λασίοιο καρήατος at [Theocr.] 25.257 (head of the lion of Nemea), Qu. Sm. 11.471 (human head), 12.143 λάσιον... κάρη (head of

the Wooden Horse), with Campbell ad loc. Homer uses λάσιος of animals (Il. 24.125, Od. 9.433); also metaphorically, λάσιον κήρ (Il. 2.851, 16.554). See Chryssafis on [Theocr.] 25.134. Here the shagginess the adjective denotes (together with the following pleonastic ἀμφέκομοι), emphasizes the barbarian nature of the Ligurians. Cf. Nonnus D, 27.215 βάρβαρα... βόστρυχα yatrys, Clem. Al. Paed. 3.3.24,2 ἔχει τι φοβερὸν τὸ εὔτριχον τοῦ βαρβάρου, Appian

Iber. 284. It also adds a playful touch of colour to the image of the shaggy Ligurians stealing hairy flocks. ἀμφίκομοι: ‘with hair all around their heads: The poet applies the adjective which is used metaphorically in Homer (a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, IL. 17.677 θάμνῳ ὑπ᾽ ἀμφικόμῳ) to human hair in its literal sense, to stress the shagginess of the Ligurians’ heads by means of a pleonastic expression, λασίαις ἀμφίκομοι κεφαλαῖς; for asimilar pleonasm, cf. Theocr. 7.15 λασίοιο δασύτριχος ... τράγοιο.

For the Ligurians’ shagginess, cf. Pliny NH 3.20,135, Dio Cass. 54.24 “ιγύων τῶν κομητῶν, Lucan 1.442. The Ligurian custom of letting ones hair grow long caused Transalpine Gaul to be called ‘Gallia Comata, in contrast to ‘Gallia Togata, Cisalpine Gaul. See R. J. Getty, M. Arınaei Lucani, De Bello Civili, Liber I (Cambridge 19557), on Lucan loc. cit.

Note the alliteration of « and A in the first two lines. 3 φωρῆς: ‘theft. The word is rare in poetry: h. Merc, 136, 385 (here perhaps with

a different meaning). See Allen-Halliday-Sikes and Richardson ad locc., Reed on Bion fr. 11,6), Bion fr. 11,6, Nic. Al. 273.

ἁπτόμενοι: ‘lay hands upon, ‘take, as at Od. 2.423 and 15.288 ὅπλων ἅπτεσθαι, Od. 4.60, Hdt. 4.196.

φύλακας κύνας: the image of watchdogs is Homeric, also occurring in the context of a theft (simile with a lion trying to seize a sheep): JI. 12.302f., probably echoed in Qu. Sm. 13.46f. In the Anthology, for instance, Tymnes 7.211=5,1f.

1 For pleonastic expressions in Crinagoras, see Intr., Language and Style, Pleonasms,

πιστότατον

κύνα....«{.Πδὐμήλου

σκυλάκαινα,

Nossis

φύλακα,

9.604=7,3

HE

οἰκοφύλαξ

is underlined by his attribution of

Crinagoras’ playful mood

φύλακας to κύνας, instead of the normal φύλακας ἄνδρας

(for instance, IL. 9.477),

ἀλέονται: ἀλέομαι, an epic word, occurs in Homer in both its uncontracted and contracted form; in a construction with the accusative, ‘avoid, cl. Il. 6.226,

13.184. Crinagoras may be alluding to a Homeric scene, while playing with the different meanings of ἀλέομαι: at Il. 18.586 (description of Achilles’ shield), the

verb occurs at the same sedes to describe a situation quite the opposite of that of the present poem: in Homer the dogs that guard the herd are too scared to fight off the intruders and so lions devour a bull while the dogs flee away (see LSJ s.v. ἀλέομαι 2): οἱ δ᾽ ἤτοι δακέειν μὲν ἀπετρωπῶντο λεόντων, e

2»

/

\

>

a

[4

ἱστάμενοι δὲ μάλ᾽ ἐγγὺς ὑλάκτεον ἔκ τ᾿ ἀλέοντο. e

[A

x

F

be}

4

ce

f

με

>>

Fi

4 χρίονται: in Homer the verb often describes anointing with oil after bathing (Od. 4.49, 17.88). Also with the phrase Ai’ ἐλαίῳ (for instance, Od. 3.466, 6.96). Cf. Eust. on Od. 6.227 (1561,1f.) ἰστέον καὶ ὅτι ἰσοδυναμούντων κατὰ νοῦν τοῦ τε

χρίω καὶ τοῦ ἀλείφω τὸ μὲν χρίω παρὰ τὸν χροῦν ἐρρέθη ὃς χρίεται. Τὸ δὲ ἀλείφω

παρὰ τὸ ἀλέω. The verb requires a dative, but the dative of πῖαρ is attested only by the Suda. A construction of χρίομαι with the accusative is attested in Ep, Hebr. 1.9 ἔχρισέ σε ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως.ἦ νεφροῖς: in poetry the word appears in Aristophanes (Ran. 1280, Lys. 962); ἐπινεφρίδιον at Il. 21.204, however, is employed to describe an unpleasantly naturalistic scene (cf. Richardson ad loc.); see below on ἔπεστιν ὅσον. The Bude

commentators cite Plin. NH 28.38,143-4 a renibus autem omne laudatissimum est, referring to the kidney fat of ruminants, but observe that Crinagoras should

have specified the animal whose kidney fat Ligurians use and accordingly suggest νεβροῖς, on the basis of Plin. NH 28.42,150, where we learn that serpents keep away from those who rub themselves with the suet of a stag or a fawn. The phrasing ἔπεστιν ὅσον, however, which Waltz-Soury retain, renders the alteration impossible, since the fat is ir the stag, not on it. See also below on ὅσον. πῖαρ: Hesych.: πῖαρ' τὸ κράτιστον. Kat otéap: ἢ τὸ πέρας. Καὶ λιπαρόν. In Homer πίων typically refers to animals and their fat: for instance, Od. 9.464 pnaa...tiova δημῷ, 14.419 bv... μάλα πίονα, fl 11.773, al. Cf. (τίη, 23,3, where

? Bt M. 669,49 πηλὸν ἔχριον τὸ πρόσωπον is altered by the editors to πηλῷ, perhaps unneces-

sarily; in Suda s.v. Θέσπις, the codices transmit readings with both the dative and the accusative: χρίσας τὸ πρόσωπον ψιμύθιον / ψιμυθίῳ,

* In the Homeric βοῶν ἐκ πῖαρ ἐλέαθαι (Il. 11.550, 17,659) the substantival usage is in fact preferred to the adjectival, ‘cream of the herd! See the notes of Leaf and Hainsworth ad docs also

Cunliffe and Ebeling s.v., and cf. on Crin. 12,3.

siap describes the goat's ‘rich’ milk, see ad loc. For the fat of the kidneys, see next note.

ἔπεστιν ὅσον: Scaliger conjectured ἄπιστον ὅσον in a 1608 letter to Salmasius;* Chardon de la Rochette 1.281 rendered ‘ils se frottent les reins d’une quantité

incroyable de graisse. Other suggestions are J. G. Schneider's ἀκεσσίνοσον" and Harbertons (327) ἀπωσένοσον, which are equally unconvincing, however. Van Eldik (reported in de Bosch 4.496) suspected that in this word either a component of ἀλεξι- or the name of an animal is latent. See further Stadtmiiller’s

apparatus. As Gow- Page remark, Heyne’semendation ἔπεστιν door (Géltingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 80 (1812), 800), generally accepted by modern editors, is a

strong candidate, since the dative νεφροῖς requires ἔπεστι(ν), This reading is

further supported by the fact that there is fat on the kidneys, human or of animals: Il. 21.204 δημὸν ἐρεπτόμενοι ἐπινεφρίδιον (fish and eels devouring the fat of the dead Asteropaeus’ kidneys). Cf. Suda s.v. ἐπινεφρίδιον" τὸ ἐπὶ τοῖς νεφροῖς

λίπος. For the huge quantity of the kidneys’ fat, and especially of the kidneys of sheep, cf. Aristot. PA 672a, 6720, HA 520a, Plin. NH 11.81,206. Cf. Aristotle's

account of the dangers of the accumulation of too much fat around the sheeps kidneys (Part. An. 672b). The relative is postponed, as on several occasions in Crinagoras. See on Crin. 34,2.

Ὅσον is usually overlooked by editors who translate ‘they grease themselves with the fat that covers kidneys’ (Gow-Page), ‘Fett, das die Nieren umgibt’

(Beckby), as if it were ¢. The pronoun, however, indicates that Ligurians anoint themselves with all the fat found on the kidneys, ‘ils senduisent de toute la

graisse qui entoure les rognons’ (Soury}; this means that they exploit the animal’s fat to the full. Crinagoras does not refer to any animal, presumably because he is certain that any animal other than the one he means is out of question,

whatever that animal may have been. The robbers seem to be deceiving the guard dogs, which normally protect flocks or herds, in the following way: the robbers anoint themselves with fat from the animal they intend to steal in order

to give themselves a scent identical to that of the flock. This they do so as not to alert the dogs, which are accustomed to this particular odour, while they steal the animals. The strongest candidate is, of course, sheep. This has larger quantities of fat than any other animal (see previous note) and there is proof that the

* J. J. Scaligeri, Opuscula varia ante hac non edita (Paris 1610), 471-2 and Epistolae (Leiden

1627), 536. Now, P. Botley and D. Van Miert, Ihe Correspondence (Geneva 2012), VII 578 (24 July 1608). ° 7,G. Schneider, Aeliani De Natura Animalium Libri XVU, 2 Schneider compared Anatolius in fragmento Fabriciano in Bibl, 74 in W. Gemoll, Städtisches Realprogyminasium zu Striegau,

of Josephus Justus Scaliger, 8 vols. vols. (Leipzig 1784), 1.25, on 1.37. Graec. vol. 4, p. 300 (=Nepualius 1884, 1-3) ἐλέφαντος στέαρ ἐὰν

ἀλείψῃ, οὐδέν σοι τῶν θηρίων προσλεύσεται, ἀδιάψαυστον yap ἐστέν.

Ligurians did indeed live on sheep. Thus it would seem that the sheep was the

Ligurians’ main source of fat.° 5f. ψευδόμενοι: ‘deceive’ cf. Aesch. Ag. 1208 “οξίαν ἐψευσάμην. With two accusatives: Soph. OC 1145f. οὐκ ἐψευσάμην / οὐδέν ae, πρέσβυ (see Jebb adloc.), Eur. Alc. 808 εἰ μή τι σός με δεσπότης ἐψεύσατο.

ῥινῶν: for dogs’ great scenting abilities, cf. Soph. Aj. 8 with Jebb and Finglass ad loc., [Opp.] Cyn. 2.456. Cf [Opp.] Cyn. 4.357. In the plural, the word can mean both ‘nostrils’ and ‘nose’ (for Homer, see Cunliffe and Ebeling s.v.). Although it is hunting dogs that are usually qualified as ‘keen-scented’ (cf. also next note), flock watchdogs are also keen-scented, thus giving warning of any impending danger. Cf. the description of wolves attacking the fold at Ap. Rh. 2.124f. πολιοὶ λύκοι ὁρμηθέντες, [4

€

[4

λάθρῃ ἐυρρίνων τε κυνῶν αὐτῶν τε νομήων, κτλ. a

>

¢

a

3

-

’

ἀξὺν στίβον: cf. [Opp.] Cyn. 4.66 ὀξύταται ῥινῶν ὀσφρήσιες, of the ‘sharpness’ of wild animals’ scenting. In Latin, cf. Ov. Met. 7.806f. naribus acres... canes (with Bömer ad loc.) and Hor. Epod. 12.6 canis acer, perhaps in the same sense as that in Ovid's passage; see L. C. Watson ad loc. Ὀξύς is often used of the senses. Cf. Il. 17.675 ὀξύτατον δέρκεσθαι, Pind. N. 10.62f. ὀξύτατον / ὄμμα; see further LSJ s.v. II.

Gow-Page note the boldness of this unique use, as ‘the concrete “track” stands here for the abstract “tracking” Hesychius, however, has s.v. orißos’ τρίβος, ὁδός. Kain ἴχνους ζήτησις. Another peculiarity in the use of the word oriBos here is that, while the poem deals with the deception of watchdogs, Crinagoras uses the word στίβος as if they were hunting dogs; cf. Opp. Hal. 2.289f. ὡς

δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ava EvAöxovs ὀφίων στίβον ἐξερεείνων | βριθόκερως ἔλαφος

ῥινήλατον ἴχνος ἀνεῦρε, 4.274--6, [Opp.] Cyn. 4.357-61. The use of the word, however, is clearly the result of the poetic licence that allows Crinagoras to imagine the (‘keen-scented’) watchdogs as chasing the bandits after the theft,’ and thus to condense this image in the phrase ῥινῶν ὀξὺν στίβον.

ὦ xaxov.../...aya0dv: for moralizing conclusions in Crinagoras, cf. 12,6, 38,8, 46,5f., 50,8, 51,7f.; a gnome is also the final couplet of 6. See also Intr., Language and Style, Structure. For the villainous cleverness of the Ligurians, cf. Strabo 5.2,5 καὶ παρώξυναν αὐτοὺς (sc. the inhabitants of Pisa) of Atyves, πονηροὶ

γείτονες παρὰ πλευρὰν ὄντες. κακὸν.,.μήτιες: cf. the expression κακὸν (-4) μητίεσθαι or μήδεσθαι: for instance, I}. 15.27, 21.413, Od. 1.234, Ap. Rh. 4.744. For κακόν as a substantive, see LSJ s.v. B. ° Cf. Strabo 4.6,2 ζῶντες ἀπὸ θρεμμάτων τὸ πλέαν καὶ γάλακτος

καὶ κριθίνου πόματος. For

θρέμμα referring mainly to domesticated animals, especially sheep and goats, see LS] sv. 1.

7 Cf. the Indian ants chasing the Indians after the latter have filled their sacks with the gold the ants have carried forth from their holes at Hdl. 3.105.

εὑρεῖν: in using the verb in its proper sense, ‘find, the poet may be playing with the Homeric phrase κακὸν εὕρετο (Od. 21.304; also cf. 24.462), where εὑρίσκεσθαι has the sense of get for oneself’ (see LSJ s.v. IV) in combination

with Theogn. 1370, πολλὸν δ᾽ εὑρέσθαι ῥήιτερον ἢ τελέσαι (of Eros); the Theognidean

usage is similar to that of Crinagoras and is also comparable to the Homeric κακὸν εὕρετο; cf.

Hudson- Williams® on Theogn. loc. cit.

ῥηΐτεραι: ‘readier at finding’; for the construction of ῥάδιος with the infinitive, see LSJ s.v. AI 1. Cf Il, 18.258 ῥηΐτεροι πολεμίζειν ἦσαν Ἀχαιοί, 24.2436. ῥηΐτεροι yap μᾶλλαν Ἀχαιοῖσιν δὴ ἔσεσθε |... ἐναιρέμεν.

Λιγύων μήτιες: on the guile of the Ligurians, Stadtmüller and Garzya (124) compared Virg. Aen. 11.701 and 7151. Cf. the epithets of Hermes, the deceiver par excellence among the gods, at h. Merc. 405 and 514, δολομήτης, ποικιλομήτης. For a construction with εὑρίσκειν, cf. Opp. Hal. 2.88 μῆτις ἀνεύρατο γαστέρι φορβήν. In the nominative plural here only; at Aesch. Ch. 626 γυναικοβούλους τε μήτιδας φρενῶν the word means

‘plans, while in the sense of ‘wisdom, ‘wits, as in the present poem, it occurs at h. Ven. 249 ἐμοὺς ὀάρους καὶ μήτιας.

* T. Hudson- Williams, The Elegies of Theognis (London 1910).

AP 9,555 =31

5.

Νῆσον, τὴν ei kat we περιγράψαντες ἔχουσιν μετρῆσαι βαιήν, ἑπτὰ μόνον σταδίους, ἔμπης καὶ τίκτουσαν ἐπ᾿ αὔλακα πῖαρ ἀρότρου ὄψει καὶ παντὸς κάρπιμον ἀκροδρύου καὶ πολλοῖς εὔαγρον ὑπ᾽ ἰχθύσι καὶ ὑπὸ Μαίρῃ εὐάνεμον λιμένων τ᾽ ἥπιον ἀτρεμίῃ, ἀγχόθι Κορκύρης Φαιηκίδος' ἀλλὰ γελᾶσθαι tr@ ἐπεωρίσθηνΊ τοῦτ᾽ ἐθέμην ὄνομα.

AP 9,555 Kpivayopov caret Pl 2 σταδίους P: -o1s

C6 ἀτρεμίῃ: edd: - y P

Reiske n. 732, Brunck n. 23, Rubensohn n. 42

An island, even if people have marked around me, small to measure, only seven stades, still you shall see me bringing forth to the furrow the ploughs rich harvest, providing a crop of every tree-fruit, offering a good hunt on

account of mary fishes, with pleasant winds under the Dog Star and mild in my harbours’ stillness, close to Phaeacian Corcyra; but I took this name < > to be mocked at. On a small island near Corfu with a name which provokes mockery. The greatest part of the epigram consists of one sentence presenting, in the

form of ἃ list, the features that distinguish the island. For the construction ofa poem resting on a catalogue of objects or characteristics, a feature typical of dedicatory epigrams, see on Crin. 43 and 47, the latter also displaying a catalacue of features of an object (a skull). Comparable to the present epigram, in respect, is Antiphilus AP 9.73=5 GP, on the Euboean straits, the four first 3 of which are devoted to the description of the waters. A kind of loose ring

position occurs in the present epigram. The first and the last (fourth) coupefer to geographical information and to the negative characteristics of the id (smallness, first couplet; location and funny name, last couplet); the two

AP 9.555 = 31

315

middle couplets (second and third) refer to its positive qualities, two contained

in the second and three contained in the third: fertility of land, production of fruits (second), richness in fish, pleasant climate, hospitable harbours (third).

The list of the island’s five qualifications displays a morphological variation: the basic term-agent of the qualification is an adjective or a participle (τίκτουσαν, κάρπιμον, εὔαγρον, εὐάνεμον, Yırıov),andeithera case (genitive, dative: ἀκροδρύου,

ἀτρεμίῃ) or a prepositional phrase (ἐπ᾿ αὔλακα, qualifying further the object of τίκτουσαν, Le. πῖαρ, ὑπ᾽ ἰχθύσι, ὑπὸ Matpy) depends from it. See also below, on 5f.

The poet's interest in the aition of islands’ names is also evident in 17, on the Oxeiai islets. For the Hellenistic interest in the names of islands, see ad loc., intr. note. Islands as speakers who introduce themselves also appear in the Anthology in Antiphil. 9.178=6 (Rhodes) and Antip. Thess. 9.408=113 GP (Delos); in Diodorus 9.60=17 GP, the speaker is Pharos, the tower, and identifies its name

with that of the island. The motif of the praise of a small island goes back as far as Homer: Od. 4.844-7 ἔστι δέ τις νῆσος μέσσῃ ari πετρήεσσα |...) Aorepis, οὐ μεγάλη" λιμένες Ö’Evı ναύλοχοι αὐτῇ / ἀμφίδυμοι. The phrasing of the poem and

the setting depicted in it in fact contain overtones recalling several passages from the Odyssey where islands are described; see below, on If., Bauyv.. ./ ἔμπης and πῖαρ ἀρότρου. For fertility as a feature (though not always available) of an encomium of a land, cf. Menander Rhetor 345,1-15 Russell-Wilson. In similar fashion to Crinagoras, Aelius Aristides (Aeg. 251.7-13) praises the islands of the Aegean for abundance and richness in various items and activities. They are rich in wines,

every kind of fruit, fish, and game. They also possess spectacles, harbours, temples, and musical festivals. See also below, on κάρπιμον ἀκροδρύου. In fact, Aristides mentions Homer as the source of the notion that the land ofa happy man is εὔφορος, εὔιχθυς, and εὔθηρος (Od. 19.112-13). For the praise of a place, see further Nisbet- Hubbard on Hor. Od. 2.6, intr. note, and McKeown 3.330 (on

Ov, Am. 2.16,1-10). For an island, cf. Call. H. 4.164 (of Cos) λιπαρή τε καὶ εὔβοτος with Mineur ad loc., who cites Od. 13.246 and 15.405f. as examples of poetic references to islands fertile and rich in animals (for the latter passage, see below, on Bainv.../ ἔμπης).

The theme of the present poem recurs in Antiphilus’ AP 9.413=8 GP, where an island from the Principo group, Terebinthos, considers its fertility to be more important than its small size. Besides the similarity of subject, the two poems bear certain likenesses in terms of their phrasing: assertion of the island's smallness with βαιή qualifying νῆσος / -is in the opening (vijgov.../...Bacyvin Crin., Bac} / vnois in Antiphil. Il. 1f.), continuation of the sentence with an adversative conjunction introducing a qualification which outweighs the tiny size, acknowledged initially (ἔμπης in Crin., «AA’in Antiphil.), two qualities presented in this ‘but’ sentence (τίκτουσαν... kat... κάρπιμον in Crin., ὁμαλὴ καὶ ἀστύφελος at Antiphil. |. 2), the adjective πᾶς in regard to a positive feature, attributed to either the island’s fruits (Crin., |. 4) or to the island itself (Antiphil.

l. 2), positive reference to the islands’ καρπός (κάρπιμον in Crin., καρποῖς at Antiphil. 1. 5), negative reference to their στάδιοι (ἑπτὰ μόνον σταδίοις in Crin,

od σταδίοισιν in Antiphil. |, 5), and αὖλαξ at Antiphil. 1.5). For Garzya the present poem but ‘con minore Reiske (1754, 232 and 1766, 124)

reference to the αὐλαξ (ἐπ᾿ αὔλακα in Crin,, (127), Antiphilus’ epigram is an imitation of vivacitä. was the first to suggest that the island with

the amusing name was Sybota (‘pig-pasture’), a group of islands to the southeast of Corcyra, and this view has been widely accepted. See Thuc. 1.47,1 τῶν νήσων at καλοῦνται Σύβοτα, Strabo 7.7,5 εἰσὶ δὲ νησίδες ra Σύβοτα, τῆς μὲν Ἠπείρου μικρὸν ἀπέχουσαι, κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἑῷον ἄκρον τῆς Kopxupaias τὴν Δευκίμμαν

κείμεναι. The islands today still retain their ancient name; cf. Gomme’ on Thuc., loc. cit. Thucydides draws a distinction between the island named Sybota and the area on the mainland bearing the same name (1.54,1; see Gomme on 1.52,1).

The poem was probably written during Crinagoras’ voyage to Italy for his Third Embassy, where he sailed past Corcyra: cf. 32,4 ἀρχαίην τ᾽ ἄξει ἐπὶ Σχερίην (see ad loc.). Cicero stayed on both Corcyra and Sybota on his way towards Actium and Patrae, following Crinagoras’ route in reverse (Ad Att. 5.9,1), as Griffiths observed (1970, 218). Honnigmann (in RE s.v. Sybota 1) held that Crinagoras

must be referring to the principal island of the three that make up the group (consisting of two large islands and one islet). The principal island is probably the island called in recent years Μαῦρο Ὄρος, the area of which is 0.74 sq. kin. It is unlikely that the poem refers to either of the other two islands of Sybota, since Μαῦρο Ὅρος is the ‘external’ one, that is, the one furthest from the coast

of Epirus. However, the island which is described here evidently had a perimeter of seven stades, that is, about 1,000-1,300 metres.” Μαῦρο Ὅρος is much

bigger than that. Another difficulty involved in identifying Sybota with Crinagoras’ island is that the poet refers to a single island with an amusing name, rather than to the whole Sybota group, which actually share the same name;’ furthermore, the Sybota group is closer to the coast of Thesprotia than to Corfu. It can anyway be argued that Sybota is not a particularly funny name.* What, in fact, we are looking for is a single island bearing a name with something funny about it, with a perimeter of about 1,300 metres, fertile, with a pleasant landscape and more than one harbour, located closer to Corfu. There is, however, no island that fulfils all these conditions. One of the so-called ' A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. 1 (Oxford 1945). ? For the estimation of the stade according to Eratosthenes, that is, between 148,5 and 185,5 metres, see 5. Bianchetti, “The “Invention” of Geography: Eratosthenes of Cyrene’ in 5. Bianchetti et al. (eds.), Brills Companion to Ancient Geography (Leiden 2015), 136 with n. 23.

* ‘This weakness of Reiske's identification was already observed by Jacobs, who remarked, in regard to Strabos statement that in the region ἄλλαι... νησῖδες εἰσὶν οὐκ ἄξιαι μνήμης (7.7,5), that guarum una forlasse hoc carmine significatur.

* It is noteworthy that, far from being scorned for his occupation, Eumaeus in the Odyssey, the Συβώτης par excellence, is presented as a figure who merits respect. Nor does the word have nega-

live connotations in later literature.

91)

Diapontia islands north-west of Corfu is Diakopo, with a perimeter of c.1,000 metres.” Unfortunately for us, unlike Crinagoras’ island, Diakopo has a rocky ‘surface, because of which it is uninhabited. On the other hand, Lazareto, for-

merly Agios Dimitrios, is an islet roughly equal in size to Diakopo. It lies very close both to Corfu, on the east, and to the islet Ptychia (today Ptychia or Vido) and is much less rocky than Diakopo.® Lazareto is in fact closer to Corfu than any of the small Diapontia islands. However, at least today, it has only one small harbour. If the poet is referring to this islet, his ship must have passed through the strait between Epirus and Corfu, on the side of Corfu facing Epirus, instead of taking the external route (south and then north of Corfu, facing the Adriatic). Pliny gives us the names of some of the islands that lie off Corfu (NH 4.12,53): ante Corcyram Ericusa, Marathe, Elaphusa, Malthace, Trachie, Pythonia, Ptychia, Tarachie. A name which may have been considered peculiar for an island is MaA0d«n; however, Malthace is probably to be identified with Maßpak:, one of the Diapontia islands, which is too large. The strongest candidate from Pliny’s group is Tarachie: this is mentioned together with Ptychia, near which today’s Lazareto lies. If this name is transliterated as Ταριχίαι, as was suggested early on,’ it is probably related to dried/smoked fish (τάριχος). Obviously, in this case, the present island is to be clearly distinguished from Ταριχεῖαι, the group of islands near the coast of North Africa (Strabo 17.3,16). Tapaxia, too, may be considered an amusing name. It has been actually suggested that Lazareto is to be identified with Pliny’s Tarachie.® Of the islands in Pliny’s catalogue, Ptychia bears the morphological features, apart from size, that best fit the description of the island in the poem. There is the possibility that the name (or an allusion to it) may be hidden in the corrupt part of the last line.’ See further below, on tr& ἐπεωρίσθηντ. If the name is not clearly mentioned, the poem seems to have been written for an audience who shared the poet's experience and came to know the island. Alternatively, the poet is withholding information on purpose. For the cryptic quality occasionally present in Crinagoras’

* Mathraki is the smallest of the principal Diapontia islands, the others being Othonoi and Ereikousa, with an area of 3.1 sq. km (see Stamatelatos, Vavma-Stamatelatou s.v. Maßpaxı). Diaplo,

next to Diakopo, is much bigger than Diakopo (0.3 sq. km area and more than 2,500 metres in perimeter). The perimeters have been estimated on the basis of the data provided in Google Maps.

ὁ Ptychia is mentioned already by Thucydides (4.46,3). ” J. Hardouin, Caii Plinii Secundi Naturali Historiae libri XXXVI (Paris 1685), 446.

δ Stamatelatos, Vamva-Stamatelatou, s.v. Aalapero 2. ® Ἐρεικοῦσα would be a candidate if we were to accept that either Crinagoras has made some mistake about its size (which is unlikely, given that the difference of measurement is substantial),

or that the island he refers to is not to be identified with modern Ericousa, again an unlikely assumption. The γελᾶσθαι, in this case, would not refer to any supposedly comic name, but to the

irony implicit in the fact that this fertile and beautiful island only took its name from the épeixn, a humble plant, the heath plant (peixı in modern Greek).

poems, cf. Photius’ statement about the ‘solution’ of a riddle offered by oneof

the poet's now lost epigrams. See Intr., Testimonia. Cf. also the fact that the animal whose fat Ligurians use in 30 is nowhere mentioned. 1: the opening sentence recalls, to a certain extent, Od. 10.194f. εἶδον... νῆσον, τὴν πέρι πόντος ἀπείριτος ἐστεφάνωται, of Ithaca. If this was indeed Crinagoras’ intention, then περιγράψαντες in the present poem transters to a more mun-

dane reality the idea, located in Homer's setting, of the circle formed by a natural

element around the island. The participle transforms the idea of circularity, typically embodied in poetic descriptions of islands by the sea, into the circular marking and tracing employed in the world of geography. The tracing of a cir-

cle thus moves from the world of epic to become an activity performed for reasons of science and scholarship. Syntactically, the sentence displays some obscurity, to deal with which critics have suggested various possible readings and emendations. These, listed below, are ordered according to the logic of the interpretation and changes proposed, rather than in chronological sequence. a) Stadtmüller, Rubensohn. Stadtmüller read γῆν for τήν (accepted by WaltzSoury and Conca-Marzi) and rendered: etiamsi qui terram descripserunt, qui fines insulae circumscripserunt, parvam ad metiendum campum me propositam

sibi habent,

non

amplius

septem

stadia.

Emperius

(307)

emended to τήνδ᾽, These changes are not necessary, since τήν can be taken with Baınv (see below, on Ὁ) and d)). Rubensohn, on the other hand,

accepted P's τήν, equating it with τήνδ᾽πα adopting σταδίοις (P’s reading before the correction), and translated: insulam hanc, etiamsi qui me descripserunt, me, ut sum pusilla, septem modo stadiis metiri possint. This interpretation does not correspond to the Greek text, as Gow-Page note, In fact, περιγράψαντες ἔχουσιν is shared, in Rubensohn’s translation, by

both descripserunt and possint, which is impossible. b) Jacobs. Reiske (1754, 147 and 1766, 124) corrected to ei χ᾽ ot ne, printed by Brunck, Jacobs, Holtze, and Geist. Jacobs? took νῆσον with μετρῆσαι βαιήν

and regarded περιγράψαντες ἔχουσιν as a periphrasis for περιέγραψαν (as Gow-Page assume and as seems in fact to be the case; for the periphrasis, see K-G II (2) 61-2), constructing νῆσον τὴν μετρῆσαι μὲν βαιήν, ἑπτὰ

μόνον σταδίους ev τῇ περιφερείᾳ ἔχουσιν: Gow-Page render Jacobs interpretation as ‘an island, even if they have described me, small to measure, seven stades only. However, with Jacobs’ acceptance of Reiske’s εἰ y’ of pre, there seems to be a relative clause (of με περιγράψαντες ἔχουσιν = of με περιέγραψαν) whose subject (‘those who have described me’) stands as an

absolute nominative, unconnected to the rest of the sentence. This weakness is not reflected in the rendering of Gow- Page, who ignore the of and assume a ‘they’/‘people’ as the understood subject of περιέγραψαν. It is possible to accept this meaning, without necessarily requiring Reiske’s change

AP 9,333=37

of καί με, although the periphrasis participle + ἔχουσι very rarely has an understood subject. No case listed in K-G is comparable to the present passage. Slightly comparable is Ap. Rh. 2.1029, where ἐνικλείσαντες ἔχουσιν does have an understood subject, although this is Mossynoeci, mentioned

several lines above, rather than ‘people, in general. Of course, the same idiomatic use would occur in every reading in which ef καί μὲ was nol changed. See also below, on d). c) Reiske (Meineke, Dübner, Beckby). Reiske’s correction of ἔχουσιν to ἐροῦσιν, in combination with his εἰ y’ οἵ we (see prev. paragraph), results

in the meaning insulam quamvis me dicent spatii exiguam, qui me forte mensi fuerint (1754, 147). Meineke (1842, 202f.) approved Reiske's ἐροῦσιν,

but not his εἰ χ᾽ of we. Dübner and Beckby combined Emperius’ τήνδ᾽ (see above, on a)) with Reiske's ἐροῦσιν, printing νῆσον τήνδ᾽, εἰ Kal pe περιγράψαντες ἐροῦσιν and constructing μετρῆσαι with ἐροῦσιν (insulam

hanc, etiamsi qui me descripserunt dicant metiri me, Dübner). ConcaMarzi print νῆσον, γῆν el καί pe περιγράψαντες ἐροῦσιν, translating ‘sono

unisola, di terra, se si traccia il mio perimetro, se ne pud trovare poca. These attempts are unnecessary, since περιγράψαντες ἔχουσιν can stand in the sentence (as shown in b) and d)).

d) Ellis, Gow-Page. Gow- Page approve the reading of Ellis (214), who takes the infinitive as depending from ἔχουσιν (as Rubensohn did, see above, on a); for ἔχειν + inf., see K-G Il (2) 9,3) and translates ‘the island which,

even if they are able to mark about and measure me, is small, a poor seven stadia in compass. Gow-Page remark that in this case ‘even if’ is out of place, as there is no difficulty in measuring such a small island, arguing that the point of the phrase ‘even if they can measure me’ has to be that people would not even bother to be at pains and measure such an insignificant island as this one: consequently, Page changed P's καίμε to κἀμέ as being more emphatic. A weakness in Ellis’ translation is that he makes ‘mark around’ depend on ‘be able to, like ‘measure, which is impossible with our text. A more accurate approach would be ‘the island which, even if they are able to measure me, after having marked about me (περιγράψαντες), etc. The difficulty in this interpretation, as in

each

one

stated

above,

where

there

is no

pronoun

before

περιγράψαντες, is that ‘men’ must be the understood subject of ἔχουσιν and this is mainly a feature of prose, unless the verb is φασί and the like (see K-G II (1) 33, c). To conclude, the construction is smoother if ἔχουσιν is taken together with

περιγράψαντες (Jacobs’ reading, albeit without his adoption of Reiske's ei χ᾽ οἵ με) rather that with μετρῆσαι, In the former case we have a periphrasis, so

that ‘people’ is understood for one term (περιέγραψαν) rather than for two

(περιγράψαντες and ἔχουσιν μετρῆσαι). Moreover, this reading does not involve

adding an enjambment that would make the meaning even more obscure or complex (ἔχουσιν / μετρῆσαι). Of course, it is always possible that the ambiguity in the construction is deliberate. περιγράψαντες: draw a line around, ‘mark about? Cf. Hdt. 8.137 περιγράφει τῇ μαχαίρῃ ἐς τὸ ἔδαφος τοῦ οἴκου τὸν ἥλιον, Polyb. 2.14,8 τῆς ταῦτα τὰ πεδία περιγραφούσης γραμμῆς, Aristoph. Pax 879 οὗτος, τί περιγράφεις; with

Platnauer ad loc.'*

2f. μετρῆσαι: in the sense ‘to measure’ (a country, etc.), cf. Hdt. 2.6,6-8, 6.42,8. The verb is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Od. 3.179 πέλαγος μέγα

μετρήσαντες, measured’ the sea, i.e. traversed it). At Aratus 497 the verb refers to the division of the celestial circle in equal parts and is a technical term; see Kidd ad loc. As for the construction, Stadtmüller aptly compared Crin. 30,5f. κακὸν εὑρεῖν / ῥηίτεραι and 42,3 δειλαὶ (δειναί, in the present edition) δάκνεσθαι.

énrd...oradious: for the length of seven stadia (1,000-1,300 metres), see above, intr. note. Μόνον at the same sedes of the pentameter at Palladas AP 11.383,6.

Rubensohn alone retains C’s σταδίοις, arguing that μετρεῖν can be constructed with the dative in Greek (cf. prev. note). Here, however, the accusative

σταδίους has to agree with βαιήν. Baınv.../ ἔμπης: ἔμπης introduces the opposition also at the beginning of the

hexameter in Crin. 35,3. Βαιός for a small island also at Aesch. Pers. 447f. and

at Ap. Rh. 4.1711f.

On Antiphil. AP 9.413=8,1-2 GP (see above, intr. note) Irigoin-Laurens notice that the motif ‘small, but...’ also occurs at Crin. 3,5£. and 4,5 (for which see ad locc.), Antip. Thess. AP 9.143=93,1-4 and 9.107=114,3f., Antiphilus 6.199=16,4, Archias 10.8=28 GP, anon. 9.610 and 612. The motifofa small island which is important, however, due to the man whose grave it contains, occurs at Alc. Mess. 7.1=11,7f. HE ὀλβίστη νήσων πόντῳ "los, ὅττι κέκευθε | Barn Μουσάων

ἀστέρα καὶ Χαρίτων, where the adjective Bary assimilates an adversative clause (‘small though it is’). The idea of a small ‘but’ notable island is Homeric: Od. 15.405. Similar to Crinagoras’ account is Ovid's description at Av. 2.16,2-5 (a passage mentioned

already by Jacobs’ in his commentary on the present epigram) parva, sed

inriguis ora salubris aquis. / Sol licet admoto tellurem sidere findat, / et micet Icarii stella proterva canis, / arva pererrantur Paeligna liquentibus undis, etc.; cf. also F. 4.685f.

10 M. Platnauer, Aristophanes’ Peace (Oxford 1964).

AB9555=31

321

τίκτουσαν: cf. Menander Rhetor 346,6f. Russell-Wilson (of the praise of a land)

καὶ εἰ μὲν πάμφορος, ὅτι γυναικὶ εὔπαιδι ἔοικεν. For the common metaphor of earth giving birth, cf., for instance, Aesch. Ch. 127 γαῖαν αὐτὴν 7) τὰ πάντα τίκτεται (with Garvie ad loc.) and Eur. fr. 195 TrGrF ἅπαντα τίκτει χθών. See also on Crin. 15,1 179)... μήτηρ.

ἐπ᾿ αὔλακα: Homer has only the accusative ὦλκα (Il. 13.707, 15.275). Hesiod has ἐν αὔλακι (Op, 443), [Theocritus] δι᾽ αὔλακος (25.219). For further occurrences

of the word in Hellenistic poetry (e.g. Call. H. 3.180, Ap. Rh. 3.1347), see Chryssafis on [Theocr.] loc. cit.

As Gow-Page remark, ἐπί + acc. implies the notion of movement, suitable for an image in which earth ‘brings forth’ fruit for the plough, although a construction with the dative would be normal (hence the ἐπ᾽ αὔλακι of Jacobs?,

printed by Meineke 1842, 202, Geist 35, Holtze, and Dibner; previously,

Toup 1760-6, 2.13 had suggested er αὔλακι, printed by Brunck and Jacobs’). The originality of expression is characteristic, as happens also with πῖαρ ἀρότρου; see next note. πῖαρ ἀρότρου: the only two other occurrences of πῖαρ in the Anthology are

again in Crin, 23,3 and 30,4, and the word is a substantive, too; see ad locc. The use of πῖαρ to denote a fertile land is Homeric: Od. 9.135 ἐπεὶ μάλα πῖαρ um’

οὖδας. There is controversy about whether πῖαρ in the Homeric passage is a substantive or an adjective, but the echo of the phrase at h. Ap. 60 ἐπεὶ οὔ τοι

πῖαρ br’ οὖδας suggests that the word is also a substantive in Homer.'' Further resemblances ting and that the Cyclopes: fertile and, if

regarding certain details can be traced between the Homeric setdescribed here. Odysseus describes an islet lying off the land of Crinagoras’ small island is near Corcyra. The Homeric island is properly cultivated, would bear everything in season (1. 131 φέροι

δέ κεν ὥρια πάντα): Crinagoras’ island, too, is fruitful (1. 4 παντὸς κάρπιμον

dxpodpvov), The island near the Cyclopes has an excellent harbour (1. 136 ἐν δὲ λιμὴν εὕορμος), like Crinagoras’ small island (1. 6 λιμένων τ᾽ ἥπιον ἀτρεμίῃ). On

the other hand, the Homeric island has herds of wild goats (1. 124 βόσκει δέ τε μηκάδας αἶγας), whilst in Crinagoras the ‘good hunt’ consists in the abundance

of fish rather than that of wild animals. The poet also exploits, by means of imitation through variation, the reference to the soft winds: fair breezes blow in the harbour of the Homeric island (1. 139 καὶ ἐπιπνεύσωσιν ayrac); this island is

εὐάνεμον (1.6) ‘under the Dog Star’ (1. 5) rather than in regard to its harbour, yet still the reference to the tranquillity of the harbour is, with a playful implication, juxtaposed to εὐάνεμον in Crinagoras, Reiske (1754, 232) suggested, but did not print, πῖαρ ἀλεύρου; this conjecture, along with Stadtmiiller’s ἀπ᾽ ὄγμου (comparing h. Cer. 455 πίονες ὄγμοι, also at 11 See Monro ad loc., Allen-Halliday-Sikes, and Richardson (2010) on h. Ap. 60, Ebeling s.v.

322

AP 9,555 = 31

verse-end), are difficult to explain palaeographically. Brunck, Jacobs, Geist (35),

Meineke

ἀρούρης

(Toup

(1842,

202),

Rubensohn,

Holtze,

and

Dübner

accept

Toup’s

1760-6, 2.13, translating ‘the fat of the land’); cf. Lyc. 1060

ἀρούρης πῖαρ. Gow- Page, supporting P’s reading, rightly observe that deviation from the norm is expected from the poet. Of course, πῖαρ ἀρούρης, occurring

once in Lycophron, cannot be seen as the ‘norm, although the ‘fat of the land’ is indeed more normal and literal than the ‘fat of the plough’ [7iap with the genitive also occurs at Ap. Rh. 4.1133 πῖαρ ἐλαίης, a periphrasis for olive oil. A meta-

phorical phrase involving a noun denoting some agricultural tool in the genitive, which signifies the cause that brings about what is expressed by the noun it accompanies, is Agathias’ σκαπάνης ἄλγεα (AP 9.644,2). A plausible suggestion, if ἀρότρου is not to be kept, may be Lumb’s (80) ἀροτρεῦ, accepted by Beckby. Of course, the apostrophe to a particular person is not necessary: cf, the general ‘you’ apostrophe to the reader in Crin. 22,1 and 35. 4 Stadtmüller compared Theocr. 15.112 πὰρ μὲν of ὥρια κεῖται ὅσα δρυὸς ἄκρα φέρονται. Cf. below, on παντός... ἀκροδρύου.

ὄψει: in the Anthology again at Leon. 6.120=91,6 ΗΕ Ἀθηναίης ἐπὶ δουρί ! τὸν τέττιγγ᾽ ὄψει μ᾽, ὦνερ, ἐφεζόμενον, Philod. 11.44=23,5 GP; at the same sedes

Lucillius 11.191,6. For the apostrophe, see also above, on πῖαρ ἀρότρου, end of note.

κάρπιμον axpodptou: for the adjective in poetry, cf. Aesch. Pr. 455f. καρπίμου / θέρους, Eur. Or. 1086 κάρπιμον πέδον (a periphrasis for γῆ, as Willink remarks ad loc.), Supp. 31 στάχυς, Theocr. 10.42 Adov, Nonnus 12.7 ἴχνος.

At Od. 19.112, in the happy man’s land βρίθῃσι δὲ δένδρεα καρπῷ (see above, intr. note). The genitive dependent on κάρπιμον can be defined as ‘objective, since κάρπιμος can have the sense ‘producing’ (cf. LSJ s.v.). The present construction can be paralleled by φυτάλμιος + gen.: cf., in a metaphorical sense, Soph. OC 150-1 dAady duparwr/...dutrdducos (see K-GII (1) 371). Crinagoras’ expression resembles in particular εὔφορος + gen. Cf. Plut. Mor. 994b εὐῴφορον τῶν ἡμερωτάτων καὶ βιωφελεστάτων καρπῶν, Ael, Arist. Aeg. 251.7 evoıvos, εὔφορος καὶ σίτου kal πάντων ὁπόσα ὧραι φύουσιν (on the Aegean islands; see

above, intr. note); also, occasionally in Galen, in a metaphorical sense, εὔφορος πυρετῶν.

παντός... ἀκροδρύου: every fruit’ alludes to Od. 9.131; see above, on πῖαρ ἀρότρου. Ἀκρόδρυον occurs rarely in poetry. Cf. Palladas AP 9.377,6, Lith. Orph. 530, 736. The word is properly applied to fruits with shell or rind; cf. Geop. 10.74,2 ἀκρόδρυα δὲ καλεῖται doa ἔξωθεν κέλυφος ἔχει, οἷον ῥοιά, πιστάκια, κάστανα, καὶ ὅσα ξυλώδη τὸν καρπὸν ἔξωθεν ἔχει. At Theocr. 15.112 δρυὸς ἄκρα,

standing for ἀκρόδρυα, implies, like the present ἀκρόδρυον, fruits of every kind. See further Gow ad loc.

AP 9.555 =31

323

'Sf. reference to mild climate is important in eulogies of lands; cf. Menander ‚Rhetor 387,10 Russell-Wilson ὅπως ἀέρων ἔχει εὐκρασίας. At Od, 19.113, in the blessed man’s land, θάλασσα δὲ παρέχῃ ἰχθῦς, inter alia. See also above, intr. note, In the phrases edaypov ὑπ᾽ ἰχθύσι and εὐάνεμον ὑπὸ Maipy we have adjectives

qualified by prepositional phrases with ὑπό, the preposition denoting in one instance causation (ὑπ᾽ ἰχθύσι) and in the other location (ὑπὸ Matpy), so that a

syntactical variation is realized. εὔαγρον: the adjective is attributed to nets at Maccius AP 6.89=7,7 GP, to cages at Leon. 7.295=20,1 HE, to κάματος at Zosimus 6.183=2,6 FGE; see also Gow-

Page on Leon. loc. cit. For ἄγρα used of fishing, cf. Soph. Aj. 880 with Finglass ad loc., Theocr. 7.60 with Gow ad loc., Moschus fr. 1.10 ἐχθύες ἁ πλάνος ἄγρα, Qu.

Sm. 7,569, Theaet. AP 6.27,1, anon. 9.383,2, Opp. Hal. 5.372 and 426. Cf. dypeurijpes

for fishermen at Opp. Hal. 2.235 and ἰχθύος ἀγρευτῆρες in [Theocr.] 21.6. ὑπ᾿ ἰχθύσι: Toup’s ἐπ᾿ ἰχθύσι (Toup 1760-6, 2.13), accepted by all editors except for Reiske, Stadtmüller, Paton, Gow-Page, and Beckby, is not necessary (cf. above on 5f.). Gow-Page note that in later literature ὑπό + dat. can be a periphrasis for the dative (see LS) s.v. BII 4, quoting Ap. Rh. 2.26 λέων ba’ ἄκοντι rerupévos, Nic. Al. 180 ὑπὸ ζάγκλῃσι... ὀπώρην [...kelpovres, and Rufinus AP 5.74=38,2 Page. αὐτὸς ὑφ᾽ ἡμετέραις πλεξάμενος παλάμαις). These examples,

partly repeated by Gow on Theocr. 24.14, κυανέαις φρίσσοντας ὑπὸ σπείραισι δράκοντας, δ in fact illustrate ‘an instrumental dative. However, the causal sense of ὑπό + dat. is also possible. See further K-G II (1) 524, 112.

καὶ ὑπό: for the hiatus, see Intr., Metre, Hiatus. Given the poet’s tolerance to

hiatus, suggestions like ἰχθύσιν ἠδ᾽ ὑπό of Jacobs” and Meineke's (203) καί ῥ᾽ ὑπό are unnecessary. ὑπὸ Maipn: Maera is a Nereid at Il. 18.48, the name being derived from μαρμαίρω; see Edwards ad loc. Maera is the daughter of Proetus and Antaea at

Od. 11.326. Designating the Dog Star,’ cf. Call. fr. 75,35, Nonnus D. 5.221, 5.269, 12.287, 16.200, 43.169 and 187, always at verse-end. It is used of Hecabe after her transformation at Lyc. 334. For Maera representing the hot season, cf. also Hesych. s.v. Maipa. Kiwv τὸ ἄστρον ἢ ἀκμαιότατον καῦμα (cf. prev. note). Here

Crinagoras produces a self-variation with 15,4 ἠελίου καῦμα τὸ θερμότατον. There is no need to change (as Reiske did (1754, 148; 1766, 124), followed by Brunck and Jacobs’) the dative to accusative (ὑπὸ μαίρην). The expression is

12 According to Giangrande, this is a case of tmesis inversa rather than of ὑπό + dat.: see H.

White ad loc. 13 Named after the hound of Erigone or Icarius in the Attic myth. Cf., for instance, Paus. 10.38,1,

Apollod. 3.191£; see further Bömer on Ov. F 4.939.

AP 9.555 = 3] equivalent to ὑφ᾽ ἡλίῳ (the usual meaning of which is ‘on earth, ‘in life’) and ὑπὸ vurri,as Jacobs? remarked. Cf. ba ἠελίῳ in I. 4.44 and Leon. AP7.67=59,8 HE,

For the expression ‘under the Dog Star’ (though not with the dative), similar to that of the present poem and denoting the heat of the summer days, cf., for instance, Athen. 7.99,6 ἐν ταῖς ὑπὸ κύνα θερμοτάταις ἡμέραις, and the phrase ἐν τοῖς ὑπὸ κύνα καύμασιν, frequently in Galen. εὐάνεμον: εὐἄνεμος (instead of εὐήνεμος, occasionally occurring in poetry, as, for instance, at Eur. Andr. 749 (see below, on ἤπιον) and fr. 316,2 TrGrF) is a new formation modelled on λαθάνεμος (Simon. fr. 3.1,4 PMG), παυσάνεμος (also a

ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, Aesch. Ag. 214), as Gow-Page remark. Note also the ὅπαξ λεγόμενον ἀλεξάνεμος in Od. 14.529, which Eustathius repeats as ἀλεξήνεμον at

1767.43, probably influenced by the commonness of formations in -Nvepos, although he gives the correct term elsewhere. For winds as a remedy for the heat of the Dog Star, cf. Nonnus D. 5.220f., 5.274-6, 12,286-9, 13.279-85.

ἥπιον: in regard to the calmness of wind in the sea, cf. Philip AP 9.88=40,2 (same sedes), Antiphilus 10.17=11,) GP. Also Crin. 34,2; see ad loc. For the calmness of winds in a harbour, cf. Hom. Od. 13.98f. and Eur. Andr. 749. arpepin: a rare word in poetry; cf. Pind. N. 11.12. Theognis and Callimachus use ἀτρεμίζειν (Theogn. 303, Call. fr. 195,25).

7 ἀγχόθι: the word is a Homeric rarity: Il. 14.412, 23.762 (here as an adverb, as in Theocr. 22.40); same sedes at Od. 13.103. Other occurrences: Theocr. 24.135 (see H. White ad loc.), Call. H. 3.171, occasionally in Nonnus and quite

often in Quintus Smyrnaeus. In the Anthology, cf., inter alia, Antip. Sid, 7.748=33,4 HE ἑπταπόρων ἀγχόθι Πληιάδων, Bianor 9.308=15,1 GP Tupanvidos ἀγχόθι δίνης.

Κορκύρης Φαιηκίδος: self-variation with 32,4 ἀρχαίην... Σχερίην (the Homeric Scheria usually identified with Corcyra; see ad loc.), Cf. Ap. Rh. 4.769 Ἀλκινόου Φαιηκίδα νῆσον. The adjective Φαιηκίς is also used by Apollonius at 4.1222 and 1722. ἰζόρκυρα, Kopxupato, instead of Kepx-, appears in early inscriptions and Corcyraean coins, and in later prose; see LSJ s.v. In poetry it occurs rarely. Cf. ‘Simon. 29 FGE πατρὶς μὲν Ké pxupa. Cf. also Phryn. Com. fr. 47,1 ΚΑ Κορκυραῖοι and Aristoph. Av. 1463 Kopxupaia (according to some manuscripts; see Dunbar ad loc.). Κέρκυρα at Call. H. 4.156 (for which see Mineur ad loc.). Apollonius Rhodius uses Képxupa of the Black Corcyra of Illyria, always calling the island of the Ionian Sea Maxpis or Aperravn (see Mooney on 4.566). γελᾶσθαι: Sitzler (117) suggested the correction to γελάσσαι, infinitive for

imperative, continuing the apostrophe to the second person of ὄψει. This is not

AP 9,555 =31

325

necessary: for the passive infinitive, cf. Soph, OC 1423 αἰσχρόν... οὕτω γελᾶσθαι τοῦ κασιγνήτου πάρα, Eur. Med. 797 οὐ yap γελᾶσθαι τλητὸν ἐξ ἐχθρῶν. See

further next note. 8 fra ἐπεωρίσθηντ: all editors and critics suggest one or the other interpretation, although they do not comment on the problem involved in the phrase ἐθέμην ὄνομα, taken to mean ‘I took that name, as if it were ἔλαβον ὄνομα:

τίθεμαι ὄνομα τινί, Means, of course, ‘I name someone. Thus, unless we accept that the subject of ἐθέμην and speaker of the last sentence, the island, has itself given a name to something (a person, a situation), or that the corrupt passage

hides the dative ἐμοί (‘I named myself’), we are obliged to take the present phrase as a perhaps unique example of τίθεμαι ὄνομα in a passive/reflexive sense, comparable to other passive uses of τίθεμαι (see LSJ s.v.). This (silent) assumption is common to all critics’ readings which will be discussed below. The suggestions of Sitzler (117: ἐπελωβήθην, ἐπιμωμήθην) move too far away from the text and do not improve the meaning. Rubensohn read τῷ ἐπ᾿ ἐωρίσθην

(Ξἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἐωρίσθην) taking ἐωρίξομαι to mean ‘to be proud of’ (cf. Hesych. s.v. ἐωρίζεται' μετεωρίζεται) and explaining ‘what I was proud of, that I took as my

name, to be laughed αἴ" Paton, Waltz-Soury, and Beckby follow Rubensohn as regards the sense (printing, however, τῷ ἔπ ἐωρίσθην, as also does Stadtmiiller, who compared, together with Rubensohn, Crin. 20,3 alow ἐπῃώρησας, although

here we have a different verb). However, the connection with ἐωρίζομαι seems forced and the meaning and the word order are again not satisfactory. Reiske (1754, 148 and 1766, 124) read τῷ ἔπι ὡρίσθην (printed by Brunck and Jacobs" and approved by Meineke 203), reconstructing the syntax of the whole sentence thus: ἐφ᾿ᾧ γελᾶσθαι ὡρίσθην, τοῦτ᾽ ἐθέμην ὄνομα, Ἵ took that name from

which I was destined to be laughed at’; at unde tamen derisui ut essem fatale mihi erat, inde nomen mihi adscivi (Reiske 1754, 148); Boissonade (in Dibner)

explained ἑωρίσθην as a form of ὡρίσθην on the analogy of ἑώρων and ξυνέηκα. Reiske’s syntactic order remains difficult. Nor is Boissonade's suggestion convincing, since there is no such attested form of the stem -ὁριζ-

-ὡριζ-. Ellis

(216), who suggests τῷ ἔπει ὡρίσθην, offers the interpretation, which Reiske also gives, quo vocabulo destinata sum ad ridendum, hoc mihi nomen indidi. In a variation of Reiske's interpretation, Hartigan (101) translates “but to be mocked about what I have I have this name, explaining ‘I am mocked because I took my name from what I possess. To extract the sense ‘to possess’ from τῷ ἐπεωρίσθην, one has to suspect a form of ὁρίζειν underlying it and so understand ‘I was given this name to be laughed at, due to the role/function that was set/assigned for me. Ellis’ suggestion τῷ ἔπει ὡρίσθην (216) enhances

14 As Gow-Page render Rubensohn’s sed unde gloriandi materiam duxi (superbiebam), id mihi indidi nomen ita ut deridear.

326

AP 9.555 =31

the logical general sense and makes the word order clearer, if, however, we do not interpret it as Ellis did: ‘but I took my name from the word which defined me’ (from the word/role for which I was assigned) ‘to be laughed at. Both Σύβοτα and Tapıyia (although the former candidacy is to be excluded; see above, intr. note) fit into such a statement, as they both denote some particular activity that takes place on the island. However, this solution is not satisfactory either, since ὁρίζειν (-εσθαι) is a highly unpoetic word (at least in the sense of

define’ and the like: however, in sense of ‘set up’ (as boundaries) the verb occurs in tragedy; see LSJ s.v. IV 1) and does not seem at home in the present context in the sense ‘! was destined/assigned to something’ The syntax remains extremely unnatural if we insist on reading the first person of a passive aorist in Τέἐπεωρίσθηντ. Alternatively, a noun, an adjective, or even an infinitive may possibly have occupied this position, perhaps denoting a feature of the island and possibly, though not necessarily, forming a dative that depends on γελᾶσθαι. It is possible that the corrupt word did not even begin with ἐπ- at all, this opening being perhaps the result of the influence of ἐποχθίδιαι in the line just below it in the Palatine (Zonas AP 9.556=8 GP). The

construction of γελᾶσθαι with the following τῷ, if this reading is correct, is peculiar: the common construction of γελᾶν is with ἐπί + dat. (e.g. Aristoph. Av. 803). A simple dative is indeed possible, though it occurs rarely and in later literature. If the island's name is Tapaxia (see above, intr. note), the passage between the cruces must be hiding the reason for which it was thus named, which would be then shown as contradicting the idyllic reality of the island, described in the biggest part of the poem, since it would involve disorder and turbulence (at sea?). If it is Tapıyle)ia, the island's name is perhaps revealed through the dative ταρίχει and there would probably be a play on the double meaning of τάριχος, as smoked fish and as a metaphor for a stupid person (see LS] s.v. III). Noteworthy are the Aristophanic uses of the noun. Cf. fr. 639 K-A

ἐπὶ τῷ rapixeı τὸν γέλωτα κατέδομαι and Ach. 967 ἐπὶ rapixeı τοὺς λόφους κραδαινέτω, explained by the Scholiast with τοῦτο γὰρ ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις ἤσθιον. The proverbial use of the phrase ἐπὶ τῷ ταρίχει is also attested in the proverb ἡ Θρᾷττα ἐπὶ τῷ ταρίχει: ἐπὶ τῶν κρυπτόντων τὰ ἴδια πάθη (Corp. Par. ΟΥ̓, App.

Prov. 3.5). An allusion to such phrases, exploiting further the second, metaphoric meaning of the noun, might be latent in the corrupt passage. τοῦτ᾽... ὄνομα: the normal construction is ὄνομα τίθεμαι τινί, T give a name to

someone’: in regard to a place, cf. Aristoph. Av. 809f. ὄνομα τῇ πόλει } θέσθαι τι μέγα καὶ κλεινόν, Eur. Hel. 1491. ὄνομα νησιωτικόν / Σαλαμῖνα θέμενον. Here,

the use is perhaps unique. See prev. note.

AP 9.559 = 32

5

Πλοῦς μοι ἐπ᾽ Ἰταλίην ἐντύνεται" és yap ἑταίρους στέλλομαι, ὧν ἤδη δηρὸν ἄπειμι χρόνον. Διφέω δ’ ἡγητῆρα περίπλοον, ὅς μ᾽ ἐπὶ νήσους Κυκλάδας ἀρχαίην τ᾽ ἄξει ἐπὶ Σχερίην. Σύν τίμοι ἀλλά, Μένιππε, λάβευ φίλος, ἴστορα κύκλον γράψας, ὦ πάσης ἴδρι γεωγραφίης.

AP 9.559 Κριναγόρου [C] διὰ τὸν πλοῦν τὸν ἐπ᾽ Ἰταλίας caret Pl 3 διφέω Salm.: δηφ- P Brunck n. 24, Rubensohn ἢ. 43

I am preparinga journey to Italy: for 1am going to join friends whom I have not seen for a long time. And I am looking for a coastal pilot to guide me, which will lead me to the islands of Cyclades and to ancient Corcyra. And you, Menippus, give me a little help, since you have written a scholarly tour, you, my expert in all geography. Crinagoras, about to sail for Italy, requests a chart to help him with his journey from his friend Menippus the geographer. This epigram, too, displays a well-balanced structure, divided into three selfcontained couplets. In the first couplet we hear of the poet's planned journey to Italy; in the second one the poet expresses his wish for a guide to this journey, and in the last distich he addresses Menippus, asking him for his help. In every couplet we have terms designating both geographical areas and the notion of voyage and/or its ‘manual’: πλοῦς, Ἰταλίην (first couplet), περίπλοον, νήσους Κυκλάδας / Σχερίην (second couplet), toropa κύκλον, yewypadins (third couplet);

the last couplet and the whole poem ends with a word encapsulating all the specific regions mentioned above, ‘geography. Furthermore, the last line is enclosed in cognates of γράφω (γράψας ... γεωγραφίης), exploiting their etymological association and forming a play with the notion of literal writing and the ‘writing of earth: In each couplet, there is a strong enjambment: prepositional

328

AP 9.559 = 32

phrase-verb (first couplet), noun-adjective (second couplet), object-verbal

form (third couplet). The two last couplets, i.e. the lines referring to Menippus’ periplus, are shot through with the idea of circularity, which in fact follows the actual circularity of the periplus itself: περίπλοον, KurAdöas (second couplet), ἵστορα κύκλον (third couplet). Furthermore, the very centre of the poem, that

is the poem's central enjambment, is occupied by the epitome of the notion of geographical circularity in Greece, νήσους / KuxAddSas. See also below, on ἵστορα κύκλον. The first sentence is reminiscent of Theocr. 7.52 ἔσσεται Ἀγεάνακτι καλὸς

πλόος és Μιτυλήναν. The reference to the Theocritean passage supported by the variation that is thereby achieved: Ageanax will while Crinagoras will depart from the island. The Theocritean over, is a propemptikon,' as it is spoken by the person who bids

can be further go to Mytilene, passage, morefarewell to one

who is departing, while the present poem is a syntaktikon, as the speaker himselfleaves his country to go to another (cf. Menander Rhetor 432f. Russell- Wilson).

Crinagoras expresses a latent joy on the occasion of his journey to Italy (implied by his indirectly stated eagerness to see his old friends) without showing any sorrow for leaving home, thus inverting the genre’s rules as they are described by Menander.’ The poet also replaces the prayer for a safe journey, characteristic of a syntaktikon (cf. Cairns 39 and 41), with a request for professional help which will actually ensure him such safety. The present epigram is thus also a variation on the prayer epigram before a sea voyage (for instance, Antiphil. 10.17=11 GP, Philod. 6.349=19 GP=34 Sider; see further on 34, intr. note).

On Menippus of Pergamon, see RE 15.862ff. Summary and fragments of his work are given by Marcian of Heraclea in his Epitome Peripli Menippei (see Diller 147-64; cf. Dilke* 144), but his date is not given by Marcian: it is Crinagoras’ poem that actually offers evidence for Menippus’ date. Editors usually connect the ἴστωρ κύκλος with Menippus work called τῆς ἐντὸς θαλάσσης περίπλους, the periplus of the Mediterranean, written after the periplus of the Black Sea (Marcian Epit. Per. Men. 3.39-41 Müller Μένιππος δὲ ὁ Περγαμηνός, [ὃς] καὶ

αὐτὸς τῆς ἐντὸς θαλάττης περίπλουν Ev τρισὶν ἤθροισε βιβλίοις, ἱστορικὴν τινὰ καὶ γεωγραφικὴν ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν). See further below, on toropa κύκλον.

Gow-Page make the reasonable observation that Crinagoras’ statement that he is going to Italy to join friends from whom he has been apart for a long time implies that he has been to Italy already and long before his present voyage. 1 For the propemptic character of the passage but also its deviation from the rules of the propemptikon, see Gow ? Kal ἐχέτω ἔνδειξιν try), Men. 431,32-432,1. in Juvenal 3; see Cairns

on Theocr. 7.52-98 and Cairns 27f. τῆς λύπης ὁ λόγος (for a speech delivered when one is leaving one’s counReversal of this rule, i.e. expression of joy on leaving home, is also found 47f. Theocritus, too, deviates from the rules of the propemptikom: see prev,

note. For a discussion of examples of syntaktikon in Greek and Latin literature and for the various

sentiments expressed by individual poets on each of Menander’s occasions (leaving another city for home, leaving home for another city, leaving one foreign city for another), see Cairns 38ff. ° OLA. W. Dilke, Greek and Roman Maps (London 1985).

AP 9.559 = 32

329

This journey, therefore, must be the Third Embassy, to Augustus in Spain in 26-25 Bc, almost twenty years after his Second Embassy to Julius Caesar

(45 sc). Rubensohn (9) maintained that the poet is about to depart for Italy for the first time and held that the friends whom he had not seen for a long time are

those from Mytilene who had travelled to Italy before him. In this case, the ‘long time’ (1. 2) is an exaggeration and the whole assumption is far-fetched and unlikely (Hillscher (422) was among the first to reach this conclusion). The twenty years intervening between the Second and Third Embassies, on the other hand, justify not only this expression, but also the poet's need for his friend's geographical help. 34 is perhaps a thanksgiving after the poet's safe landing in Italy, so that 32 and 34 can be seen as marking the beginning and the end of his journey.* Of course, as Bowie suggests (2008, 234), the poet might be here referring to another journey that he made to Rome, any time after 26 Bc. If. πλοῦς... ἐντύνεται; πλοῦς in the sense of journey and in its uncontracted form is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Od. 3.169 δολιχὸν πλόον), where an ‘opensea route across the Aegean (see S. West ad loc.) is described, too (also referring

to a journey starting from Lesbos). The contracted form, frequent in tragedy, occurs in the Anthology elsewhere only at Palladas 10.65,1, same sedes; for Attic forms, see on Crin. 28,3 Ἥλιος... ἀνιών. er’ Ἰταλίην: Ἰταλία with 7, as also at Crin. 10,2. Cf. also Soph. Ant. 1119 (for the

preference of this reading, see Jebb ad loc.). The lengthening of the initial ı was necessary for hexameter verse. Cf. Call. H. 3.58, Antip. Sid. AP 9.567=61,7, Alc. Mess. AP/5=5,2, anon. 7.714=52,1, Leon. 7.715=93,1 HE. In Latin first at Catullus

1.5. See further Fordyce ad loc. and Norden’ and Horsfall on Virg. Aen. 6.61. For the expression, cf., for instance, Hdt. 3.138 στόλος μέγας πλέῃ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἰταλίην, Eur. Rh, 493 ἔπλευσ᾽ ἐπ᾿ Ἴλιον.

évriveras: ‘is being prepared. The middle is intransitive at Od. 6.33, 12.18; cf. Ap. Rh. 3.510, Call. H. 2.8. Usually in Homer both active and middle are transitive (see F. Williams on Call. H. 2.8), often referring to the preparation of a meal; e.g. Il, 24.124, Od. 3.33, 15.500, 17.175. For the preparation of a journey at sea, cf. Qu. Sm. 14.346 of δ᾽ és πλόον ἐντύνοντο. With the personal dative, cf. Nonnus Ὁ. 27.26) σοὶ μέλος ἐντύνουσα, 29.352 cot δόλον ἐντύνωσι. és.../ στέλλομαι: for στέλλεσθαι in the sense ‘to go, ‘to travel; cf. Soph. El. 404 οἶπερ ἐστάλην ὁδοῦ, Aj, 328 τούτων yap οὕνεκ᾽ ἐστάλην (for the self-imposed * A connection between the two poems was already suggested by Rubensohn (10), who assaci-

ated both of them, however, with the poet's first journey to Rome (as Rubensohn was influenced

by Cichorius’ scheme of Crinagoras’ missions to Rome, now recognized as erroncous, there is no

point in talking in terms of specific dates). Of course, there is nothing connecting 34 to the Third Embassy, and it may have been written during the Second (see Intr., Life and Work; for Cichorius’

mistakes, see n. 3 there).

5 P Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buch VI (Leipzig-Berlin 1916).

330

AP 9.559= 32

motivation here (not ‘I was sent’ but ‘I set out’), see Jebb and Stanford ad loc.),

Eur. Tr. 1264 στελώμεθ᾽ οἴκαδ᾽ ἄσμενοι Τροίας ἄπο. Here, the verb can be inter-

preted either way, as Crinagoras is indeed a member of an embassy, so he is actually ‘sent’ to Italy, but he also ‘sets out’ on a sea voyage. Ἑταῖροι occurs almost always at verse-end in Homer. For the happiness of a reunion with one’s comrades, cf. Il. 17.636 χάρμα φίλοις ἑτάροισι γενώμεθα νοστήσαντες. For eratpos/Erapos, see on Crin. 36,4 ἀρκέσει eis... εὐσο«ἴην».

ὧν... «χρόνον: the expression seems to be modelled on epic phrases, such as Il. 14,206 and 14.305 ἤδη yap δηρὸν χρόνον ἀλλήλων ἀπέχονται, Od. 2.285, 8.150 σοὶ δ᾽ ὁδὸς οὐκέτι δηρὸν ἀπέσσεται. For δηρὸν χρόνον, see on Crin. 15,3.

3£.: Propertius in 3,21,17-23 describes an itinerary in the opposite direction, from Italy to Athens, through the Adriatic sea, the Ionian Sea, Lechaeum, Isthmus, Piraeus. Cf. the stages of the poet’s journey described in Catullus 4 (Adriatic Sea, Cyclades, Rhodes, Propontis, Cytorus). διφέω: for διφάω, here only. Et. M. s.v.: διφῶ: σημαίνει τὸ ψφηλαφῶ. The verb is

a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 16.747); it also occurs at Hes. Op. 374 τεὴν διφῶσα καλιήν and occasionally in comedy (see further West on Hes. loc. cit.).

It appears in Callimachus, fr. 1,19 μήδ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ διφᾷ τε μέγα ψοφέουσαν ἀοιδήν. Cf. AP 12.102=1L1f. HE λαγωόν / ddd, here the verb also at verse-opening.,

P's reading δηφ- is corrected to διῴφ- in Salmasius’ edition of the poem in Plinianae exercitationes (1689, 597) and not, as Waltz, Beckby, Gow-Page, and

Page (1975, 311) state, in Ap. B., which has 6n¢-, too (as Ap. V. and Coisl. 352 also have).

ἡγητῆρα περίπλοον: Menippus’ work was probably called τῆς ἐντὸς θαλάττης περίπλους, as Marcian puts it (see above, intr. note). Gow-Page observe that

the two possible meanings of the phrase are: a) a ‘Coastal Pilot to guide me; taking περίπλοον as a noun and ἡγητῆρα as a predicate (Rubensohn, followed by Stadtmüller; earlier Salmasius 1689a, 597 was inclined to accept this interpretation, since he understood ἡγητῆρα as περιηγητήν, ‘qui per singula ducit, et circumvehitur, memorabilia quaeque ac visenda ostendens ac describens’); Ὁ) a ‘circumnavigating guide) taking περίπλοον as an adjective (Dibner translates accordingly, ‘ductorem circumnavigantem’), GowPage accept the second meaning, noting that ᾿ἡγητήρ might be used of a book by Menippus. However, περίπλους can be taken more easily as a noun than as an adjective, since it often designates the description of a coastal voyage: cf. the works called periploi of Scylax, Hanno, Arrian. Cf. also Marcian on Menippus, Epit. Per. Men. 3.39-40 Müller τῆς ἐντὸς θαλάττης περίπλουν ἐν τρισὶν ἤθροισε βιβλίοις, Further support for this view can be drawn from the occurrence of ἠγητήρ at Crin. 44,3 κριοῖς ἁγητῆρσι, also

AP 9.559 =32

331

sccompanying a noun as an adjective (as was noted already by Stadtmiiller). For ἡγητήρ, see ad loc.

Note the morphological variation (contracted-uncontracted form) πλοῦς (I. 1) -περίπλοον (1. 3).

ἐπί... «ἄξει: ‘lead; ‘guide: The verb constructed with ἐπί occurs at Il. 1.440 ἐπὶ βωμὸν ἄγων, 11.828 ἄγων ἐπὶ νῆα μέλαιναν. CF. Call. AP 9.565=57,1f. HE ἐπὶ κισσόν |... κέλευθος ἄγει, Xen. Mem. 2.1,23 ἐπὲ τὴν ῥάστην ὁδὸν ἄξω σε.

γήσους / Κυκλάδας: the islands encircling Delos; cf. Strabo 10.5,1 AYAos καὶ al περὶ αὐτὴν Κυκλάδες. With νῆσος: Thuc. 1.4, Isocr. Panath. 43, Paneg. 136; Theocr. 17.90 καὶ νάσοις Κυκλάδεσσι. Also, Eur. Ion 1583 KuxdAddas...vnoatas

πόλεις, Call. H. 4.3 KuxAddes, at νήσων ἱερώταται εἰν ἁλὶ κεῖνται. The term ‘Cyclades’ in literature is rather vague: Mineur on Call. loc. cit. notes that in Theocr. 17.90 ‘the name probably covers all Philadelphus’ subject islands’ (cf. also Gow on Theocr. 17.86-90) and that, as it has been argued, the islands of the Delian Confederacy are probably meant in Eur. fon 1583. In the present poem there is no indication that the term designates anything more than the islands around Delos, as Strabo says. ἀρχαίην: see on Crin. 37,6 ἀρχαίων. Lyepinv: self-variation on Crin. 31,7 Kopxipys Φαιηκίδος. Scheria is the Homeric land of the Phaeacians (Od. 5.34 Σχερίην ἐρίβωλον ἵκοντο, / Φαιήκων

és γαῖαν), commonly identified with Corcyra in antiquity. Cf. Thuc. 1.25,4, Strabo 7.3,6, Steph. Byz. s.vv. Σχερία, Φαιακία. Other candidates vary today

from Istria to Cyrenaica: see Hainsworth on Od. 6.8. 5f: O. Hezel® compares |. 6 of the present poem with the compliment of Catullus to Cornelius Nepos, scholar and fellow-countryman of the poet, 1.5-7: ausus es unus Italorum / omne aevum tribus explicare cartis / doctis, Juppiter, et laboriosis (the work meant here is a chronicle; see further Fordyce on Il. 5 and 6). According to Philitas, the ideal poet should have a wide range of knowledge acquired through painstaking research, fr. 25 Spanoudakis, ll. 3f. (see further Spanoudakis on 25.3c). For the usual Alexandrian praise of doctrina, taken up by Roman poets, cf., for instance, Kroll 12ff., 38ff. (with reference to Philitas’ passage).’ Crinagoras is doctus enough, but his knowledge cannot compare with and/or replace that of the expert, of the löpıs yewypadins; see below, on maons...yewypadins. abv... AaBeu: Ap. B. and Ap. V. have λάβε, printed also by Jacobs’, but it is clear that the reading of the codex is AdBev. For the form, cf. Crin. 33,3 ῥύευ; see Buck 6 Catull und das griechische Epigramm (Stuttgart 1932), 38. 7 W. Kroll, Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur (Stuttgart 1924),

$ 42,5. The normal order would be ἀλλὰ ovAAaßo ri μοι; for a construction with the dative, in the sense of ‘assist, cf. Eur. Med. 813, Aristoph. Eccl. 861, Lys, 540, al. (see LSJ s.v. VI). The verb occurs with tmesis also in Plato Phaedr. 237g ξὺμ μοι λάβεσθε τοῦ μύθου; Blomfield’ on Aesch. Ag. 569 (586 of modern edi.

tions) σὺν δὲ πλουτίζειν ἐμέ listed more examples of tmesis with σύν. In the Anthology, cf. Diosc. 5.193=4,4 HE σύμπλουν σύν με λαβὼν Τἀγέτω. For the tmesis in Crinagoras, see on 37,5 διὰ... δοθεῖσα.

ἀλλά... φίλος: the address φίλος is very frequent in Homer (Il. 9.601, 10.169, 23.313, Od. 1.301, 3.199, 3.375, al.). Also cf. Pind. N. 3.76, Aesch. Pr. 545, Eur.

Supp. 277, Aristoph. Nub. 1168. Jacobs (1812, 157) compared the nominative φίλος with the addresses Ἀμφίων at Honestus AP 9.250=6,5 and Niraveup at

Antip. Thess. 7.286=14,1 GP. Nominative for vocative occurs frequently in poetry; see K-G I (2) 47f., Schwyzer 2.63f. According to Apollonius Dyscolus (Gr. Gr. 2.2,301 and 313), this use is Attic; see also Lallot II, 174, n. 75.’ The pres-

ent phrasing, which combines vocative and nominative (Mévimze...éAos), recalls the Homeric φίλος ὦ Μενέλαςε, Il. 4,189, a unique instance of a vocative together with φίλος in the nominative in Homer. In the Anthology, cf. anon. 7.734=55,3 FGE ἀλλὰ φίλος γ᾽ ὦ πρέσβυ. Cf. also Soph. OC 1701 ὦ πάτερ, ὦ φίλος, Eur. Tr. 1081 ὦ φίλος, ὦ πόσι μοι. See further on Crin. 12,2 Zed... πάτερ.

For ἀλλά with the imperative, usually in the second person, see Denniston 13-15. (4). Regarding this construction with ἀλλά Stadtmüller compared Crin, 9,5 δαίμονες ἀλλὰ δέχοισθε and 48,5 Μουσέων ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ δῶρα μετέρχεο; see fur-

theron Crin. 9,5, The Bude commentators compare Antip. Thess. AP 6.335=41,5 GP ἀλλὰ φίλος δέξαι με and suggest an attributive quality of φίλος here, ‘sois pour moi un ami secourable, toi qui as écrit ..” (see Waltz-Soury ad loc., p. 241). Here, however, such an interpretation is not necessary. In the Anthology, cf. further Mel. 7.196=13,5 ἀλλά, φίλος, φθέγγου τι νέον; also Leon. 9.318=80,2f. HE

Ἑρμῆς... ὦ φίλος... ἔσσο, Agath. 7.552,9 vai, ναί, φίλος, εὔχεο. toropa κύκλον: Diller (148) observed that ἵστωρ κύκλος implies the ‘circular character’ of Menippus periplus of the three continents, as shown in Marcians summary (Marcian Epit. Per. Men. 6 Müller). However, editors of the present poem plausibly identify torwp κύκλος with Menippus’ τῆς ἐντὸς θαλάσσης

περίπλους, the periplus of the Mediterranean Sea; Gow-Page suggest that

κύκλον is a periphrasis for wepimAoov. Salway suggested that ‘if the “learned tour” does allude to the surviving periplus, then we might take Crinagoras’

“learned” in the sense of empirically researched’; alternatively, Salway held that perhaps Crinagoras is asking Menippus to compose a new work which

* C.J. Blomfield, Aeschyli Agamemnon (Cambridge 1818), 226. ° J, Lallot, Apollonius Dyscole, De La Construction, 2 vols. (Paris 1997).

would include cultural material and further information for the places mentioned, something that is not realized in Menippus’ periplus, as the extant fragments of this work show.'® However, the view of Gow-Page, who hold that

toropa ‘may be a general compliment or an allusion to the fact that Menippus included historical sections in his geographical works’ (ἱστορικὴν τινὰ καὶ γεωγροφικὴν ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν), even if these are not preserved in the extant fragments, one might add, seems an adequate explanation of the term

foropa as referring to the periplus of the Mediterranean Sea. See above, intr. note, and below, on πάσης... yewypadins. For the question whether the poet is

asking for a copy of Menippus’ periplus or for the composition of a new work, see also next note. ἽΙστωρ in Homer means ‘judge’ and is a noun (ii. 18.501, 23.486). In the present poem it is used as an adjective, ‘learned, as in Hesiod, Op. 792 toropa φῶτα (same sedes). It describes books also at Antiphilus AP 9.192=36,2 GP μύθων δ᾽ toropes Ἰλιακῶν, the Homeric epic. For its attribution to objects, cf. the notion of συνίστωρ λύχνος, the lamp who ‘knows’ the loves of the night: Mel. 5.8=69,1 HE, Flaccus 5,5=1,1 GP, Philod. AP 5.4=1 GP=7,1 Sider with Sider ad loc. γράψας: all earlier editors render the sentence as ‘help me, my friend, since you have written; etc. Gow-Page suggest that the participle may not refer to a work already written: the poet rather says ‘Help me, my friend, by writing a Circular Tour for my voyage to Italy’ Gow-Page cite Soph. Tr. 1025f. τᾷδέ με / πρόσλαβε xoudiaas, on which Jebb notes that it means ‘the act in which, when

done, the help will consist, the participle having a ‘quasi-proleptic’ sense, and compares Plato Gorg. 516b τόδε τοίνυν μοι χάρισαι ἀποκρινάμενος; see also

Smyth 420, $ 1872, c 2. This interpretation cannot be excluded (cf. the Bude commentators ad loc., p. 240f.), but since not only does Menippus appear to have been a well-established geographer in Crinagoras’ time, but also since ἴστωρ κύκλος allegedly implies the τῆς ἐντὸς θαλάσσης περίπλους (see above, on ἵστορα κύκλον), it seems more likely that Crinagoras is referring to a work that his friend has already written. πάσης... yewypadins: ἴδρις first occurs in a construction with the genitive at Hes. Sc. 351, Choerilus Sam. 317,1 SH and is then common in lyric poetry and

tragedy (see Maclennan on Call. H. 1.74 tps αἰχμῆς, and Chryssafis on [Theocr.] 25.247). On scientific or artistic knowedge, cf. Mel. AP 4.1=1,49 HE ἄστρων τ᾽ ἴδριν Ἄρατον, Alex. Magn. 6.182=1,4 FGE iSp τὰ καὶ γαίης, top ra καὶ πελάγευς, Peek 658=655,3 Kaibel (Rome, ap III-IV) ἴδρις τραγικῆς μούσης; for

10 B. Salway, ‘Sea and River Travel in the Roman Itinerary Literature’ in R. Talbert and

K. Brodersen (eds.), Space in the Roman World: Its Perception and Presentation (Münster 2004), 53-8.

334

AP 9,559 = 32

an expression similar to this one, cf. AApp add. 1.331b,4 παντοίης ἴδρις ἐὼν ἀρετῆς. Cf. also the praise of Greg. Naz. for the scientific knowledge of Caesarius (AP 8.91,1-5). See also above, on I. 5. For yewypadia in the sense of ‘geography, see LSJ s.v. 1.

Philodemus comments upon the view of Heracleides of Pontus that the poet must have a wide knowledge of geography and makes the objection that Heracleides did not distinguish between the utility of geographical, geomet-

rical, etc. information and the utililty of moral points: Po. 5.5,24f. Magnoni?? πάσης δ᾽ ὅλως |[rots] ποιητ[α]ῖς yenperpilles καὶ yelw[y]padias.'® Perhaps,

then, apart from paying his friend a compliment in the finale of his poem (see above, on 5f.), Crinagoras might be also implicitly producing a criticism of such views as that of Heracleides. Crinagoras asks Menippus, an expert in geography, to offer him his help, since he, as a poet, does not possess such knowledge: thus Crinagoras indirectly rejects the idea that poetry should be burdened with tedious scientific details.

4 The expression πᾶσα ἀρετή had become conventional, as Skiadas observes. See Skiadas (1967) 78, n. 3.

2 C. Mangoni, Filodemo, H quinto libro della poetica (Naples 1993); see also ibid. 194.

13 Cf. also E. Asmis, ‘Philodemus on Censorship, Moral Utility, and Formalism in Poetry, in D. Obbink (ed.) Philedemus and poetry (Oxford 1995), 150.

AP 9.560 =33

Ῥιγηλὴ tracdv ’Evooixdovos,} εἴτε σε πόντου εἴτ᾽ ἀνέμων αἴρει ῥεῦμα τινασσόμενον, οἰκία μοι ῥύευ νεοτευχέα. Δεῖμα γὰρ οὔπω ἄλλο τόσον γαίης οἶδ᾽ ἐλελιζομένης.

....ὄὄ.AP 9.560 τοῦ αὐτοῦ [9ς.

Kpivaydpou] caret Pl

2 αἴρει Chardon de la Rochette: ἔρρει P 4.018’Chardon de la Rochette: eö’ P

τινασσόμενον PP: τινασσομένων P*

Jacobs’ Paral. ἢ. 74, Rubensohn ἢ. 44

Dreadful , whether you are raised by a shuddering

storm at sea or by that of the winds, spare my new-built house. I have never as yet experienced so great a fear from trembling earth. On an earthquake that threatened the poet's house. The delay of the main verb, which appears in the third line, together with the grandiloquent terms (see below, on eire.../ εἴτ᾽) describing a fearful natural element and its features, builds up the expectation of a serious and respectful prayer: this is comically belied at the beginning of the second half of the poem, when the adjective veorevyéa is used, which reveals the poet's interest in the

financial value of the house, instead of the vital necessity of the shelter that he wants the catastrophe to spare. The concluding justification of the prayerrequest, for all its seeming seriousness, adds a further light touch to the poem, depicting the poet’s ‘once-in-a-lifetime fright caused by the earthquake. The epigrams concluding phrase, γαίης ἐλελιζομένης, corresponds to its opening image, as often happens in Crinagoras (see Intr., Language and Style, Structure); thus the poem is enclosed in a dominating impression of the trembling earth. Other epigrams about earthquakes in the Anthology are Antiphilus 7.375=26, Bianor 9.259=10 GP, both variations of the same theme (survival from the ruins of a fallen house), Bianor 9.423=16 GP, on the destruction of Sardeis,

Nicomachus 7.299=1 HE, on the destruction of Plataea; cf. the satirical 11.83

(Lucillius). There is no reason to attribute the epigram to Bianor or Antiphilus, as Stadtmiiller does. Stadtmiiller argues that certain stylistic correspondences

between this epigram and various epigrams of Antiphilus favour the attribution of the poem to Antiphilus (J. 3 οἰκία μοι - Antiphilus 7.375=26,1 GP δώματά μοι, |. 2 τινασσόμενον - Antiphilus 7.375=26,2 GP τοίχων... τιναξαμένων, Antiphilus 6.252=2,2 GP φυλασσόμενον, Antiphilus 9.71=33,2 GP φυλασσομένοις, 1. 2 αἴρει - Antiphilus 9.263=47,2 GP detpe xrA.). These similarities, however, do not necessarily mean that Crinagoras was not the author; similar expres-

sions and constructions are constantly used by poets of the Anthology, especially those roughly contemporary with each other. Moreover, the Ἐνοσίχθονος at the same sedes in 34,1, points to a conscious poetic self-variation: the two

epigrams are variations of one another, both being four-line prayers (or prayerthanksgiving) to Poseidon, with similar structure (elements of ring composition appear in both; the second part of both consists in a sentence starting with γάρ and explaining the request, expressed with an imperative, of the main clause of the first part; both first parts consist in a main and a subordinate clause). Cf. Crinagoras’ other pairs of epigrams: 3-4, 40-41, and 42-43. Furthermore, it is highly probable that Crinagoras experienced more than one earthquake during his lifetime. Rubensohn (98) suggested that the epigram was written for the earthquake at Rome in 5 ap (Dio Cass. 55.22), while Cichorius (1888, 50)

held that it refers to one of the many earthquakes suffered by Mytilene. Garzya (125) thought that either place is an equally strong candidate. For sepulchral inscriptions on victims of earthquake and for thanksgiving to gods after a surviving an earthquake, see L. Robert, ‘Stéle funéraire de Nicomedie et seismes dans les inscriptions, BCH 102 (1978), 395-400. The gods thanked are usually Zeus and Poseidon (399f.).

If. ῥιγηλὴ πασῶν 'Evoaixdovost: all editors except Rubensohn, who printed the emendation of Jacobs! πάντως (horride utique, sive...sive, rejected in Jacobs’), retain P’s πασῶν. They also retain, like Rubensohn, Jacobs’ separation of ἐνοσίχθονος to ἔνοσι χθονός. Gow-Page comment that ῥιγηλὴ πασῶν is probably

equivalent to ῥιγηλοτάτη πασῶν and may be modelled on the Homeric πάντων ἀριδείκετε λαῶν (Od. 8.382, 8.401, 9.2, al.) or, perhaps, belongs to the type of expression κακὰ κακῶν (Soph. OC 1238, ‘worst of all evils, as Jebb translates),

dppyt

ἀρρήτων (OT 465). However, πασῶν here is not a noun, like the terms

in the aforementioned instances (κακά and ἄρρητα also standing as nouns),

but a pronoun which, moreover, is not referred to any noun without strain: even with ἔνοσι (rather than ’Evooixdovos), the feminine πασῶν cannot be seen

as referring to the noun, even as an idiomatic kind of partitive genitive. Sitzler’s (117) ῥιγίστη πάντων addresses this problem, but is difficult to explain from

a palaeographical point of view and, more importantly, still does not result in a natural construction. Lumbs βάσεων ἕνοσι χθονός (Ὁ dread shaking of

earth's foundations, Lumb 81) does improve construction and meaning, but

ithe striking hyperbaton renders the phrasing unnatural. On the same lines, Stadtmüller suggested ῥιγηλὴ δαπέδων ἕνοσι χθονός, citing Eur. Ba. 585 πέδον χθονὸς ἔνοσι πότνια, Alc. 591 πεδίων δαπέδοις, and Aristoph. Pl. 515

γῆς... δάπεδον.

If the separation of ἕνοσι from χθονός of Jacobs is accepted, other suggestions onthe replacement of πασῶν, definitely corrupt, could be considered. Corrections involving a dative of means could be ῥιγηλὴ παλμοῖς ἔνοσι χθονός, ‘earthquake, dreadful in (or because of) its vibrations’ or ῥιγηλὴ σπασμοῖς (‘dreadful because

of its convulsions’).' For the metaphoric use of ‘spasms, in relation to earthquakes, cf. Plut. Οἷς, 32.4 σεισμόν τε τῆς γῆς καὶ σπασμὸν ἅμα γενέσθαι τῆς θαλάσσης.

However, the separation of ἔνοσι from the subsequent χθονός does not seem very likely. The poet uses ’Evootxdovos also at 34,1 (same sedes). Poseidon the

‘earth-shaker’ was thought to be the cause of seismic phenomena: see Cook Zeus II 959, III 6-18, Mylonopoulos passim.’ Cf., for instance, ἢ, Nept. 2 γαίης κινητῆρα καὶ ἀτρυγέτοιο θαλάσσης (with Allen-Halliday-Sikes ad loc.) and Aristoph. Nub. 566-9. The association of the marine god with earthquakes can

be explained by the fact that seismic lines in Greece are maritime (see Cook Zeus 111 2-5) and that earthquakes were thought to be caused by waves, as the poet explicitly states next in the poem. See below, on ἀνέμων and πόντου /... ῥεῦμα. Alan Griffiths suggests ῥιγηλὴ πάλσις Ἐνοσίχθονος. This reading is supported by Aristot. De mund. 396a8-10 (classification of earthquakes) οἱ δὲ ἀνταποπάλλοντες καὶ ταῖς εἰς ἑκάτερον ἐγκλίσεσι καὶ ἀποπάλσεσι διορθοῦντες

ἀεὶ τὸ σειόμενον παλματίαι λέγονται. The corruption can be then attributed to the influence of ἀνέμων in the next line of the poem, to the unfamiliarity of the technical term raAcıs, and to the scribe’s feeling that the metre was defective. For πάλσις as ‘vibration, see LSJ s.v. Cf. also Nonnus D. 1.288, 2.41, 25.513, al.

ἐνοσίχθονι παλμῷ, 21.290 ἐνοσίχθονα παλμὸν ἀρούρης. The long ı of the last syl-

lable could be supported by [Theocr.] 8.43 ἔνθα καλὰ Nats ἐπινίσσεται, anon. AP7.482=48,3 HE Κλεύδικε, Νικασὶς ὅτε, κτλ., also before the masculine caesura (see Gow-Page ad loc.), although the feature does not occur in Crinagoras and, in general, in the authors of Philips Garland. The ideal candidate would be a feminine abstract noun, with a long last

syllable, denoting earthquake/tumult, with ‘Evooty@ovos depending from it. As there is no feminine noun ending in -

[4

ld

€

Ld

\

3}

7

>

͵

3

AP 11.42 Κριναγόρου Pl I? 27 (εἰς εὐσέβειαν), 3 Κριναγόρου 3 ἂν P: ἐν Pl| ἐκείνας Brunck: -aıs PPl

4 Δήμητρος Pl: -ριος P5 κὴν P: κἀν Pl

Brunck ἢ. 30, Rubensohn n. 47

Even if your life is always sedentary and you have neither sailed the sea nor trodden roads on land, still, set foot on Attica to see those long nights of the

mysteries of Demeter. From these you will get a carefree heart among the living and a lighter heart when you reach the majority. Praise of the Eleusinian Mysteries, delivered through an exhortation to abandon a stay-at-home life and to go to Attica and see the Mysteries. The poem is shot through by the idea of travel, neatly distributed among its

couplets, as is typical of Crinagoras. In the first couplet we hear of hypothetical voyages by land or sea (é7Aws, ἐπάτησας). In the second couplet the reader is encouraged to travel to Attica (ἐπιβήμεναι); this couplet also conveys the two names of the epigram, Cecropia and Demeter, underlining thus the idea of

Attica as the land of Demeter’s mysteries. In the third couplet comes the end of the journey of life in a passage from actual (first two couplets) to metaphysical level, as the reader is imagined to arrive (ἵκηαι) at the final destination of his

‘cosmic’ voyage. Another poem which probably betrays the fact that its author was an initiate is Posidippus SH 705; see Dickie (1998) 65ff. Theodoridas AP 7.406=14 HE and anon. SH 980 also hint at the initiation of Euphorion and Philicus respectively into mysteries. It has been suggested that Euphorion was initiated into the mys-

teries of Aphrodite and that the Corcyrean Philicus was initiated into the

AP 11.42=35 Eleusinian Mysteries. See Dickie (1998) 54ff., 58ff. For Posidippus’ initiation into the Dionysiac mysteries at Pella, see further M. W. Dickie, “The Dionysiac Mysteries in Pella, ZPE 109 (1995), 83-4, Bastianini-Gallazzi on P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309, col. VII 20-3, intr. note. The poet addresses an unnamed friend or the reader in the second person singular, as he does in 22; cf. his address in the second plural in 16. Addresses in the second singular are not rare in ‘demonstrative’ or ‘exhortatory’ epigrams. Cf. Philod. AP 10.103=24 GP=32 Sider, Eratosthenes 9.444, Crates 9.497, Marc.

Arg. 10.4=28 GP, anon. 10.40, Photius or Leo 9.203. Cf. also the exhortations of Lucian in 10.26-7, Agathias in 9.643, 767-9, 10.68, Palladas 10.47, 60, 78. Also cf, Ammianus 9.573,1 μή... wvOpwe’, Palladas 10.77,1 τίπτε... ἄνθρωπε, and the addresses to the reader with the conventional ξεῖν᾽ in, for instance, Nossis AP 7.718=11,1 and Anyte AP! 228=18,1 HE (cf. Gutzwiller 1998, 86). “EzAws

and ἐπάτησας may indicate that Crinagoras has in mind those of his fellowcountrymen who have never travelled away from Lesbos. If so, the epigram was

perhaps written during a time when the poet was on the island, probably before his third and longest sojourn in Rome from the time of his Third Embassy (in 26-25 Bc) onwards. Encouragement of an Italian friend, however, could not

be excluded,’ in which case the poem would be placed after 25 Be. Aubreton is sceptical about whether the poem is correctly placed. Planudes included it in his first book, the ‘epideictic’ epigrams, rather than in the second, ‘satirical and convivial: In his first book, he included twenty-six other poems of AP, too,” many of which also neither deal with ‘convivial’ themes (11.1-64) nor are satirical (11.65-442). Cf., for instance, Ammianus 11.15 (satirical), Nicarchus 11.18 (satirical? demonstrative?), anon. 11.282 and 420, Philo 11.419

(philosophical reflections rather suited to a context of demonstrative poems), Agath. 11.352, anon. 11.356, Palladas 11.385, anon. 11.416 (by no means satirical).’

Perhaps, therefore, the present poem was included in ‘demonstrative’ poems in Planudes’ sources. Its position in P perhaps is to be explained, if we notice that the poem stands in fact in a reverse alphabetical order of Philippan authors (AP 11.23-46). Granted that Philip generally arranged his epigrams alphabetically, rather than thematically (see Cameron 1993, 35f., 40), it is possible that P’s scribe ran through his exemplar from end to beginning and copied backwards an excerpt from the Philippan sequence as it perhaps stood in Cephalas (who often transcribed long unbroken sequences from his three

! Kiessling (53, n. 7) imagined that the poet is encouraging ‘einen älteren italischen Stubenmenschen’ to travel to Athens. 2. See Aubreton AP ΧΙ, 5 with n. 1. > For the pederastic AP 11.22 and 51-3, also included by Planudes in API I" and IP, which, in this case, implies a misclassification in Planudes’ sources, see Cameron (1993) 228. Love in general

and for boys in particular is, of course, a sympotic theme (cf. Giangrande 1968b, 129ff.), and it would be plausible to assume that Cephalas regarded them as convivial as well as pederastic (Cameron 1993, 228).

350

AP 11.42=35

original collections to provide his arrangement with richer variety; see Cameron

1993, 124) and carelessly included the present poem here, too.* For the cult and mysteries of Demeter and Kore in Eleusis, see, for instance, Farnell IIT 129-213, Mylonas and Kerényi (1967) passim, Richardson (1974) I7ff. In historical times, the mysteries were open to everyone, regardless of sex, age, or local origin; see Richardson (1974) 17. Many Romans, including Augustus, were initiates (see Bowersock 1965, 78). It is plausible that Crinagoras himself

was an initiate, as Geist (4) supposed. Geist further observed that the view that the poem is associated with the initiation of Octavian (Brunck, Jacobs’) is not supported by the text. Octavian was initiated shortly after Actium, in 31 Bc (Dio Cass, 51.4,1 τά re ἐν τῇ Βλλάδι διῴκησε καὶ τῶν τοῖν θεοῖν μυστηρίων μετέλαβεν, Suet. Aug. 93), so that reference to his initiation by Crinagoras is chronologically impossible (granted that poems referring to Roman persons are dated to after 26-25 Bc, the poet's Third Embassy), unless we accept a

second initiation in 20 Bc, which is not certain.’ If. ἑδραῖος... Bios: ‘sedentary, a word used mainly in prose. Cf. Hesych. s.v. δίφρις- ὁ ἑδραῖος καὶ καθήμενος dei, οἷον ἀργός, Xen. Lac. 1.3 of πολλοὶ τῶν τὰς τέχνας ἐχόντων ἑδραῖοί εἰσι. For the expression, cf. Plut. Mor. 1129d ἡσυχία δὲ κωφὴ καὶ βίος ἑδραῖος ἐπὶ σχολῆς ἀποκείμενος οὐ μόνον σώματα ἀλλὰ καὶ ψυχὰς μαραίνει, Herodian Gr. Gr. 3.1,118,23f. ἢ ὅτι βίῳ ἑδραίῳ οὐ χρῶνται οὕτω

λέγονται, διὰ τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἁμαξῶν φέρεσθαι. For attributing to life an epithet which indicates its quality, its character, cf. the philosophic terminology for the different kinds of life. For instance, Aristot. EN 1095b17f. διὸ «ai τὸν βίον ἀγαπῶσι

τὸν ἀπολαυστικόν — τρεῖς γάρ εἶσι μάλιστα of προύχοντες, ὅ τε νῦν εἰρημένος καὶ ὁ πολιτικὸς καὶ τρίτος ὁ θεωρητικός. Cf. Suda on the proverbial expressions

with ‘life: Bios ἀκανθώδης.

6 τραχὺς καὶ σκληρός, 6 παλαιός.

Καὶ Bios

ἀληλεσμένος. ὁ εὐχερὴς καὶ ἡδύς, «TA. For the playful contrast with ἐπιβήμεναι,

see below ad loc. ἀεὶ Bios: at the same sedes in Crin. 20,3, Jul. Aeg. AP 9.446,5.

θάλασσαν / ἔπλως: the construction of πλεῖν + acc. is Homeric: Od. 3.71, 9.252 πλεῖθ᾽ ὑγρὰ κέλευθα. Cf. Colluth. 205 ἔπλεεν Ἑλλήσποντον én’ εὐρέα νῶτα

* For whether Book 11 is Cephalan, see Cameron (1993) 134, For the ‘misfits in almost every Philippan sequence in AP, clearly the result of Cephalas’ carelessness, see Cameron (1993) 35. ὁ The assumption about this second initiation was based on Dio Cass. 54.9,10 (Zdppapos) ἐμυήθη τε τὰ τοῖν θεοῖν, τῶν μυστηρίων καίπερ οὐκ ἐν τῷ καθήκοντι καιρῷ, ws φασι, διὰ τὸν Αὔγουστον καὶ «αὐτὸν» μεμνημένον γενομένων, It has been suggested that in 31 Bc Octavian was

initiated as Mystes and in 20-19 pc as Epoptes: see P. Graindor, Athénes sous Auguste (Cairo 1927), 20-3, and Kienast 461. For the opposite view, cf. Bowersock (1965) 78, n. 3, and J. W. Rich, Cassites

Dio, The Augustan Settlement: Roman History 53-55.9 (Warminster 1990), 185f., who hold that this passage should not be regarded as indicating a second initiation.

AP tt 42=35θαλάσσης. The expression τὴν θάλατταν πλεῖν occurs in the orators; cf. Andoc.

Myst. 137, Lys. And. 19, Isocr. De Pace 20.° χερσαίας.... ὁδούς: cf. Nonnus D. 3.290, 4.287, 43.301 χερσαῖον δδίτην; Nonnus D. 37.268 χερσαίην.... πορείην. In regard to the previous θάλασσαν, cf. the frequent use of words containing the stem χερσ- in a context of such a contrast, first in Homer: Il. 14.394 οὔτε θαλάσσης κῦμα τόσον Boda ποτὶ χέρσον, Od. 6.95 Adiyyas ποτὶ χέρσον ἀποπλύνεσκε θάλασσα, 9.147, 9.486, 9.542. Cf. also Eur. Andr. 457 ναύτην ἔθηκεν ἀντὶ χερσαίου κακόν, Antiphilus AP 9.14=30,8 GP äypns χερσαίης .... καὶ εἰναλίης. See LS] s.v. χερσαῖος I.

For the expression ‘tread the roads, literally or metaphorically, cf. Pind. P 2.85 πατέων ὁδοῖς σκολιαῖς, Qu. Sm. 6.488f. ἡ δ᾽ ἑτέρη μακάρων πέλεται ὁδός, οὐδέ μιν ἄνδρες / ῥηιδίως πατέουσιν, Call. fr. 1,25 τὰ μὴ πατέουσιν ἅμαξαι, [Opp.] Cyn. 1.20. See Pfeiffer and Harder on Call. loc. cit. Note the striking alliteration of o in the first three lines. 3f. ἔμπτης: for ἔμπης, the epic form for ἔμπας as ‘still, ‘nevertheless, see LS] s.v. Il and III. For the phrasing ‘even if...still..., cf. Soph. Aj. 121f. ἐποικτίρω δέ vev / δύστηνον ἔμπας, καίπερ ὄντα δυσμενῆ (with which Jebb compared Il. 24.523

ἄλγεα δ' ἔμπης / ἐν θυμῷ κατακεῖσθαι ἐάσομεν, ἀχνύμενοί περ), and 562-4 rotor πυλωρὸν φύλακα Τεῦκρον ἀμφί σοι / λείψω τροφῆς ἄοκνον ἔμπα κεὶ τανῦν | τηλωπὸς οἰχνεῖ; also Pind, N. 4.36f. ἔμπα, καΐπερ ἔχει βαθεῖα ποντιὰς ἅλμα / μέσσον, ἀντίτειν᾽ ἐπιβουλίας. In all the passages ἔμπης precedes the adversa-

tive particle,’ while Crinagoras uses the terms in an opposite order, the ei καί clause followed by ἔμπης as an emphatic particle in a construction similar to Soph. OT 302 ei καὶ μὴ βλέπεις, φρονεῖς 6 ὅμως. For εἰ ‘introducing an admitted

fact, see Denniston 302. Crinagoras opens two other poems with similar phrasing: 1 κῆν... κἣν ῥίψης, 19 κἢν... ἢ. . ἔλθῃ. Ἔμπης with an exhortation followed by a final clause with ὄφρα occurs once in Homer: Od. 23.83 ἀλλ᾽ ἔμπης ἴομεν μετὰ παῖδ᾽ ἐμόν, ὄφρα ἴδωμαι / ἄνδρας μνηστῆρας τεθνηότας.

Κεκροπίης: for Attica, as often in the Anthology, for instance, Theodoridas 7.722=11,2 HE, Diod. 7.40=13,2 and 7.235=11,4 GP, Jul. Aeg, API 157,2. Cf. Schol. on Ap. Rh. 1.95 Kexporindev ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀττικῆς. Κεκροπία yap λέγεται ἡ Ἀττικὴ ἀπὸ Κέκροπος τοῦ βασιλεύσαντος. For the name, see FGrHist III Ὁ Supp. 295, n. 45. ἐπιβήμεναι: infinitive for imperative (cf. Call. AP 6.147=24,3, 7.520=33,3, 7.521=43,3 HE) first occurs in Homer (for instance, Od. 16.150f.). See further K-G II (2) 20f. $ ‘The more usual construction is ἐπιπλεῖν + acc.: for instance, Il. 6.291 ἐπιπλὼς εὐρέα πόντον, Od. 9.227 and 470 ἐπιπλεῖν ἁλμυρὸν ὕδωρ. Hes. Op. 648, Antiphilus AP 7.635=28,4 GP.

7 For the Pindaric passage, where ἔμπης may also refer back to the previously mentioned general statement, see C. A. M. Fennell, Pindar: the Nemean and Isthmian Odes (Cambridge 1899), ad loc.

The form occurs at the same sedes usually in Homer. Cf. Od. 7.196 and 12.282 γαίης ἐπιβήμεναι, 14.229 Τροίης ἐπιβήμεναι; also at the same sedes at Il. 9.133, 9.275, 19.176, Ap. Rh. 3.1236.

Note the poet's playful use of the contrasting pair ἑδραῖος -ἐπιβήμεναι: the person who is reluctant to travel is invited, with ἐπιβήμεναι, an epic term recalling heroic activity, to make this one voyage to Attica that will change his life. opp av.../...t8ys: for ὄφρα ἂν + subjunctive, see K-G II (2) 385,5a. According to ancient sources (cf. Plut. Alc. 22.4, Suda s.v. ἐπόπται, etc.; see

Richardson 1974, 20-2), participation in the mysteries was divided into two main stages, μύησις and Errorrreia, the latter being more important, in which only selected initiates took part. See Farnell III 131, 182, 197, Mylonas 274-8, Kerényi (1967) 95ff. In the Homeric Hymn to Demeter emphasis is also laid on the ἐποπτεία; cf. 1. 480 with Richardson ad loc. on τάδ᾽ ὄπωπεν and 26-8. For

further passages, see below, on 5f. Cf. also Eur. Herc. 613 ra μυστῶν δ᾽ spy’ εὐτύχησ᾽ ἰδών" and Hipp. 25 σεμνῶν és ὄψιν καὶ τέλη μυστηρίων with Barrett

ad loc, See also next note. Antipater of Thessalonica in AP 11.23=38,4 says Μίνω θᾶσσον ἐποψόμεθα, which probably indicates knowledge of the mysteries on

the part of Antipater; cf. Aubreton ad loc. Note the playful oxymoron in the expression ‘seeing the nights’; cf. the oxymoron at Crin. 12,3f. ὠδῖνας... πρηείας and 4,4 πρηεῖ κέντρῳ. See ad loc. ἐκείνας /...vixras: as Gow-Page comment, P's ἐκείναις seems to be ‘a mere slip (retained in the text by Geist, Holtze, and Jacobs?) and Pl’s ἐν ἐκείναις,

which refers the pronoun back to ὁδούς, results in impossible phrasing and meaning. The suggestion of Jacobs (Jacobs? and Jacobs 1826, 251) ἐκείνηξέκεϊis

difficult. Scaliger’s suggestion again (approved, though not printed, by Jacobs’ and Geist), ὄφρα κ᾿ ἐπαινῆς (sc. Δήμητρος)" is not necessary. Also unnecessary is Blomfield’s ἐν θήναις (1826, 589). Brunck's ὄφρ᾽ av ἐκείνας restores good

sense, as the expression ‘those (famous) nights’ is perfectly satisfactory: note its occurrence in a similar context in Antiphilus AP 9.298=39,3f. GP, where, thanks to his participation in the Eleusinian Mysteries, a blind man regains

his sight: olda δ᾽ ἐκείνῃ νυκτὶ καὶ ὀφθαλμῶν νύκτα kaßnpauevos. \

1

>

A

,

EA

° Already mentioned, in regard to the present epigram, by Scaliger in his edition of Catullas, Tibullus, and Propertius; see next note. ° A rare epithet of Persephone, Il. 9.457, Od, 10.491 and 564, Hes. Th. 768; see West ad loc. ‘The conjecture appears in J. Scaliger et al., Catulli, Albti Tibulli, Sex. Avr, Propertii opera amınia (Lutéce 1608), 527, on Tib. 3.5,8 and in the margin of the annotated Stephanianae reserved in BNE Res. Yb. 355 and Res. Yb, 356 (See Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Short note on old editions and emendations with unrecorded sources). It does not appear in Leiden 756 D 9.

For the phrase, cf. also Call. fr. 75,44 νυκτὸς ἐκείνης, whereon Pfeiffer cited Eur. IT 205 νυκτὸς κείνας and Ph. 1675 νύξ... ἐκείνη; add Triphiod. 665 νυκτὸς

ἐκείνης.

The activity of the initiates took place mainly during the night; cf. Eur. Jon

1077, Aristoph. Ran. 342. For the term μυστηριώτιδες νύκτες, see Mylonas 258

with n. 153. ‘Nights’ could here have a wider sense, referring to the mysteries in

general, or it may refer specifically to the sacred nights of the festival, the sixth and the seventh day of the mysteries (Boedromion 20 and 21; night of 20th to 2lst and of 21st to 22nd) when the celebration of the special rites of the epopteia took place. See Mylonas 258-79,

μεγάλας: Brunck emended P and PI's μεγάλας, an adjective of νύκτας (printed, apart from the editors of Planudes, also by Jacobs” and Jacobs 1826, 251, Geist, Holtze, Dübner, and Paton) to μεγάλων, belonging with ἱερῶν. Stadtmüller

(in Rubensohn 100) suggested μεγάλης (to go with Anumrpos, accepted by Rubensohn, Beckby, Aubreton, and Conca-Marzi).'° In support of μεγάλων, Gow-Page observe that νύκτας already has an adjective (ἐκείνας) and ἱερῶν needs one much more than Δήμητρος. Two adjectives define the same noun at

Crin. 34,1, if P's μεγάλη is retained (for this feature in Crinagoras, see on 5,1 χάλ Keov... πανείκελον.... ἔργον). However, the phrasing of 34,1 is more satisfactory if the change to μεγάλου is accepted; see ad loc. The reference to Demeter and the emphasis on sight (cf. above, on 6¢p’av.../... ἴδῃς) indicate that Crinagoras

isreferring to the Great Mysteries, rather than to the Lesser Mysteries. Sternbach (1889, 307-8) had already suggested that μεγάλαι points towards the Great Mysteries, and defended the codices’ μεγάλας (νύκτας), maintaining that the expression is equivalent to the Latin noctes initiorum (Justin. 2.6,13 frumenti satio est Eleusinae a Triptolemo reperta, in cuius muneris honorem noctes initiorum sacratae). The persistent presence in the codices of μεγάλας, together with the fact that the word order we get with μεγάλων... ἱερῶν results in a rather

unnatural hyperbaton, suggests that μεγάλας can be retained, For the Great Mysteries, cf., for instance, Aristoph. Pl. 1013 μυστηρίοις δὲ τοῖς μεγάλοις, Plato Gorg. 497c with the schol. ad loc. The Lesser Mysteries were held at Agrae near Ilissos (see Steph. Byz. s.v. Aypa καὶ Aypaı, χωρίον, Eustath.

Od. 568,17), and constituted a preparation for the Great Mysteries, held in Eleusis (see Mylonas 240-3, Richardson 1974, 20), Although scholars have

not been uniform in their identification of the deity honoured at the Lesser Mysteries, Persephone seems to have been honoured in these rites and Demeter in the Great Mysteries. See schol. on Aristoph. Pl. 845, Farnell III 169-70,

15. For the application of the epithet to the goddess, cf. Paus, 8.31,2 θεαὶ δὲ ai MeydAaı Δημήτηρ, «ra, Also AApp 1.59,3; cf. Call. H. 6.121 μεγάλα θεὸς εὐρυάνασσα. See Bruchmann 75, Farnell III 206-7.

354

AP 11,42=35

Mylonas 240,'' The Great Mysteries are called &rorrıra in Plut. Demetr, 26.1 (for epopteia being a stage of the Great Mysteries, see above on ὄφρ᾽ av.../... 89s).

ἱερῶν: ἱερά does not refer to the sacred objects demonstrated by the Ἱεροφάντης to participants in the Eleusinian Mysteries (cf. Plut. Alc. 22.4 ἔχοντα στολὴν οἵανπερ ὁ ἱεροφάντης ἔχων δεικνύει τὰ ἱερά). In fact, it has the meaning ‘rites, thus

indicating the mysteries themselves; cf. LSJ s.v. ἱερός III Ic, Hdt. 1.172 ἱδρυθέντων δέ σφι ἱρῶν ξεινικῶν, Dem. Eubul. 3 τῶν ὑμετέρων ἱερῶν καὶ κοινῶν μετεῖχον.

Note the alliteration of 7 in 1.3. 5f. in the Homeric Hymn (480-2) the poet emphasizes the blessed state of those who have seen (for which see above, on 6¢p’av.../...idns) the mysteries as well

as the sad posthumous fate of the uninitiated: ὄλβιος ὃς τάδ᾽ ὄπωπεν ἐπιχθονίων ἀνθρώπων" ὃς δ᾽ ἀτελὴς ἱερῶν, ὅς τ᾽ ἄμμορος, οὔ ποθ᾽ ὁμοίων a“

5»

\

¢€

a

Ltd

>”

3"

€

4

αἶσαν ἔχει φθίμενός περ ὑπὸ ζόφῳ εὐρώεντι. »

é

7

€

’

FG

>

᾽

Lobeck’? lists passages echoing these lines; for further passages concerning beliefs regarding the privileged state of the initiates in the next world, see Allen-Halliday-Sikes and Richardson on h. Cer. 480-2; also Rohde 223 with n. 22. Cf, inter alia, Pind. fr. 137a ὄλβιος ὅστις ἰδὼν κεῖν᾽ εἶσ ὑπὸ χθόν᾽: | οἷδε μὲν βίου τελευτάν, / oldev δὲ διόσδοτον ἀρχάν, Soph. fr. 837 TrGrF, Aristoph. Ran.

455f. John Upton'? cited in the margin of the British Library Stephaniana, shelfm. 11335h31, Ael. Arist. Pan. 185.13-15 τὰς δ᾽ ἀῤῥήτους τελετὰς ὧν τοῖς μετασχοῦσι καὶ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ βίου τελευτὴν βελτίω τὰ πράγματα γίγνεσθαι δοκεῖ.

While in the Homeric hymn and in the Sophoclean passage the unhappy state of the uninitiated in Hades is mentioned,'* Crinagoras omits the posthumous

punishment of the uninitiated and stresses the joyful mood of the initiate both when still alive and after death. See below, on κὴν ζωοῖσιν. The words τῶν... ζωοῖσιν are totally without accentuation in P. τῶν ἄπο: for such a construction, with the relative pronoun in anastrophe, cf. τῶν ἄπο at AApp 3.101,1, and at verse-opening always in Nonnus: D. 18.71, 37.54,

1: The view that the Lesser Mysteries were celebrated in honour of Iacchus is held by Rohde 220. Cf, also Farnell III 170 with ἢ. a; Iacchus was in later years confused with Dionysus who was never worshipped in the mysteries. See further Mylonas 238, 241. 2 C. A. Lobeck, Aglanphamus, sive de thealogiae mysticae Graecorum causis (Königsberg 1829), 69-73.

13 For whom see on Crin. 19,3 ἄλλιστ᾽ Ἀίδη, with note there.

** Cf. also Plato Rep. 365a, Phaedo 69c, Pausanias’ account at 10.31,11 of Polygnotus’ depiction of the sufferings τῶν τὰ δρώμενα Ἐλευσῖνι ἐν οὐδενὶ θεμένων λόγῳ.

40.232. Also Nonnus D. 13.341, 31.176 τῆς ἅπο, anon. API 187,2 τοῦ δ᾽ ἄπο, Leon.

AP 6.302=37,8 ὧν ἄπο (verse-opening), Mnasalcas 9.333=15,3 HE ἧς azo. For anastrophe of the preposition, cf. also Crin. 45,1 παίδων ἀλλαχθέντι μόρῳ ἔπι.

κὴν ζωοῖσιν: Pl’s κἀν is accepted by Rubensohn, Beckby, and Aubreton, while the other editors keep P’s κήν. Such Atticisms occasionally appear in Crinagoras conventional Ionic and are generally not rare in Hellenistic poetry (see Intr., Language and Style, Dialect, and on Crin. 28,3 ἥλιος ... ἀνιών), and so it is diffi-

cult to decide between the two forms. A7jv can be supported by κήν in 23,4, κὴμοί in 34,3, κηγώ in 44,2.

Crinagoras uses the form in a different expression again at 22,2 and 45,4, in both passages also in the context of an antithesis between the living and the dead, as is the case here. For this complementary, or contrasting, pair, cf. Leon. AP 7.67=59,7f. HE, ‘Plato’ 7.670=2 FGE, Geminus 9.288=2,6 GP, AApp 3.153,2.

Cf. the expression ‘neither living nor dead’. See Collard on Eur. Supp. 968-70. The poet stresses the privileged state of both living and dead initiates. The initiate indeed both hopes for a better state after death and enjoys such a state in this life, as well: ‘both knowledge and beatitude became his possession the moment he beheld the vision’ Kerényi (1967, 15) remarked, citing, along with Crinagoras’ poem, Cic. Leg. 2.14,36 neque solum cum laetitia vivendi rationem accepimus, sed etiam cum spe meliore moriendi. See further Rohde 219, Richardson on h, Cer. 480-2, Dickie (1998) 62, 75. In the Homeric hymn the pleasure that the initiate

enjoys in this life, too, is also stressed. See I]. 486-9 with Richardson ad loc. dxndéa.../...€€es θυμόν: ἀκηδέα θυμὸν ἔχειν is a Hesiodic formula (Th. 61, Op. 112, 170); see West Th. p. 78. In Hesiod, the expression always refers to the gods; in the Anthology, it is used of a mortal once again at Lucian 7.308,1 (a carefree child seized by Hades).'” In linking the two phrases which refer

one to the present and the other to the life after death, and by applying only one term, θυμός, to both situations, Crinagoras is using thymos in an unusual context, since the word, in contrast to ψυχή, does not normally occur in connection with life after death.’° xedr’ἂν ἔκηαι: ἵκηαι always at verse-end in Homer and Apollonius. The same phrasing occurs at Ap. Rh. 1.969 εὖτ᾽ἂν Ikwvrau, 3.911 εὖτ᾽ ἂν ἵκηται (verse-end), Asclep. AP7.500= 31,2 HE eis Χίον εὖτ᾽ἂν ἵκῃ. Note the striking alliteration of « in 1.5. 3

[72

** In her categorization of the usages of θυμός in Greek literature, Darcus Sullivan (151) places this Hesiodic ἀκηδὴς θυμὸς in the group of passages where θυμός can be described as affected by a person, for it functions ‘as an object which the person himself can affect’ 16 Sec D. J. Furley, “The Early History of the Concept of Soul, BICS 3 (1956), 4f.

356

AP 11.22=35

ἐς πλεόνων: the expression is a euphemism for the dead, the ‘majority’: Aristoph, Eccl. 1073 ἢ γραῦς ἀνεστηκυῖα παρὰ τῶν πλειόνων; at Leon. AP 7.731=78,6 HB

the phrasing is similar to that of the present poem, ws πλεόνων ἦλθε μετοικεσίην,

The expression occurs in Latin, Plaut. Trin. 291 (translating from Philemon) ad plures penetravi, Petr. 42.5 abiit ad plures, Carmen Arvale 4 incurrere in pleores.

Cf. the oracles at Polyb. 8.28,7 and Paus. 1.43,3 with the expression μετὰ τῶν πλειόνων. Also Call. AP 7.317=51,2 HE ὑμέων γὰρ πλείονες εἰν Aid with Gow-

Page ad loc. and Van Leeuwen, Rogers, and Ussher'” on Aristoph. Eccl. 1073, Hollis on Call. Hec. fr. 145 (=358 Pf.), where the phrase also occurs in connection

with the posthumous fate of men: εἰ δὲ Δίκη σε πὰρ πόδα μὴ τιμωρὸς ἐτείσατο, δὶς τόσον adrıs ἔσσεται, ἐν πλεόνεσσι παλίντροπος, κτλ. A}

,

4

A]

3

PA

LS

/

>

Note that Hades is often described by epithets such as πολυδέκτης, πολυδέγμων, πολυσημάντωρ, πολύξενος: see Richardson on h. Cer. 9. The expression is pre-

served in the present day: “στοὺς πολλούς᾽; see Rohde 570, n. 124. Crinagoras is careful to refer to the dead as ‘the majority, and not as φθίμενοι or θανόντες, usual for the pair living/dead, since he intends to stress the idea of the continuation of life and, moreover, a better life for the immortal soul after its departure from this world. ἐλαφρότερον: ἐλαφρός is Homeric; Il. 5.122, 12.450, 23.628, al. For the idea of a

‘light heart; cf. the soothed soul (of a living person) in Men. fr. 663 K-A ἰατρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ἀνθρώποις vbowv: | ψυχῆς yap οὗτος μόνος ἔχει κουφίσματα, schol. on Il. 15.393 καὶ Μένανδρος... πρὸς τὸ μὴ συγκαταπίπτειν τῷ σώματι τὴν ψυχήν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπερορᾶν τὸ βάρος τοῦ σώματος. The expression occurs, albeit with a different meaning (describing a joyful heart, without concerns), at Theogn. 884 (dup) θωρηχθεὶς δ᾽ ἔσεαι πολλὸν ἐλαφρότερος. Cf. Simon. 20,7 IEG κοῦφον ἔχων θυμὸν πόλλ᾽ ἀτέλεστα νοεῖ, [Opp.] Cyn. 4.372 μείδησέ τε θυμὸς ἐλαφρός;

for a fearful heart, Triphiod. 148 ἐλαφροῦ δείματα θυμοῦ. For the comparative degree, i.e. ‘lighter’ by comparison with the souls of those not initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries, cf. Isocr. Paneg. 28 oi μετέχοντες περί τε τῆς τοῦ βίου τελευτῆς καὶ τοῦ σύμπαντος αἰῶνος ἡδίους τὰς ἐλπίδας

ἔχουσι (the passage is cited by John Upton” in the margin of the BL Stephaniana shelfm. 11335h31), Cic. Leg. 2.14 cum spe meliore moriendi, Ael. Arist. Eleus. 259.16 ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῆς τελευτῆς ἡδίους ἔχειν τὰς ἐλπίδας (cf. above, on 58). See Richardson (1974) 312.

7 R.G. Ussher, Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae (Oxford 1973).

18. For whom see on Crin. 19,3 ἄλλιστ᾽ Ἀίδη, with note there.

API 40 = 36

Γείτονες οὐ τρισσαὶ μοῦνον Τύχαι ἔπρεπον εἶναι, Κρίσπε, βαθυπλούτου σῆς ἕνεκεν xpadins, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱ πάντων πᾶσαι" τί yap ἀνδρὶ τοσῷδε ἀρκέσει eis ἑτάρων μυρίον edgo; Νῦν dé ce καὶ τούτων κρέσσων ἐπὶ μεῖζον ἀέξοι Καῖσαρ: τίς κείνου χωρὶς ἄρηρε τύχη: /

3

\

3

5

θ

\

/

€

[4

’

3

~

n

4

’

x

ὃ

¢

7

4

+

3

x

4

-

«Ah

—_—

PLIV® 1 (εἰς εἰκόνας ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθῶν), 10 Kpıvayöpov eis εἰκόνα Kpiorov caret P 4 εὐσοΐην suppl. Dilthey: post εὖσο deficit Pl

5 μεῖζον edd.: μείζον᾽ Pl

Brunck n. 17, Rubensohn n. 48

Not only the three Fortunes, but all men’s fortunes, your neighbours, Crispus, because of your hearts man, what will suffice for the infinite happiness Caesar, who is even mightier than these, raise you stands firm without him?

too, are appropriate to be deep riches; for so great a of his friends? Now may even more; which fortune

A praise of Crispus’ generous character and a wish that his good fortune might become even greater with Caesar's favour. The poem, needless to say, is not an inscription on a statue of Crispus. For misplacements of ‘demonstrative’ epigrams in Planudes’ ecphrastic section, see on 28, intr. note.

The poem opens and closes with the idea of τύχη, at the beginning conceived as a goddess (Τύχαι), and at the end as good luck (concluding word of the epigram); for the circular structure of Crinagoras epigrams, see Intr., Language and Style, Structure. For the allusion to wealth brought by Τύχη, see below, on 1-4. The epigram is full of vocabulary denoting growth and abundance (βαθυπλούτου, πάντων πᾶσαι, μυρίον, κρέσσων, μεῖζον, ἀέξοι), stressing both Cripsus’ wealth

and The last tion

open-handedness and Augustus’ magnificence and superiority (κρέσσων). two rhetorical questions, which appear in the second couplet and in the line, and open with the same pronoun (ri, τίς), convey the main informaof the poem, that is Cripsus’ immense generosity (first question) and

Augustus’ vital importance for the welfare of all (second question).

358

API 40 = 36

Crispus was first identified by Geist (30) as Gaius Sallustius Crispus, greatnephew and adoptive son of the historian. See Tac. Ann. 3.30, where Crispus’ extravagance and luxurious way of life is stressed. Jahn’ suggested that Crispus’ house may have been located near the statues of the three Parcae, described by Procopius as ra τρία φάτα (BG 1.25); for the statues, see Roscher 5.1099,

However, another suggestion, first made by Zangemeister,’ seems much more probable and is generally accepted today. In his view, the τρισσαὶ Τ ύχαι are the three temples of Fortuna; the gardens of Sallustius, Horti Sallustiani, were located near the Porta Collina, which was in the vicinity of the three temples of Fortuna. See Vitruv. 3.2,2, Tac. Hist. 3.82, Rubensohn 17, Nisbet-Hubbard on

Hor. Od. 2.2, intr. note, Hartswick 3-10, 145f., and 195, n. 29. Gow-Page remark that the epigram must have been written before Ap 14, as

it is more likely to be referring to the prime of Crispus under Augustus, rather to his decline under Tiberius. Crispus is addressed by Horace in Od. 2.2, also a poem that praises his generosity. The assumption that Crinagoras’ poem is

hinting ‘at expected patronage” is questionable, as it does not seem probable that a poet of an already high social status, and supported and protected by the

family of Augustus, would seek any further patronage. It is to be noted, too, that the poem ends by stressing the dependence of everyone, including Crispus himself, on Caesar (Augustus). The poet's implicit complaint for his poverty in 48 is rather conventional; see ad loc., intr. note. The present epigram may thus be an expression of gratitude for a particular favour, as is implied by Ill. 3f., but there is nothing to support Gow-Page’s view of the piece as ‘servile. NisbetHubbard remark (on Hor. Od. 2.2, intr. note) that ‘it had been a time-honoured

custom of the Greek poets to praise their patrons for munificence; a suggestion may be implicit that eulogists are appropriate beneficiaries, especially when something is added about posthumous glory’ and mention Pind. P. 1.92-4, N. 131-3, I. 1.68f., Bacchyl. 3.13f. Maehler. The idea that money should not be kept unused also occurs at Theocr, 16.22-4 and 17.106f.; see further Maehler

on Bacchyl. 3.13-14, Instone* on Pind. I. 1.67-8, Hunter on Theocr. 17.106-14. Gratitude to a Roman for favours received is also expressed in Antip. Thess.

9.92=2 GP (see Gow-Page, intr. note there, who hold that the addressee may be Piso or another Roman, as Antipater may have had more than one patron; Antipater’s position in Rome, however, is not the same as that of Crinagoras,

since Augustus’ patronage cannot be compared with that of any other Roman). 1 ©. Jahn, ‘Satura, Hermes 2 (1867), 246.

2 K. Zangemeister, ‘Zur Römischen Topographie, Hermes 2 (1867), 469f. * Sullivan (1991) 84. Ο. Murray (Symposium and Genre in the Poetry of Horace, JRS 75 (1985), 44f. with n. 21) had made the same suggestion regarding the present poem and also mentioned

two sympotic epigrams: Antip. Thess. AP 9.92=2 GP and Philod. 11.44=23 GP=27 Sider, in which the wealth of the poets’ Roman patrons is stressed in a similar fashion and patronage is requested (in Antipater's poem more directly). 4 ς Instone, Pindar, Selected Odes (Warminster 1996).

1-4: Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. Od. 2.2, intr. note, observe: ‘Crinagoras in a grate-

ful epigram says that he [i.e. Crispus] deserved more than the Tres Fortunae (near the Horti) to expend on his friends? Jacobs! explained the meaning of the

first four lines thus: tam benignus tuus et ad auxilium ferendum promptus animus multis fortunae copiis indiget, ut ingenitum illud bene faciendi desiderium explere possis, rendered by Gow-Page as ‘for what concerns your wealthy kindheartedness (as in LSJ s.v. I 2), you should have close access not only to the

Three Fortunes (i.e. to the temples thereof, next-door to your estate) but also to

all men’s wealth; nothing less could suffice for so great a benefactor. Gow-Page remark that αἱ πάντων πᾶσαι (τύχαι) Must mean ‘everyones good fortune, with

a play on the word τύχη; but, if so, the author is thinking rather of Fortuna than of Τύχη, for whereas fortuna may mean either ‘luck’ or ‘wealth, τύχη lacks the latter sense. Aubreton-Buffiére also comment that in using τύχη the poet exploits

the word’s double sense, that of ‘fortune’ and that of ‘destiny’ Starting from the play between the notions ‘good fortune’ and ‘wealth conveyed by Töxn-Fortuna and continued in the adjective βαθύπλουτος applied to Crispus’ heart and in the following question ‘what will suffice. ..?, Crinagoras constantly, albeit elegantly and implicitly, suggests the idea of prosperity. Lf. γείτονες: 9.48. Also 9.568=34,5, FGE, anon.

the word occurs rarely at verse-opening in anon. 7.717=50,6 HE, 9.680,2. Occasionally

in Homer: Od. 4.16 (verse-opening), 5.489, the Anthology, Call. 5.23=63,5, Diosc. Rufinus 5.75=29,1 Page, ‘Plato’ 7.256=12,4 at this sedes in Nonnus; cf. D. 2.38, 14.210,

16.118, 22.128.

0d...noövov.../.../...dAAd: for the expression, cf., for instance, Leon. AP 6.120=91,1-5 HE οὐ μόνον ὑψηλοῖς ἐπὶ δένδρεσιν olda καθίζων 7 ἀείδειν...

(...)

/ ἀλλὰ καὶ εὐπήλικος Ἀθηναίης ἐπὲ δουρί, Antiphilus 9.298=39,2 GP οὐ μοῦνον τελετῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἠελίου, anon. 6.171=58a,5f. HE, Zosimus 9.40=5,1-3, Leon. Alex. 9.347=24,1f. FGE, ‘Diog. Laert: 7.97,1£., frequently in Attic drama. For the similar figure κατ᾽ ἄρσιν καὶ θέσιν or correctio, see on Crin. 1,4 οὐχ... ἀλλά, τρισσαί... Τύχαι: τρισσός is not Homeric; it occurs first at h. Ven. 7 and Hes. fr. 233,2. For the sacredness of the number three and its multiples, see Rossi and Hunter on Theocr. 17.82-4. The usual triad of goddesses is that of the Graces: cf. Mel. 5.140=30,4, 5.195=39,1. Cf. Mel. 9.16=74,1 HE, Strato 12.181=22,2 Floridi

(with Floridi ad loc., p. 186).

Τύχη, as a goddess or as a common noun, does not appear in Homer. At h. Cer, 420 she is named among the Oceanids who accompany Persephone as she plays; cf. Paus. 4.30,4. See Richardson on h, Cer. 420, West on Hes. Th. 360 (where she is also an Oceanid). For the cult of the goddess Tyche in Greece, see Roscher 3.2142ff. Cf. Nilsson (1967-74) 2.200ff., for the concept of Tyche and Daimon in Hellenistic times. For the relation between Τύχη and the Roman Fortuna, cf. Bomer (1966) 68f.; see below, on af πάντων πᾶσαι. For the three

360

AP] 40 = 36

temples of Fortuna near Crispus’ house, see intr. note. People referred to the area inside the walls near the Porta Collina as ‘ad tres Fortunas, because of these three temples; see Vitruv. 3.2,2 and Hartswick 6f. with n. 37. ἔπρεπον εἶναι: the personal use of πρέπω in the sense ‘to be fitting for someone’ + inf. is very rare. Cf. Soph. OT 9 πρέπων ἔφυς πρὸ τῶνδε φωνεῖν, Schol. on Soph. OT 1157 πρέπον δὲ ἣν μοι ὀλέσθαι, ἔπρεπον δὲ ὀλέσθαι. Soph. El. 1254f. ὁ πᾶς ἂν πρέποι παρὼν ἐννέπειν τάδε δίκα χρόνος (cf. K-G II (2) 35,0) is not quite the same, as the infinitive there is epexegetic; see Kamerbeek ad loc. βαθυπλούτου.... κραδίης: for the ‘riches’ of the heart, cf. Hes. Op. 455 ἀνὴρ φρένας ἀφνειός, Alexis 341,1 K-A ψυχὴν ἔχειν δεῖ πλουσίαν, Lucian AP 10.411 πλοῦτος ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς. See further West on Hes. loc. cit. The use of the adjective βαθύπλουτος applied to the heart is unique; with other nouns, cf,

Bacchyl. 3,82 Maehler (ζωάν), Aesch. Supp. 554 (χθόνα), Eur. fr. 453,1 TrGrF (Eipnva). Nonnus often uses the adjective to qualify persons (D. 1.354, 29.59), μέταλλα (2.687, 10.146, 26.169), and the sea (15.153). For the occa-

sional interchangeability of compounds with Bapu- and βαθυ-, see James 67, Chryssafis on [Iheocr.] 25.110f. For the allusion to Crispus’ wealth, see above, on 1-4.

Crinagoras uses the form «paö- in 2,4 (verse-end), καρδ- in the iambic 50,5. Homer has both καρδίη and κραδίη; cf. Chantraine (1958) 23. In tragedy nor-

mally xap8-; in the Anthology, usually xpaö-; the genitive in the same sedes in Antiphilus 6.250=1,2 GP, Paul. Sil. 5.274,2 and 9.443,2.

ans... κραδίης: cf. the Homeric Il. 24.129 σὴν ἔδεαι κραδίην. In the Anthology, cf. Irenaeus Ref. 5.251,5, Paul. Sil. 5.274,2 σῆς κραδίης, anon. 9.505,10 σῇ κραδίῃ.

Cf. the expression also in Theogn. 1236, Eur. Hel. 960, Med. 1360. ἕνεκεν: twice in Homer (Od. 17.288, 310). Cf. h. Cer. 211. Ἕνεκα appears more frequently in Homer. Theocritus uses ἕνεκεν at 17.46 and 29.37, Callimachus at fr. 23,9, 178,25. In the Anthology, cf. Nicarchus 5.39,4, Synesius API 267,3. 3 ai πάντων πᾶσαι: the same word play involving the repetition of πᾶς occurs quite often in poetry: Eur. fr. 1053,2 TrGrF un räoı mavrwv προσφέρῃ μειλίγματα, Aristoph. Eccl. 690 πᾶσι yap ἄφθονα πάντα παρέξομεν, Arat. 805 (with Kidd ad loc.), Mel. AP 5.177=37,7 HE.

For ‘men’s fortune(s); cf., for instance, Soph. OT 102 ποίου ἀνδρὸς τήνδε μηνύει τύχην;, Eur. fr. 376,1 TrGrF ras βροτῶν τύχας, fr. 553,1 TrGrF τὰς αὑτοῦ τύχας, fr. 580,1f. TrGrF ἀνθρώποισι πᾶσιν αἱ τύχαι / μορφὴν ἔχουσι. Bömer

(1966, 69), referring to Erkell,” sees two ‘kinds’ of τύχη, the one being the

° H. Erkell, Augustus, Felicitas, Fortuna (Göteborg 1952), 73.

API 40 =36

goddess of destiny, superior to gods and men, the other being a divine power protecting one man in particular, the τύχη βασιλέως: ‘wir kennen diese person-

ale Tyche ebenfalls seit hellenistischer Zeit, vorwiegend von hochgestellten Persönlichkeiten, bei besonderen

Anlässen, etwa beim

Schwur,

und

diese

Personaltyche ist römisch nicht Fortuna, jedenfalls nicht bis zur Zeit Caesars’; for this ‘personal’ fortune, see also Nilsson (1967-74) 2.209f. Cf. also Bömer

(1966) 69, n. 17, where the author notes that the personal goddess (Tyche) becomes Fortuna in the times of Caesar, now being closely related to genius and less often with Di Manes. For fortuna as ‘prosperity’ (cf. above, intr. note), see Lewis & Short s.v., I, A, 1.

τί yap...3: the rhetorical question is perhaps inspired by Theocr. 17.116f. τί δὲ κάλλιον ἀνδρί κεν ein 7 ὀλβίῳ ἢ κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ἀρέσθαι;. A rhetorical question in the same context occurs also at Theocr. 16.22f. Crinagoras inverts the idea that hidden wealth is pointless, which Theocritus uses in order to encourage generosity on the part of his patron, and so praises Crispus for his generosity.

ἀνδρὶ τοσῷδε: so great’; cf, with rooouros,Soph. Tr. 1140 ris τοσοῦτος φαρμακεὺς Τραχινίων; (‘so potent, Jebb ad loc.), Plato Symp. 177c τοσοῦτος θεός, Aristoph. Av. 1434 ἄνδρα... τοσουτονί, 4 ἀρκέσει εἰς... εὐσο«ἴην;»: the poet may be recalling Pindar's φίλοις ἐξαρκέων (N. 1.32), in a similar context (see above, intr. note). For the use of ἀρκεῖν, see

LS] s.v. III 2 ‘suffice for. Apxetv with eis is a rare construction. Cf. Ap. Rh. 2.1048f. οὐκ ἔλπομαι ἰούς / τόσσον ἐπαρκέσσειν εἰς ἔκβασιν, Xen. Mem. 3.3,10 ἀρκέσει μοι τοῦτο εἰς τὸ πείθεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐμοί, Plut. Mor. 398a οὐ γὰρ ἀρκεῖ τὸν θεὸν εἰς σῶμα καθειργνύναι θνητόν; cf. Peek 1924,60=618b,17 Kaibel (Rome,

AD I-I]) ἄρκιον ἐς δόλιχον τόδε σοι κλέος. For the future ἀρκέσω, cf. Chantraine (1958) 442; in the Anthology the future is used here only. For ératpos/érapos in Homer, cf. Chantraine (1958) 150. Crinagoras uses ἑταῖρος in 32,1 and ἕταρος in 5,2. Here, and at 32,1, Crinagoras uses the word, ‘the poet-

ical equivalent to φίλος᾽ (Sider on Philod. 27,5), to describe his Roman friends, as Philodemus does for his patron Piso in AP 11.44=23 GP=27,2 and 5 Sider; Theocritus (17.111) also calls ἑταίρους King Ptolemy's beneficiaries. Φίλος is a term that poets traditionally use to describe their patrons. Cf. Pind. P 1.92 ὦ φίλε (with Ἰακώβ ad loc., on 92 (a)), N. 1.32 (see above, intr. note). For the

terms amici and comites, describing political allies, companions, and literary men belonging to the circle of a Roman politician or, later, an emperor, and

equivalent to the term φίλοι describing the advisers and other associates of a Hellenistic ruler, see Gold (1987) 35f. In Antip. Thess, 9.92=2 GP (see above, intr. note), the ‘acts of friendship’ (Gow-Page’s translation) are ξένια (I. 3),

a term also suggesting a relationship of friendship between Antipater and his

patron. However, Crispus does not seem to have been a patron of Crinagoras in

the strict sense of the word; see above, intr. note. μυρίον: masculine for feminine in this adjective probably here only; this feature

appears quite frequently in Nonnus. See Keydell® 44f.; cf. H. White (1989) 133, For μυρίος in singular, qualifying an abstract substantive, cf. I. 18.88 πένθος, 20.282 ἄχος, h. Merc. 24 ἐκτήσατο μυρίον ὄλβον, Hdt. 6.67 pupins εὐδαιμονίης, Bacchyl. 9.48 Maehler φάτις, Soph. Ph. 1168 ἄχθος, Eur. Alc. 544 χάριν,

Commenting on this singular collective, Maehler on Bacchyl. loc. cit. cites Bacchyl. 5.31 μυρία... κέλευθος (also in Pind. 1. 3/4.19), Il. 20.319f. yepados.../ μυρίον, Aesch. Pers. 302 μυρία ἵππος, and Eur. Ph. 441 μυρία λόγχη. Mupios...

χρυσός occurs in a similar context at Theocr. 16.22. The adjective here suggests the ‘material’ dimension of εὐσοΐη. Several old editors’ print μυρίων, which does not scan. evoo: Dilthey's supplement (3f.) can be supported by Crin. 43,8 (same sedes) ἐλαφοσσοΐης, as Dilthey observed; there the stem -σο- is employed to

mean ‘swiftness’ (see on 43,8), while here the stem has the meaning of ‘soundness. Cf. Soph. OC 390 εὐσοίας χάριν (with Jebb ad loc.), also quoted by Dilthey, and Theocr. 24.8 e¥ooa... τέκνα (with H. White ad loc.). For compounds with εὖ-, see on Crin. 3,3, ἐυσχίστοισι, and for compounds with odos see on 43,8, Taxivns...eAadooaotns. Eidpoaivny, the reading of Pl's apographs, is kept by

Paton and Beckby among twentieth-century editors. 5 νῦν δέ: also at Crin. 45,5, in a different sedes.

καὶ τούτων κρέσσων: Cf. Polyb. 9.8,13 τῶν μὲν ὑπεναντίων κρείττω, τῆς δὲ τύχης ἥττω γεγονέναι τὸν ᾿ξ παμινώνδαν, Plut. Cat. Min. 60.1 ἀήττητον ἡγεμόνα

καὶ πάσης κρείττονα τύχης, Porph. Ad Marcellam 26.5f. ὅτι κρέττων Av τῆς τύχης καὶ πάσης βίας πολυτρόπου ἰσχυρότερος. Cf. Ov. Met. 6.195 maior sum quam cui possit Fortuna nocere (Niobe boasting), with Bömer ad loc. Here

Caesar defeats chance and is indeed superior to the goddess Fortune, to whom the three temples are dedicated; this implies his divine quality. Cf. on Crin. 23,6 and see next note. For the notion that bravery is more important than chance, cf. Plut. Mor. 322d. For the expression, cf. Crin. 39,2 καὶ τούτων γράψαι ἔτι πλέασι. See ad lac.

The Homeric tradition prefers the Attic form κρεισσ-; cf. Hes. Op. 210 with West ad loc., also West on Th. 748, Chantraine (1958) 256. The lonic «peoo-

occurs at Theogn. 218, 618, 631, 996, often in Pindar. In Hellenistic poets, cf,

° R. Keydell, Nonni Panopolitani Dionysiaca (Berlin 1959). ” Aldus 1503 and 1521 (173), heirs of Giunta (283), Badius (193), Nicolini Sabienses (173), and Aldi Filii (163).

for instance, [Theocr.] 8.83, 20.43, Bion Ad. 55. In the Anthology, for instance,

‘Call. 5.6=11,2, 7.525=29,4, Mel. 5.144=31,6, Antip. Sid. 7.409=66,7, anon. 12.140=16,6 HE. ἐπὶ μεῖζον ἀέξοι: old editions and Jacobs”, Geist, Holtze, Dübner, Paton, and

Beckby retain Ρ] 5 μείζον᾽; ἐπὶ μεῖζον, however, is preferable (see below). Rubensohn sees two possible constructions present in the phrase: the preposition can go either with the verb, σὲ μεῖζον ἐπαέξοι, according to the Homeric θεὸς δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔργον ἀέξῃ (Od. 14.65, ‘make to grow’; cf. LSJ s.v. ἐπαέξω), or with

μεῖζον. Rubensohn cited Thuc. 1.10,3 ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον... κοσμῆσαι. Other passages are, for instance, Thuc. 1.88,1 μὴ ἐπὶ μεῖζον δυνηθῶσι and 4.117,2 ἐπὶ μεῖζον

xwpmoavros αὐτοῦ. The latter construction seems more probable (although tmesis does occur in Crinagoras: see on 37,5, διά... δοθεῖσα). The phrase is found quite often with αὔξειν: Rubensohn cited Greg. Nyss. De Orat. Dom. 204,30 πολλὴ κατὰ τὸν βίον ἡ ἁμαρτία, dei ταῖς προσθήκαις ἐπὲ τὸ μεῖζον αὔξουσα; add, for instance, Dio Cass. 9.40,37 καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπὶ μεῖζον αὔξεται,

74.13,5f. ἐπὶ μεῖζον τὸ δεινὸν ηὐξήθη. Active forms of ἀέξειν always at verse-end in Homer: cf. Il. 6.261, 12.214, 17.226, Od. 9.111, 11.195, 13.360, 17.489. Cf. Call. H. 1.95 οὔτ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἄτερ ὄλβος ἐπίσταται ἄνδρας ἀέξειν with McLennan ad loc. In the Anthology, cf. Samius 6.116=1,5, Rhianus 6.278=8,3 HE (also in the optative).

6 Καῖσαρ: verse-opening is the usual sedes of the word in the Anthology. Cf. Antip. Thess. 9.297=47,4, Thallus 6.235=2,2 GP, Leon. Alex. 6.321=1,2,

6.328=7,2, and 9.349=26,2 FGE; at the same sedes, referring to Augustus, in Crin. 23,4, 29,3. tis... τύχη; Cf. Aesch. Supp. 327 ris κατέσκηψεν τύχη;, Pers. 438 καὶ τίς γένοιτ᾽ ἂν τῆσδ᾽ Er ἐχθίων ruxn;. Crinagoras has a concluding question also in 46,5f.;

cf. ad loc. Augustus has divine qualities (see above on καὶ τούτων κρέσσων and ἐπὶ μεῖζον ἀέξοι) and is thus stronger than Chance/Fortune, who is traditionally

regarded as the giver of all things to humans. Cf., for instance, Archil. 16 IEG πάντα Τύχη καὶ Μοῖρα Περίκλεες ἀνδρὶ δίδωσιν, Theogn. 129f. μήτ᾽ ἀρετὴν εὔχου, Πολυπαΐδη, ἔξοχον εἶναι, μήτ᾽ ἄφενος" μοῦνον δ᾽ ἀνδρὶ γένοιτο τύχη

(with Van Groningen ad loc.), Aesch. Ag. 664 Τύχη δὲ σωτήρ." κείνου χωρίς: similar expressions occasionally in tragedy. Cf. Soph. Ph. 115 οὔτ᾽ ἂν σὺ κείνων χωρὶς οὔτ᾽ ἐκεῖνα σοῦ, Eur.

IT 952 αὐτῶν δίχα, Ion 775 ταύτης δίχα,

Βα. 327 ἄνευ τούτων.

8. For the question of whether Τύχη here should be spelt with a capital T, see Fraenkel ad loc.

ἄρηρε: Hesych. has dpypev. ἰσχυρῶς ἥρμοσται. ἀρηρός. ἰσχυρῶς ἡρμοσμένον, Apart from the present epigram, the form occurs in the Anthology only at Mel. 6.163=110,4 HE, same sedes. Elsewhere, it occurs at Arat. 22, Opp. Hal, 3.559, 3.571, 4.488, Qu. Sm. 7.197. In Homer, we usually find the participle, but cf. also ἀρήρει (Il, 3.338, 16.139), ἀρήρῃ (Od. 5.361). The use of ἀραρίσκειν here, referring to men’s fortune, in the sense ‘stand firm, is comparable to Pind. N. 3.64 dpape φέγγος, Eur. Med. 414 θεῶν δ᾽ οὐκέτι πίστις Gpape. For Tyche’s notorious and characteristic lack of stability, cf, for instance, Agath. AP 4,3,125, Peek

1539=240,6 Kaibel (Smyrna, ITI Bc).

AP 9,284 = 37

5

Olovs ἀνθ᾽ οἵων οἰκήτορας, ὦ ἐλεεινή, εὕραο' φεῦ μεγάλης Ἑλλάδος ἀμμορίη. Αὐτίκα καἰγύπτου χθαμαλωτέρη εἴθε, Κόρινθε, κεῖσθαι καὶ Διβυκῆς ψάμμου ἐρημοτέρη. ἢ τοίοις διὰ πᾶσα παλιμπρήτοισι δοθεῖσα θλίβειν ἀρχαίων ὀστέα Βακχιαδῶν.

—,—

AP 9.284 [C] Kpıvayspov eis τὴν κατάπτωσιν τῆς Κορίνθου caret Pl

3 καἰγύπτου Geflcken: yaln fortasse P, γᾶς 3 C

5 δοθεῖσα Salm.: δεθεῖσα P

Reiske n. 666, Brunck n. 20, Rubensohn ἢ. 32

What dwellers instead of what others have you found for yourself, o pitiable one! Alas for the misfortune ofgreat Hellas! I would rather you, Corinth, lie lower than Egypt and more deserted than Libyan sand, than be given wholly to such slaves, sold over and over again, and vex the bones of the ancient Bacchiads. Lament for Corinth which is now inhabited by slaves. Words that denote plunder and destruction and express horror occur throughout the poem (ἐλεεινή, ἀμμορίη, χθαμαλωτέρη, Epnnorepn), demonstrating the poet's resentment and contempt at Corinth's present situation. The

historical fact (the settlement of the new population) occupies the main part of the poem, following the introductory couplet, and is expressed through a wish for the impossible, a mournful ἀδύνατον (see below, on 3ff. and ei@e.../.../ ἢ), whose painful magniloquence emphasizes the notion of disaster. The opening οἰκήτορας, referring to the new settlers, corresponds to the closing phrase

ἀρχαίων Βακχιαδῶν (1.6); for this feature, cf. Intr., Language and Style, Structure. The opposition between the two terms that enclose the poem within the concept of the city’s inhabitants, old and new, stresses the unworthiness of the newcomers in comparison to Corinth’s former population, an idea condensed in the first three words, οἵους ἀνθ᾽ οἵων. This contrast is finally repeated in mag-

nified form in the last couplet, which forms the apex of the poem. There, the

AP 9.284 = 37 two groups of population, the past and the present, are described in terms

which stress in the strongest manner possible the gulf between them: the members of one are resold slaves, those of the other were magnificent ancient

Bacchiads.' Nostalgia for the city’s glorious heroes of the past appears in the epigrams on Mycenae and Argos, AP 9.101-4. See Demoen 112, n. 22. Two of

the points which Menander Rhetor suggests that should be included in an ambassador's speech on behalf of a city in difficulty, i.e. reference to its glorious past and description of its present sad state (423,14-21, Russell-Wilson p. 180), occur in the present poem (though not in the order suggested by Menander, as here the purpose and the genre of the composition are different): ἥξεις ἐπὶ THY μνήμην τῆς πόλεως, ὑπὲρ ἧς πρεσβεύεις, ἐν δὲ ταύτῃ δύο τόπους ἐργάσῃ, ἕνα μὲν τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἐναντίου αὐξήσεως, olov' ἦν ποτε τὸ Ἴλιον πόλις λαμπρὰ καὶ ὀνομαστοτάτη τῶν ὑφ᾽ ἥλιον πασῶν (...): εἶτα τὸν ἐκ διατυπώσεως, ἐν ᾧ καὶ διασκευάσεις τὴν παροῦσαν τύχην, ὅτι πέπτωκεν εἰς ἔδαφος. See also Demoen 107, Russell- Wilson 337. The contrast (ἀντεξέτασις) between a happy past anda

sad present creates πάθος, Cf. Apsines On Epilogue 49 (p. 234 Dilts-Kennedy) πάθος ποιοῦσιν ai ἀντεξετάσεις μάλιστα πρὸς τὰ πρότερα, οἷον" πρότερον μὲν ἐν ὦ ἦν ἡ τύχη καὶ ὅτι λαμπροτέρα, νῦν δὲ οἵοις περιπέπτωκεν; also Cic. Inv. 1.55,107

primus locus est misericordiae per quem quibus in bonis fuerint et nunc quibus in malis sint ostenditur, the contrast between glorious past and deplorable present being one of the techniques of the conquestio. Πάθος is created also by the σχετλιασμός realized with exclamations such as φεῦ and οἴμοι; see Apsines On Epilogue 54 (p. 236 Dilts-Kennedy), Martin 162. The past good fortune of a person, now exchanged for misery, creates pity, ἔλεος, as well. See Apsines On Epilogue 21 (Dilts-Kennedy p. 210, Patillon p. 92). This element appears particularly intensively in Crin. 20 (see ad loc., intr. note). Menander’s διατύπωσις, a ‘vivid description’ (Russell-Wilson 338, Martin 289) of the city’s present state, is exactly what Crinagoras sketches for Corinth in the present poem. In Polystratus’ poem on the fall of Corinth (AP 7.297=2,3f. HE), there is

also a reference to ὀστέα: the bones of her men killed in the battle against Mummius are left unwept and deprived of «repea, that is, funeral honours, by the Romans: this is presented as retribution for the deeds of the Corinthians’

ancestors, the sack of Troy by the Achaeans. In referring to the Bacchiads, from the Corinthians’ past, Crinagoras may also be alluding to the present shameful attitude of the settlers towards the city's graves, which consists, too, in the robbing the dead of their «répea, as is the case in the earlier epigram. Perhaps

Crinagoras has in mind Polystratus’ poem (note the similar forms AivedSaz, in Polystratus, Βακχιαδῶν, in Crinagoras, which close both epigrams), and is likewise exploiting the same image of the ὀστέα of the inhabitants of Corinth as part

of the misfortune that the city suffers at the hands of the Romans, this being the second degradation of Corinth by Rome. See also below, on θλίβειν... ὀστέα. * For the careful structure of the poem which lays emphasis on the contrast between the old and the new inhabitants, see Apostol (2016) 27£.

AP 9.284=37

367

Another poem of the Anthology lamenting the past glory of Corinth is Antip. Sid. 9.151=59; cf. Antip. Sid. 7.493=68 HE on a mother who killed her daughter and herself at the sack of the city by Mummius. For the sad fate of other cities or islands, cf. Duris 9.424 =1 HE (on Ephesus), Antip. Thess. 9.408=113 and

550=94 (on Delos) and 9.421=28 (on the Cyclades), Alpheus 9.101=9 and others

(see Gow-Page ad loc. intr. note; on Mycenae), Alpheus 9.104=10 (on Argos), Bianor 9.423=16 (on Sardis), Antip. Thess. 7.705=50 GP (on Amphipolis), Barbucallus 9.425-7 (on Berytus), Agathias 9.152-5 (on Troy); see also

Siedschlag 53 with n. 1, Demoen 110-13 with n. 18. For poems of the Anthology on cities in general, see Hartigan passim. Corinth was destroyed by L. Mummius in 146 pc. Most of the men were killed and the women and children were sold as slaves, and the area became ager publicus, the Isthmian games being transferred to Sicyon. In 44 Bc, by order of Julius Caesar, libertini, poor farmers, and army veterans from Italy were brought and settled in the city (their number is estimated at 3,000). By 31 Bc, Corinth had become again wealthy and important: Plut. Caes. 57.8, Strabo 8.4,8, Paus. 2.2,2, 2.3,1, 7.16,7f., Dio Cass, 43.50,3, Diod. Sic. 32.27,3. See Engels 15-17, 67, Stansbury 101ff. The settlers also included some Greeks; see Engels

68, Stansbury 127. Descendants of Greek Corinthians did live in the city after settlement there by the Romans (as is evident from the manufacture of bronze), and increasing numbers of Greeks settled in Corinth, so that the city was finally Hellenized again over the next couple of centuries, although the elite remained Roman. See further Engels 70-4. During the ‘interlude’ (146-44 sc), the area seems not to have been totally deserted, and Corinthians probably continued to work the land in the vicinity; see Stansbury 101-15, 134. It is likely that the poem was written shortly after the settlement of the libertini in Corinth (44 Bc), some time after Crinagoras return from his Second Embassy to Caesar (46-45 Bc); see Rubensohn

(8), Gow-Page intr.

note. It is probable that the poem was written after Caesar’s death which also occurred in 44 Bc. It has been argued that the poem reflects the Mytileneans’ liking for Pompey,” dating from the end of the 60s Bc, when Pompey secured their freedom, and that, more generally, it expresses the desire on the part of Mytilene and, by extension, the whole of Greece for freedom from any Roman involvement into the affairs of Greek cities.’ See also below, on καἰγύπτου xdauaAwrepn.

Of interest is Strabo’s account of the behaviour of Corinth’s new inhabitants (8.6,23); as they were removing the ruins of the city, καὶ rods τάφους συνανασκάπτοντες εὕρισκον ὀστρακίνων τορευμάτων πλήθη, πολλὰ δὲ Kal

? Ihe poem was associated early on with Caesar's death and with the Mytileneans’ loyalty to Pompey by Th. Mommsen, rev. of K. Cichorius, Römische Staatsurkunden aus dem Archive des Asklepiostempels zu Mytilene (Berlin 1889), Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1889), 9800.

ὁ See Apostol (2016) 31-5.

368

AP 9.284 = 37

χαλκώματα, θαυμάζοντες δὲ τὴν κατασκευὴν οὐδένα τάφον ἀσκευώρητον εἴασαν, ὥστε εὐπορήσαντες τῶν τοιούτων καὶ διατιθέμενοι πολλοῦ νεκροκορινθίων ἐπλήρωσαν τὴν Ἰθώμην: οὕτω γὰρ ἐκάλουν τὰ ἐκ τῶν τάφων ληφθέντα, καὶ

μάλιστα τὰ ὀστράκινα. Bücheler (1883, 510-11) associated the poem with the settlers’ behaviour described by Strabo.* Cichorius (1888, 5If.) argued that, since the Necrocorinthia didn't become immediately famous, the poem was probably written many years later; according to this view, the epigram can be dated during Crinagoras’ trip to Rome (Third Embassy, 26-25 ΒΟ, to Augustus). Gow-Page rightly object that the gap of time between 44 and 25 ΒΟ is too big to justify such a belated reaction on the poet's part. In accord with this view, Hartigan (11) assumed that the poet saw the situation of Corinth during a trip and logically observed that there is no reason to think that the poet's only journeys were those he made to Rome. In fact we have evidence for at least one more journey by Crinagoras, his visit to Attica and his initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries (Crin. 35). The composition of the present poem, how-

ever, does not have to imply that Crinagoras actually travelled to Corinth. Such news probably spread throughout Greece, Lesbos included. Even if there is indeed a hint at the Necrocorinthia here, the peak of the fame of the Necrocorinthia trade is not a necessary condition for the composition of the epigram: there may be still an allusion to them in the beginning of the new inhabitants’ practice the starting point of which we are not in a position to precisely determine. It can be suggested, therefore, that the poem was written in Lesbos shortly after 44 Bc. The composition of a work which conveys remarkably explicit feelings of resentment against Roman policy by a Greek who participated in embassies to Julius Caesar reveals the intensity of the indignation felt throughout the Greek world at Rome’s behaviour towards Corinth.° For a review of the epigrams on

the same subject (see below), cf. Gossage 75-8.’ l οἵους ἀνθ᾽ οἵων: as Gow-Page comment, the phrase has a tragic ring. It occurs frequently in Sophocles; cf. Aj. 503 οἵας λατρείας ἀνθ᾽ ὅσου ζήλου, 557 οἷος ἐξ οἵου τράφης, 923, Ant. 942, Tr. 1045, Eur. Alc. 144. Geffcken (1916, 137) compared

‘ Bücheler further assumed that Prop. 3.5,6 nec miser (mixta proposed by Rulinken) aera pare clade, Carinthe, tua (usually taken to mean the ‘Corinthian bronze’ produced by fire during the

city’s sack by Mummius; cf, for instance, Butler-Barber ad loc. For the alloy, see on Crin. 510 dpyupéw... πανείκελον) refers to the sacrilege involving the Necrocorinthia. The Necracorinthia consisted of bronze items, too, but were mainly pottery; for the fact that ὀστράκινα τορεύματα were small vases, cf. H, Payne, Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period

(Oxford 1931), 348-9. * Cichorius actually dated the poem to 29 ac, but, since his overall dating of the Mytilenean Inscriptions is inaccurate and outdated today (see Inir., Life and Work, n. 3), we can transfer his

dating, mutatis mutandis, as it were, to the journey that is now known as the ‘Third Embassy. δ Crinagoras is here comparable to the historian Timagenes who, although possessing Roman

friends, did not hesitate τὸ criticize Rome. See Bowersock (1965) 125f. * A. ]. Gossage, Ἵννο Implications of the ‘Trojan Legend, GER n.s. 2 (1955), 72-81.

AP 9,284 = 37

369

Leon. AP 7.740=75,6 HE φεῦ, γαίης daons ὅσσον ἔχει μόριον (contrast between

Crethos past wealth and his present share of land, i.e. his grave). Cf. also ‘Plato’ 7.268=18,4 FGE τόσσον ἄγος τόσσου κέρδεος ἀράμενος; see further Page FGE

177. A strong contrast is expressed in CEG 5=Peek 17,1f. (Athens, 447 ΒΟ) Ποῖον dyova pdxe& τελέσαντες deAm[ro] 7 dauyds Satpovics δλέσατ᾽ Eu πολέμοι. See Skiadas (1967) 56.

For the question ‘how ...?’ or ‘where is your past glory?’ in laments for cities, cf. Antip. Sid. 9.151=59,1-3 HE ποῦ τὸ περίβλεπτον κάλλος σέο, Awpi Κόρινθε, κτλ. See Alexiou 84f.; cf. also Agath. AP 9.153,18 πτόλι, πῇ σέο κεῖνα τὰ τείχεα,

κτλ. (on Troy).® For the lamentative effect of rhetorical questions in the opening of epigrams, see on Crin. 14,1 ri oe... εἴπω and on 16,11. οἰκήτορας: the word is often coloured by a nuance implying pride. Cf. the oracle of Delphi to the Spartans at Hdt. 7.220 ὦ Σπάρτης οἰκήτορες εὐρυχόροιο, κτλ.; cf.

also Aesch. Supp. 952, Soph. OC 728, Eur. Supp. 658. εὕραο: for the middle verb, cf. LSJ s.v. IV: ‘get for one’s self Cf. Od. 21.304, Aesch. Ag. 1588 μοῖραν ηὕρετ ἀσφαλῆ, Sept. 880. For the later form εὑράμην for εὑρόμην, cf. Antiphilus AP 9.29=31,1 GP, Jul. Aeg. API 181,2, anon. API 351,3. Phrynichus condemns εὕρασθαι at Ecl. 115 Rutherford. See Rutherford? 215ff., K-G 1 (2) 104. For the resolution of w in ao in the arsis of the foot, see Chantraine (1958) 52f.

ὦ ἐλεεινή: for the adjective, see on Crin. 45,1. For the apostrophe with ὦ, see

Intr., Language and Style, Apostrophes. 2 φεῦ... dupopin: ἀμμορίη (‘misfortune’) is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Od.

20.76), elsewhere only in the present epigram and at anon. AP 9.786=69,3 FGE. Apollonius in Lex. Soph. s.v. auuopin says ἀμμορίην τὴν κακὴν μοῖραν. Russo

comments on Od. 20.76 that, although the scholia interpret the phrase as ‘good and ill fortune; the Greek in fact means ‘what is fated and what is not fated’

Crinagoras use is in accordance with the ancient interpretation (cf. Ebeling s.v.), since in this context ἀμμορίη can only mean ‘ill fate, ‘misfortune, as Page

observes of this passage (commenting on anon. AP 9.786=69,3 FGE). The codex has dupopin, printed by Jens (311), Stadtmiiller, Waltz, and GowPage. Brunck, Jacobs’, *, and (1826) 336, Geist, Rubensohn, Holtze, Dibner,

Beckby, and Paton accept the reading ἀμμορίης of Ap. G., Ap. B., Ap. R., and Reiske (1754, 118 and 1766, 100); this is also printed by Page, who cites the line

® Cf. for instance, the persistent questions ‘how have you fallen?) ‘where is your glory?’ in the laments for Constantinople by Emmanuel Georgillas (Legrand 1880-1, 1.174 IL. 73f, 1449, 150M.) and by Matthew, bishop of Myrrha (ibid. 2.315ff., ll. 2375, 2400, 2425, etc.). Georgillas is also

referring to the destruction by the Turks of Corinth (and of other Greek cities). Cf. Il. 78, 83 & Κόρινθος πολύθλιβος πολὺ κακὸν τὸ εἶδες.

> W.G. Rutherford, The New Phrynichus (London 1881).

nr 9.284 = 37

in FGE, 375. In this case, μεγάλης goes with ἀμμορίης, ‘the great calamity to Greece’

(Paton).

Rubensohn

compared

Antistius

AP 7.366=2,3

deu πόσον

ἄλγος Ἑλλάδι and Antip. Thess. 7.367=63,4 GP φεῦ κείνης, Ἥλιε, θευμορίης.

However, the juxtaposition of three genitives seems improbable.'® In defence of P’s reading, Gow-Page cite two Sophoclean passages containing φεῦ + voc.

(instead of the more common ¢eé + gen.), Aj. 983 φεῦ τάλας and Ant. 1300 φεῦ φεῦ μᾶτερ ἀθλία, φεῦ τέκνον; add also, for instance, Eur. Ph. 1296 φεῦ δᾷ (-: γῆ),

Xen. Ag. 7,5 φεῦ ὦ Ἑλλάς. Stadtmüller cites passages in which the adjective ‘great’ qualifies Greece (Eur. Med. 440, Tr. 1115, and IA 1378). The difficulty here is the improbability of the description of Ἑλλάς as μεγάλῃ in Crinagoras time, even if one assumes that the poet has in mind Greece's past glory. A ‘big misfortune of Greece’ would perhaps seem more suitable. Cf. the expression συμφορὴ μεγάλη at Hdt. 3.117, 4.79, 5.35, 8.100; also the Homeric μέγα πῆμα at

I. 3.50, 6.282, 9.229, 17.99, al., Hes. Th. 592, Op. 56.'' The reading μεγάλη Ελλάδος ἀμμορίη could be thus suggested. This creates a hiatus at the diaeresis of the pentameter, which is a rare phenomenon (Gow-Page do not accept that it really occurs in the Garland; see GP 1 xli and Intr., Metre, Hiatus) but which

certainly appears in anon. AP 12.130=27,4 HE and, probably, in ‘Simon! 7.251=9,2 FGE; see further Page ad loc. and Page (1978) 31. However, the ‘misfortune of great Hellas’ is not impossible and it is accepted in the present edition. 3ff.: Crinagoras uses again an ἀδύνατον in 27: see 27,1f. Another ἀδύνατον involving the predicament of cities is found at Eur. IA 950-4, where Achilles swears that Agamemnon will not touch Iphigeneia unless the order of things is so overthrown that a barbarian dwelling becomes a city and Phthia disappears.’? Being ‘lower than Egypt’ and ‘more deserted than Libyan sand’ (desert) is an ἀδύνατον which belongs to the type of Sappho fr. 156 L-P πάκτιδος adupedeoréepa.../ χρύσω xpuoorepa, i.e. an exaggerated comparison with objects

which display par excellence the feature mentioned.'” The ‘Libyan sand’ also

1% The juxtaposition of three genitives αἱ Crin. 41,71. κακοσκηνεῦς ἐπὶ τέφρης / different case, as the phrasing eliminates any possibility of syntactical confusion. "A similar exclamation occurs in Georgillas’ lament, in regard to the villainy querors: 1.123f. [ἡ] φούρκωσις Ἀνατολῆς ἐπήρασι τὴν mdAuv,/ of Τούρκοι σκύλοι ἀσεβεῖς" μεγάλη! 12. See Dutoit 19 and Canter 331,, who cites the Euripidean example, placing it in type

ἀνδρός is a of the conὦ συμφορὰ I described

as follows: ‘things or conditions utterly impossible, or believed to be so, are true or would prove true sooner than the thing or condition mentioned by the writer could be true or capable of realization. ™ Demetr. Elac. 127: τὸ δὲ ‘ypuaw χρυσατέρα᾽ τὸ Σαπφικὸν ἐν ὑπερβολῇ λέγεται καὶ αὐτὸ καὶ

ἀδυνάτως, πλὴν αὐτῷ γε τῷ ἀδυνάτῳ χάριν ἔχει, οὐ ψυχρότητα, Cf also Hom. IL 10.437 λευκότεροι χιόνος, 18.610 θώρηκα φαεινότερον πυρὸς αὐγῆς, Pind, N. 4.81 Παρίου λίθου λευκοτέραν, al.; see RE. Tzamali, Syntax und Stil bei Sappho (Dettelbach 1996) on Sappho fr. 31,14 L-P (pp. 186-7) and fr, 98a,7 L-P (pp, 365-6), Lausberg 411, $ 910,3.

‚occurs as the second element of comparison, ‘lighter than the Libyan sand, at

Antiphilus AP 9.310=41,1f. GP pijyp’.../ Διβυκῆς κουφότερον ψαμάθου. Sand is often used to denote the immeasurable; see below, on “ιβυκῆς ... ἐρημοτέρη. The present ἀδύνατον is difficult to categorize (at least in terms of the classification of Canter and Dutoit), as it also combines the feature of a lament: it can be

described as I would prefer a (which is an ἀδύνατον, but also something far

worse than the actual fact, objectively), rather thar b (a reality which the author thus presents as utterly shocking). On the mourners’ exaggerated wishes expressed in laments, Alexiou (181) observes: ‘Often, the hyperbole of the wish is designed to impress upon the dead the extremity of the mourner's grief. (...) Frequently, the wish is a fanciful flight into the realm of the unreal and

impossible?" These lines also form a priamel, the lowness/devastation of other places

being the foil and the degradation of Corinth the climax.'* The poet also uses this stylistic device in 13 and 21: see ad locc., intr. notes. Crinagoras is, as it were, saying: Egypt is low and Libya is deserted, but Corinth, in her present state, is more abased than either’

3f. αὐτίκα: Crinagoras uses the word in senses not recognized by LSJ. Cf. Crin. 9,5, 23,5 (see ad locc.), Call. AP 5.23=63,6 HE. Here the nearest sense seems to

be ‘presently’ καἰγύπτου χθαμαλωτέρη: Rubensohn writes tral yap ἡ and Waltz and Beckby also consider in their apparatus the possibility that this is P’s reading before the correction (γὰρ ἡ Waltz, yapy Beckby). A popular emendation is Hecker's (1843, 314) καὶ γαίης, accepted by Dibner, Stadtmüller, Paton, Waltz, and Conca- Marzi. As Gow- Page remark, however, the expression ‘lower than earth’

is unparalleled and unconvincing. Giangrande (1975a, 39) compared the present phrase with Alpheus’ οὐ πολλῷ γ᾽ αἰπύτεραι πεδίων (AP 9.101=9,2 GP, on

the ruins of old cities) and defended the reading yain χθαμαλωτέρη (P's reading, as it seems, before C’s correction), rendering ‘O Corinth, I would have you lie as soil (yain) both (καί... καῦ more low and more deserted than Libya

“ For an impossible wish as a reaction to the destruction of a town, cf. the lament of Emmanuel Georgillas for Constantinople: Georgillas wishes, too, that he had experienced worse (and impossible) catastrophes rather than see Constantinople taken by the Turks (Legrand 1880-1, 1.173, 1. 117-20): Näxev ἀστράψειν αὐρανός͵ rdye κἀγῇ ἡ ὥρα' ἥλιος, σελήνη μηδαμοῦ νὰ μ᾽ εἶχαν ἀνατείλειν͵

καὶ τέτοια μέρα μελανὴ νὰ μ᾽ εἶχεν ξημερώσει, eis τοῦ μαΐον τοῦ μηνὸς σ᾽ τὰς εἴκοσι ἐννέα͵ κτὰ.

15 For the ἀδύνατον as a form of priamel, see Race 28-9. Ifa reading involving another area

(Aigeira, Gaza, Egypt, sec on καἰγύπτου χθαμαλωτέρη) is accepted, we will have a priamel with

geographical elements as both foil and climax. An early geographical priamel of this type (albeit

in a positive sense) is Theognis’ statement (783-8) that he has visited beautiful places like Sicily,

Euboea, and Sparta, but none is more dear to him than Megara, his own town; see Race 70.

372

AP 9.284 = 37

(χθαμαλωτέρη ... ἐρημοτέρη) rather than be..2'° However, this construction is 3

impossible. Crinagoras’ emphatic pairing of καί... καί at the same sedes of two

consecutive lines, together with the symmetry of the two comparatives (χθαμαλωτέρη and ἐρημοτέρη), suggests that a genitive is needed to counter the ‘Libyan

sand.

Brunck’s

καὶ πόντου

(printed

by Jacobs'), Jacobs’

xaiyetpns

(Jacobs! suggested δ᾽ Αἰγείρας, Jacobs? suggested δ᾽ Alyeipns, without printing either, and later (1826, 336) he printed xatyeipns,'” which was considered, with reservation,

by Rubensohn

(7, 54)

and accepted

in the text by Beckby),

Harbertons (324) «aiyaiou (Jacobs 1826, 336 had suggested, in the notes, xalyains, ‘si χθραμαλώτερος reperiretur pro κατώτερος"), Lumbs (64) κἀργείης, and David Vessey’s (in Hartigan 12, n. 29) καἰγιαλοῦ are unconvincing because they do not couple ‘Libyan sand’ adequately and/or because their ‘lowness’ is not par excellence characteristic. Ap. G. in margine and Ap. R. in textu have Γάζης (this was also independently suggested by Hermann, 1834, 756),

the city destroyed by Alexander Iannaeus (c.98 Bc).'* Gow-Page remark that it is doubtful whether this city of Judaea was well known enough to be a proverbial example. This view was recently challenged by Apostol, who argues that

Gaza was actually well known to Mytileneans, especially because of the two cities’ comparable situations. Both had benefited from Pompey; Pompey rebuilt Gaza c.63 Bc (for his attitude towards Mytilene, see above, intr. note). The

adjective χθαμαλωτέρη, then, refers to Gaza’s situation before Pompey’s reconstruction.'” The problem with this reading is that by 44 Bc Gaza was not ‘levelled’ any more and that an echo of her previous situation, even explained through the Mytileneans’ unfading allegiance to Pompey (i.e. to freedom), is not easily justified. An area in which ‘lowness’ is a generic feature, as is the desertion

of Libyan

sand,

is to be preferred.

Borthwick

(433)

suggested

Αἰγυπτίης (sc. γῆς or χώρης, with a synizesis in the last syllable, for which see

on Crin. 27,2 Γερμανίη... πίη) and remarked that the crags and the hollows of Corinth are proverbial (cf. Strabo 8.6,23), and that the contrast between Egypt and Corinth is thus emphatically stressed. Aiyvrrins (qualifying an understood γαίης), however, can hardly be coupled with “ιβυκῆς ψάμμου. Geflckens suggestion καἰγύπτου restores good sense and is supported by Theocr. 17.79 χθαμαλὰ Αἴγυπτος; Alan Griffiths (1970, 218) further noted the occurrence of 1° See also G. Giangrande, “Two Hellenistic Epigrams on Towns, QUCC 61 (1989), 119-20.

17. Aegeira, Bura, and Helice were Achaean towns destroyed by flood/earthquake; cf. Posid. fr. 310,140-2 Theiler (W. Theiler, Poseidonios, Die Fragmente, 2 vols., Berlin 1982) κατὰ ΠΠελοπόννησόν φασι τρεῖς "Alyeıpav Boüpav τε καὶ ὑψηλὴν Ἑλίκειαν / τείχεσιν ἣ τάχ᾽ ἔμελλε περὶ

βρύα μυρία pices. See further Gow-Page on Bianor AP 9.423=16,7 GP. 1® Cf. Joseph. AJ. 13.364 ὁ δὲ Ἀλέξανδρος τούτους τε ἀναιρεῖ καὶ τὴν πόλιν αὐτοῖς ἐπικατασκάψας ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, Strabo 16.2,30, See further RE 7.883.

19 See Apostol (2016) 31-3. 20 See Geffcken (1916) 137, also citing Pliny NH 6.33,166, where the level of the Red Sea is

reported to be 4% feet above that of the land of Egypt. The phrase χθαμαλὰ Αἴγυπτος refers to the Delta and the Nile valley; see Gow on Theocr. 17.79 and Borthwick 433.

AP 9.284 = 37

373

the two lands as a complementary or contrasting pair at Crin. 25,4 and Antiphilus AP 9.413=8,5f. GP οὐδὲ γὰρ αὖλαξ / Αἰγύπτου Λιβύης ψάμμου ἐπιστρέφεται.

A further suggestion may be ποίης, which would correspond to ψάμμου and not to “ιβυκῆς the balance being formed by two natural features (the grass, the sand) rather than by two places. A famous exaggerated comparison involving the πόα is Sappho 31,14 L-P χλωροτέρα δὲ ποίας. Crinagoras uses ποιηρόν in 44,2. Ποίης is palaeographically close to the corrupt yaiy or yds ἡ and the

syllable ya can be explained as the result of the influence of the second syllable of μεγάλης, which appears exactly above it in P. Ποίη can be easily used as an example of lowness,”' However, the aptness of the correspondence between Egypt and Libya, formed by Geffcken’s correction, is hard to overlook. Κόρινθε: Stadtmüller remarked that Crinagoras is imitating Antip. Sid. AP 9,151=59,1 HE Δωρὶ Κόρινθε, where the apostrophe to the city is also placed at the end of the hexameter. etOc.../.../ ἢν εἴθε + inf. is very rare. Cf. Ps.-Phocylides 45 εἴθε σε μὴ θνητοῖσι

γενέσθαι πῆμα ποθεινόν; see also end of note. A wish expressed by ai + inf. occurs twice in Homer: Od. 7.311-13, 24.376-80. See Monro 207, § 241, K-G ἢ (2) 21f. Hainsworth on Od. 7.311-14 explains the figure as a blend of the wish (at

γάρ + opt.) and the prayer (apostrophe to the god + inf.), whilst Chantraine (1963, 229 and 318) held that it results from the use of the infinitive after ὥφελον (cf. phrases like Il. 14.84 αἴθ ὥφελλες ... στρατοῦ ἄλλου 7 σημαίνειν); Garvie on

Od. 7.311-13 regards the figure as a combination of ὥφελον + inf. and at yap + opt. For Wackernagel’s discussion of the expression, see Langslow 291 with n. 17,” where the present passage is also cited. Hermann (1834, 755-7) also deals

with this phrasing, citing, along with Crinagoras’ verses, also Antip. Thess. AP 9.408 (see below, end of note). Both Wackernagel and Hermann associate the

expression with ὥφελον + inf. The phrase starting with in Greek mourning, from Andromache’ lament to expressing the mourner’s wish he/she had died before of the beloved and other unrealizable wishes (Alexiou sible wish in laments, see above on 3ff.

ὥφελον, ‘I ought, recurs modern Greek dirges, experiencing the death 178-80). For the impos-

Ἥ is equivalent to μᾶλλον... ἥ, as at (τίη. 44,4; cf. Il. 1.117 βούλομ᾽ ἐγὼ λαὸν

σῶν ἔμμεναι ἢ ἀπολέσθαι, Soph. Aj. 966 ἐμοὶ πικρὸς τέθνηκεν ἢ κείνοις γλυκύς: see Kamerbeek and Finglass ad loc. The expression εἴθε κτλ. has, of course, the sense βούλομαι which appears in this construction (with the comparative ἢ),

2! Χθαμαλός (cognate with χθών, χαμαξ see Chantraine 1979, 245), a Homeric word (Il. 13.683, Od. 11.194, 12.101), qualifies the grass at Opp. Hal. 1.25 ποῖαί re χθβαμαλαί (the scholiast ad loc. explains Bordvaı ταπειναὶ μικρὸν τῆς γῆς ἐξέχουσαι) and in [Opp.) Cyn. 2.198 χθαμαλοῖσιν ἐπ᾽ ἄνθεσι ποίης.

22 ἢ), R, Langslow, Jacob Wackernagel, Lectures on Syntax (Oxford 2009).

374

AP 9,284 = 37

especially in Homer. See K-GII (2), 303, n. 2. In the Anthology, cf. Antip. Thess,

11.24=3,5f. GP, with Gow-Page ad loc,

The same construction (εἴθε + inf....7) occurs at Antip. Thess. 9.408=113,1f, GP eide pe... mAaleodaı.../ N... στῆναι.

κεῖσθαι: the verb recurs in epigrams on destroyed cities; cf. Mundus AP 9.103=1,5 (on Mycenae), Honestus 9.250=6,3 GP (on Thebes), 9,425,2 and 426,6 (on Berytus). See Demoen 112 with n. 21.

Barbucallus

“Διβυκῆς ... ἐρημοτέρη: for ἐρῆμος--ἐρημαῖος applied to a deserted city, cf.

Pompeius AP 9.28=2,1 (on Mycenae), Alpheus 9.101=9,4 GP (on the same); also Antonius 9.102=1,3 (on the same), Antip. Thess. 9.408=113,5 (on Delos),

9.421=28,6, 9.550=94,5f. GP. Cf. Eur. fr. 828 TrGrF al γὰρ πόλεις eta’ ἄνδρες, οὐκ ἐρημία, Tr. 26f. ἐρημία yap πόλιν ὅταν λάβῃ κακή, / νοσεῖ ra τῶν θεῶν, «TA. For

the exaggerated comparison, cf. Pompeius AP 9.28=2,2 ἀμαυροτέρη παντὸς ἰδεῖν σκοπέλου (Mycenae), Alpheus 9,101=9,4 GP (Mycenae: a corrupt passage; see Gow-Page ad loc.). At Duris 9.424=1,2f. HE, Libya is compared to Ephesus,

destroyed by a flood; see Gow-Page on 31, Libya is sandy (Hdt. 2.12) and its solitude is paradigmatic in literature. Cf. Hdt. 2.32 τὰ δὲ κατύπερθε τῆς θηριώδεος ψάμμος τέ ἐστι καὶ ἄνυδρος δεινῶς καὶ ἔρημος πάντων. Also, Eur. Hel. 404, Ap. Rh. 4.1384, anon, AP 7.626=1,1-4 GP.

The ‘Libyan sand’ is usually a symbol of desolation (Antiphilus AP 9.413=8,6, Flaccus 7.290=3,2 GP) or of infinite number (anon. 12.145=8,3f. HE ἶσον... ΛΔιβύσσης / ψάμμου ἀριθμητὴν ἀρτιάσαι ψεκάδα, Catullus 7.3, Virg. Georg. 2.105f.). See Gow-Page on Antiphilus 41,1-2 GP (AP 9.310), Mynors”” on Virg. Georg. 2.103-8.?°

5 τοίοις: in a negative context, cf. Il. 10.145 τοῖον yap ἄχος, Nic. Th. 408 τοῖόν περ ἀυτμένα δεινόν ἐφίει, Opp. Hal. 2.433 τοῖον... ἀπεχθέα.... ἰόν, [Opp.] Cyn. 2.606 τοῖον γένος, αἰσχρὸν ἰδέσθαι. m

7

3

4

QO

7

παλιμπρήτοισι: Crinagoras speaks contemptuously of the freedmen as if they were slaves of the worst quality. Cf. Call. fr. 203,55 κα[ὶ] δοῦλον εἶναί φησι καὶ παλίμπρητον, Hesych. s.v. ἀδούλευτος" οἰκέτης Evi δεδουλευκὼς Kal μὴ παλίμπρατος, Pollux 3.125 ὁ δὲ πολλάκις πραθείς, ὃν εἴποι τις ἂν παλίμπρατον, παλίμβολος ἂν λέγοιτο (cf. also Menander Sikyon. 11 Sandbach” παλίμβολος, Lex. Seg., Gl. Rh. 291,29-31 Bekker παλίμβολος"... ὁ δοῦλος ὁ διὰ πονηρίαν

23 R.A.B. Mynors, Virgil’s Georgics (Oxford 1990). 24 ‘The impossibility of counting the grains of the sand is proverbial: Zenob. 1.80 Aypov μετρεῖν' ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδυνάτων καὶ ἀνεφίκτων; for this ἀδύνατον in Pindar, see Dutoit 10ff.; cf. Pind. O. 2.98-100. See also Canter 37-8, type V (‘an impossible count or estimate’). The Budé commentators compare the ‘souffrances des amours garconniéres assimilées aux ἀδύνατα᾽ (anon. AP 12.145=8,3f. HE) with Apollo's declaration at Hdt. 1.47 οἶδα δ᾽ ἐγώ ψάμμου τ᾽ ἀριθμὸν καὶ μέτρα θαλάσσης.

25 FH. Sandbach, Menandri Reliquiae Selectae (Oxford 1990).

AP 9.284 = 37

375

πιπρασκόμενος καὶ ἄλλοτε ἄλλους δεσπότας κεκτημένος).. Ancey (140), influ-

enced by Strabo's account of the reselling of the Necrocorinthia (see intr. note), unnecessarily suggested παλιμπρήταισι, from the rare word παλιμπρήτης, the

person who ‘sells again. διά... δοθεῖσα: Salmasius corrected P's δεθεῖσα to δοθεῖσα, according to a mar-

ginal note in Ap. B. In the commentary of both his editions, Jacobs rightly observed that διά belongs with δοθεῖσα. Suggestions such as διαβᾶσα (Misc.

Lips. 1745, 131),*” διάπασμα (direptum permissa, Reiske 1754, 118 and 1766, 100, who put a full stop after δοθεῖσα and changed the following θλίβειν to ὄλβια), διάπαστα (sc. ὀστέα, Harberton 324), διέπειν σε, διέπουσι, Or διόποισι

(Stadtmüller) are far-fetched and unnecessary. The reading διὰ... δεθεῖσα (accepted by Giangrande, 1975a, 39) ‘tied up to the slaves’ does not make any sense. For διαδίδωμι in the sense ‘hand over, cf. Pind. Pae. 7b 16 ἐμοὶ τοῦτο[ν δ) ιέδω- / ka» ἀθάνατ[ο]ν πόνον, For the tmesis, cf. Crin. 25,1f. dia... τέμνει, 28,2 δι᾿... ἕκετο, 32,5 ctv... λάβευ. For πᾶσα in the sense ‘all’ (LSJ s.v. IT),

referring to the ‘entire’ city, cf., for instance, Il. 13.13 ἐφαίνετο πᾶσα μὲν Ἴδη, Ap. Rh. 3.792 πόλις περὶ πᾶσα βοήσει (for the preference of the sense ‘the

whole city’ against ‘every city, see Hunter ad loc.), Ap. Rh. 3.894, Eur. lon 1225, Hadrian or Tiberius AP 9.387=Tiberius 1,6 FGE Θεσσαλίην κεῖσθαι πᾶσαν dm Αἰνεάδαις.

6 θλίβειν... ὀστέα: the ροεῖς indignation has been seen as referring to the new inhabitants’ attitude towards the Necrocorinthia (Bücheler 1883, 510-11, Cichorius 1888, 5If., Bowersock 1965, 94f.; see further intr. note). As θλίβειν

does not mean to dig up, but to press upon, the phrase θλίβειν ὀστέα, taken literally, does not, of course, concern the Necrocorinthia (as Hartigan (12)

observes); an allusion to bones, however, seems indeed probable; see also above, intr. note. Θλίβειν, ‘press, is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Od. 17.221 ὃς πολλῇς φλιῇσι

παραστὰς θλίψεται ὦμους; for the Aeolic form φλίψεται, perhaps preferable here, see Russo ad loc.) and a common Attic word, mostly prosaic (see Mineur on Call. H. 4.35); cf. also Aristoph. Lys. 314, Pax 1239, [Theocr.] 20.4. Rubensohn compared Pers. 1.37 non levis cippus nunc imprimit ossa?, for which see Kißel”®

16 On the villainy of the present inhabitants of a city captured or destroyed in the past, cf. also the lament of bishop Matthew for Constantinople in Legrand 1880-1, 2.313,11. 2320, 2378, 2420, etc.

47 ‘The author, with the initials I. C. $. (in the article ‘Explanatio Epigrammatum Quorundam

Graecorum

a 10. lensio pro ANEKAOTOIZ Editorum, Misc. Lips. 4 (1745), 94-138), makes fur-

ther totally unnecessary changes lo the present epigram: ἔστι instead of εἴθε in}. 3, a full stop after ἐρημοτέρη, and H, obviously ἤ at the beginning ofl. 5 in the sense gue. An author whose initials

match 1. C. S. and published in other volumes of Miscellanea Lipsiensia is Johann Conrad Schwarz (1676-1747), who was Professor af Theology and of Greek and Latin Literature in Gymnasium Casimirianum in Coburg. 28 W. Kißel, Aulus Persius Flaccus, Satiren (Heidelberg 1990) .

376

AP 9.284 = 37

ad loc. Earth presses down on the bones and is thus not ‘light, as, according to

the common funerary wish, it should be; see on Crin. 17,7f. The poet uses the same expression, in a negative context, ofa dead villain, at 41,1f. For the concept

of the grave as a burden to the dead, cf. Leon. AP 7.655=17,1f. HE ἡ δὲ περισσή / ἄλλον éemBAtBor.../ στήλη; see Gow-Page on 17,3f. and Geflcken on Leon, 10=AP 7.503,1, Gutzwiller (1998) 101.

ἀρχαίων: the word never occurs in Homer or Apollonius, Here it describes the original membersofthe family of Corinth. Cf. Call. Η.5.60 ἀρχαίων... Θεσπιέων; Bulloch prefers to take the adjective in its other sense, ‘old’=zpdrepos, which sets the story ‘firmly in the past in relation to the supposed occasion of the hymn’ (see Bulloch ad loc.), and cites other examples where ἀρχαῖος, qualifying persons and cities, has this sense ‘of old’ (Bacchyl. 5.150f. Maehler ἀρχαίαν πόλιν / Πλευρῶνα, Rhianus fr. 25,2 Powell IIöppns...apxains, Nic. Th. 487

ἀρχαίη Μετάνειρα, al.), suggesting the same meaning for Arat. 99 ἄστρων ἀρχαῖον πατέρ᾽ ἔμμεναι. Kidd (ad loc.) prefers the sense ‘original’ for both the Callimachean passage and that of Aratus. In the present passage, the senses

are anyway close to each other, the origina! founders of a city and leaders of a historical family being, of course, also old. Cf. Soph. Ant. 981f. ἀρχαιογόνων / ... Ἐρεχθειδᾶν, On the antiquity of cities, cf., for instance, Crin. 32,4 ἀρχαίην... Dyepinv, Alex. Aet. AP 7.709=1,1 HE Σάρδιες ἀρχαῖος πατέρων νομός, anon. 7.544=24,2 FGE πόλιν ἀρχαίαν... Θαυμακίαν.

For a similar hyperbaton, with a homoeoteleuton at the end of the two hemistichs of the pentameter, cf. Diosc. AP 7.411=21,6, Antip. Sid. 7.409=66,2, and Asclepiades or Archias 9.64=Asclepiades 45,8 HE ἀρχαίων... ἡμιθέων (for the

likely attribution of the latter poem to Archias, see Gow-Page, Guichard, and Sens on Asclep. 45, intr. note). The figure is very frequent in Crinagoras; see Intr., Metre, Homoeoteleuton and agreement between pentameter ends. Βακχιαδῶν: P has Baxxıdöwv, retained by some old editors (Reiske, Brunck, Jacobs’ and Jacobs’, Holtze, Rubensohn). The Bacchiads were the aristocratic

family who ruled Corinth and were overthrown by Cypselus in the mid-seventh century; after their flight they settled in Corcyra and elsewhere; see Hdt. 5.92, Diod. Sic. 7.9, Paus. 2.4, Strabo 7.7,6. Cf. Ap. Rh. 4.1212f. eioöre Βακχιάδαι

γενεὴν Ἐφύρηθεν ἐόντες / ἀνέρες ἐννάσσαντο μετὰ χρόνον, «7 A,; the scholiast offers

ἃ mythological explanation of the expulsion of the Bacchiads, reporting that this was their punishment for their involvement in the murder of Actaeon, son

of Melissus. Cf. Diod. Sic. 8.10, Plut. Mor. 773a-b.”

29. For a further discussion of the story, see E. Will, Korinthiaka (Paris 1955), 180-7.

AP 9.430 = 38 Τῆς ὄιος γενεὴ μὲν Ἀγαρρική, ἔνθα τ᾿ Ἀράξεω ὕδωρ πιλοφόροις πίνεται Ἀρμενίοις, χαῖται δ᾽, ov μήλοις ἅτε mov μαλακοῖς ἔπι μαλλοΐ, Ψ

-“

id

3

’

4

?

5

μι

’ὔ

λ

-

ΒΩ

λλ

fl

ψεδναὶ δ᾽, ἀγροτέρων τρηχύτεραι χιμάρων" 5.

νηδὺς δὲ τριτοκεῖ ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος, ἐκ δὲ γάλακτος

θηλὴ ἀεὶ μαστοῦ πλήθεται οὐθατίου" βληχὴ δ᾽ ἀσσοτάτω τερένης μυκήματι μόσχου" bid 4 3 ~ f 7 fa ἄλλα yap ἀλλοῖαι πάντα φέρουσι year. ——

AP 9.430 Κριναγόρου eis πρόβατον τρίτακον [(] καὶ νῦν εἰσὶ τοιαῦτα πρόβατα οὐκ ἐν Ἀρμενίᾳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν Σκυθίᾳ [Π ad fin.] θαυμαστόν caret Pl

1 ἔνθα τ᾽ Schneider: ἐντὸς P| Ἀράξεω apogrr.: -£eoP

3 χαῖται Salm.: χεῖται P | ἔπι

Schneider tenore retracto pro verbo ἔπεισι intellegens; contra, pro praepositione ego,

paddoi Schneider: ἐπὶ μαλλοῖς P Reiske n. 805, Brunck n. 22, Rubensohn n. 36

The sheep is of Agarrian origin, where Araxes’ water is drunk by the Armenians who wear hats, and its fleece is not like the wool on soft sheep, but it is sparse, rougher than that of wild goats; and its belly bears thrice every year, and its udder'’s teat is always full of milk; and its bleat is very near the lowing of a tender calf; different countries bear everything different. A description of a strange kind of sheep.

The features of this sheep that distinguish it from the rest of its kind are emphatically placed at verse-openings, followed by the presentation of its specialities: χαῖται 5’...(1. 3), νηδὺς de... (1. 5), θηλή.... (1. 6), βληχή 6°...(1. 7).

The ending line opens with ἄλλα, a generalizing pronoun which comprises all possible different characteristics of objects and creatures in the world. For Crinagoras’ care in the construction of his epigrams, see Intr., Language and Style, Structure. The vocabulary of Il. 5f. of this epigram is a variation of Crin. 23,1f. see ad loc., on evOndov.../... πουλυγαλακτοτάτην.

378

AP 9.430 = 38

The reference might be to the Armenian mouflon, a wild sheep related to the Ovis musimon of Corsica and Sardinia. See further below, on 3f.; also

Chaumont 186f. Other recorded peculiarities of sheep: the small size of the ones herded by the Indian Psylli (Ael. NA 16.37); the Indian sheep and goats

are larger than asses (Ael. NA 4.32), this information probably taken from Ctesias’ Indica, reported in Photius’ Bibl. 46b35ff. Aristotle also says ἐν δὲ Συρίᾳ τὰ πρόβατα τὰς οὐρὰς ἔχει TO πλάτος πήχεος, τὰ δ᾽ ὦτα ai αἶγες σπιθαμῆς καὶ παλαιστῆς, καὶ ἔνιαι συμβάλλουσι κάτω τὰ ὦτα πρὸς τὴν γῆν (HA 606413--15),

while Ctesias, too, speaks about the large size of the tail of Indian sheep (Phot. loc. cit., fr. 45i FGrHist). This information is also reported by Aelian (NA 3.3). Cf. Hdt. 3.113, of a kind of Arabian sheep: ἔχει τὰς οὐρὰς μακράς, τριῶν πήχεων οὐκ ἐλάσσονας. See Auberger 170, n. 60." For peculiarities of sheep in regard to

their hair, see further below, on 3f. See also below, on τριτοκεῖ, For evidence about the wealth in animals of Armenia, cf. Ael. NA 17.31 kai πᾶσα μὲν οὖν ἡ Ἀρμενία θηρίων ἀγρίων τροφός τε ἅμα καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν: ἡ δὲ πεδιὰς ἔτι καὶ

μᾶλλον ἡ πρὸς τῷ ποταμῷ. See further Chaumont 186f. The poem is perhaps connected with the expedition of Tiberius to Armenia in 20 Bc, as is Crin. 28 (see Chaumont 18)ff., Gandini 48f.). The account of

a curious kind of animal of a foreign land is comparable to Crin. 30, where we hear about the device used by Ligurian bandits to put dogs off their track, and, more generally, to other poems reporting impressions and incidents from voyages: cf. 17, 23, 31. This does not necessarily mean that the poet travelled

to Armenia and saw the animal there, although this possibility cannot be excluded. See below, on τῆς ötos. 1f.: perhaps a reminiscence/variation of Il. 21.157f., the account of Asteropaeus origin from the river Axius: αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ γενεὴ ἐξ Ἀξιοῦ εὐρὺ ῥέοντος, / Ἀξιοῦ, ὃς

κάλλιστον ὕδωρ ἐπὶ γαῖαν tna.

τῆς ὄιος: cf. the similar opening of Adaeus AP 6.258=2,1 GP, where the poet offers, inter alia, a ewe and a heifer to Demeter; see below, on πᾶν Eros. The usual form in Homer is the genitive of dis: in Homer we have both forms 610s

and οἷός, depending on the requirements of the metre. For the genitive singular, cf. Il. 9.207, Od. 4.764 (ὄιος), Il. 12.451, Od. 1.443 (oiös). When

metre

allows both forms, the manuscript tradition prefers vos. See Chantraine

(1958) 219. The definite article has puzzled critics who have suggested alterations (τῆλ᾽ Stadtmüller; ἦν, dios γενεή or ἠνίδ᾽, dis γενεήν = ‘siehe’ Sitzler 117). Gow-Page

remark that, whether with or without the article, the poet must be describing an actual specimen ofa type of sheep imported from Armenia, which his audience will also have in mind. It is more natural to assume that the poet has heard * J. Auberger, Ctésias, Histoires de l Orient (Paris 1991).

AP 9.430=38

37

apd

accounts of the strangeness of the Armenian sheep and has written an epigram on the subject, although the possibility that the poet accompanied Tiberius in his expedition cannot be excluded (cf. above, intr. note). Chaumont (184f.)

suggests that Crinagoras heard the descriptions from educated members of the army who were familiar with the area, its inhabitants and animals, and associates these members with the cohors studiosa of Horace (Epist. 1.3,6-8; for the

cohors, see Mayer on Epist. 1.3,2). At any rate, the definite article can be kept, as the audience was presumably aware of the situation described. Occasionally, Crinagoras leaves ambiguous or unclarified points in his poems, which can be explained by presupposing knowledge of the matter in question on the part of the audience. See Intr., Language and Style, Brevity. yeven: yeven occurs very often at this sedes of the hexameter (for instance Il. 4.60, 6.24, 6.149, 9.161, al., Call. H. 1.36, Theocr. 12.18, Ap. Rh. 1.20, 2.990,

4.1016). For yeven referring to animals, cf. Il, 5.265 (of the horses of Aeneas, same sedes), Od. 15.175 (of an eagle), [Mel.] AP 9.363,16, Nonnus D. 15.188, and often in Oppian (Hal. 1.611, 4.168, 5.92, same sedes). Γένος can be also used for

the description of races of animals: cf. Hdt. 3.113, of the two kinds of the Arabian sheep (see intr. note). Ayappırn: Bothe (in Dibner) suggested: est in Armenia circa montem Ararat et

Araxem vicus Agorrhi. Hinc forsan epitheton repetendum. However, this place is

known to be ofa later date and it is thus difficult to identify it with Crinagoras’ Agarra.” Jacobs assumed that the adjective derives from Ayappa, a town in western Susiana (see RE s.v.);* Salmasius (1689b, 165) suggested that the reference is to Agaroi, a Sarmatian tribe to the west of the palus Maeotis (see RE s.v.).

On the grounds that the distance between these regions and Araxes is more than five hundred miles, these identifications were rejected by Gow-Page, who held that some place named ‘Agarra’ must have existed in Armenia. Salmasius (1689b, 165) had tried to solve the problem of the distance between the location of the Sarmatian tribe and Armenia by suggesting that the sheep was brought from Sarmatia to Armenia, and that some information was perhaps given in an

initial couplet now lost. However, such a loss is unlikely: this would result in a highly unusual ten-lined epigram; see Gow-Page on Il. 1-2. Furthermore, the phrasing of the couplet seems to strongly suggest the construction ‘the sheep is from Agara (Ὁ), where Araxes flows, and Schneider's and other critics’ ἔνθα (see next note) addresses a logical need for a conjunctive local adverb. Other

implausible suggestions are yeven, tv’ dyappdov and γενεὴ μέν, iv’ ἀφριόεντος Ἀράξεω of Geist (34-5), who retained P’s ἐντὸς Apagew, in an effort to deal

> See Chaumont 185f. with n. 31. * Jacobs! suggested that the poet confused the Araxes of the area (cf. RE s.v, Araxes 4) with the Armenian Araxes. Such a mistake, however, seems highly unlikely.

380

AP 9.430 = 38

with

the need

for a local adverb,

and

ἀγαρρικόεντος

Apdfew

of Ellis,* who

translated ‘the sheep is of a breed that drinks the water of agaricum-growing Araxes to clothe the felt-wearing Armenians’ (for Agaricum, the plant related to the Sarmatian region Agaria, see, for instance, Frisk s.v.). Although P’s read-

ing is closer to the latter suggestion, the construction and phrasing of the sentence render it impossible.

Chaumont concludes: ‘Un fait peu contestable, cest qu’Agarra est ἃ chercher dans la vallée de ’Araxe ou ἃ proximité, a une distance plus ou moins grande

d’Artaxata, et quelle était le centre de la région dow provenait la race de brebis decrite par Krinagoras. A possible solution of the problem is offered by the information given by Strabo, 11.14,3: ὁ δὲ Ἀράξης (...) κάμπτει πρὸς δύσιν καὶ πρὸς ἄρκτους καὶ παραρρεῖ τὰ Alapa πρῶτον, εἶτ᾽ Ἀρτάξατα, πόλεις Ἀρμενίων: ἔπειτα διὰ τοῦ Ἀραξηνοῦ πεδίου πρὸς τὸ Κάσπιον ἐκδίδωσι πέλαγος. It is possible that the

Armenian town given by Strabo as A@apa (but of pronunciation unknown to us in the local language) results in the spelling Ayapa (-pp- for metrical reasons) in Crinagoras. Another, weaker possibility involves Mount Aga, reported by Pliny to be in the region of Greater Armenia: NH 5.20 oritur [Euphrates] in praefectura Armeniae Maioris Caranitide, ut prodidere ex iis qui proxime viderant Domitius Corbulo in monte Aga, etc. This solution presupposes that the area under discussion is near the sources of both Araxes

and Euphrates (which are in fact in a relatively close distance from each other); however, the formation of Agaricus from the name Aga remains peculiar and unlikely. ἔνθα τ᾽: Coisl. 352 has ayappırn ἀράξεω. Par. Supp. Gr. 243, Ap. G. (and its copies Paris. Supp. Gr. 1168 and 45), and Ap. R., reading (except for Supp. Gr. 45) ἐντὸς Ἀράξεω in textu, have ἔνθ᾽ ὅθ᾽ A paw in margine. It is noteworthy that Paris. Supp. Gr. 45 exceptionally reads ἔνθ᾽ ἀράξεω in textu, this perhaps being an ‘editorial’ choice of Ménage. P’s ἐντός seems to be the result of a correction, the r overwritten perhaps on a @. For the copies of Ap. G. and their scribes, see Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Apographs of B Apographon Guietianum. Parisinus Gr. 2742 (Ap. G.) and related Apographs. Pierson’s (1759, 422) ἔνθα γ᾽ is accepted by Brunck and Jacobs’. O. Schneider's

(1845, 809) ἔνθα 7; printed by Waltz, Gow-Page, and Beckby, is preferable, since it, too, restores a perfectly satisfactory meaning at minimal cost and furthermore is supported by similar phrasings in Homer at the same sedes (Il. 2.594 ἔνθα re Μοῦσαι, 4.247 ἔνθα re νῆες, 5.305, Od. 11.475, 13.107, 19,178). Other sug-

gestions are much inferior (for some of them, see prev. note; add ἔνθεν Reiske 1754, 176 and 1766, 149, οὗ μέγ᾽ Piccolos 54, ἢ τὸ Hecker 1843, 329). Stadtmiiller

* R. Ellis, ‘On some epigrams of the Greek Anthology; JPh 11 (1882), 26.

AP 9.430 = 38

381

emended to ἐγγύς enclosing the phrase (ἐγγύς... Ἀρμενίοις) into a parenthesis,

and thus creating an unnatural construction. Apafew/... Ἀρμενίοις: for the river of Armenia which flows into the Caspian

Sea, see RE s.v. Araxes 2. Cf., for instance, Strabo 11.14,4, Plut. Ant. 49.3,

Pomp. 34.2f. For the expression, see on Crin. 28,6 πινόμενοι. Grammatical

yariation with Apd&ns is found also at verse-end in Crin. 28,5, and not elsewhere in the Anthology. Ἀράξεω occurs also at verse-end at Ap. Rh. 4.133. For other genitives in -ew with synizesis at the same sedes of the hexameter, cf. Leon. AP 5.206=43,1, 6.289=42,1, and 6.300=36,1, Antip. Sid. 7.303=26,5,

Diosc. 7.351=17,1

HE,

Eryc.

6.255=5,5

GP.

For the epic genitive,

see

Chantraine (1958) 198.

πιλοφόροις: at Dio Cass. 68,9, the word denotes Dacian nobles. Decebalus sends envoys to Trajan whom he has chosen from among the most reputable of his people, οὐκέτι τῶν κομητῶν ὥσπερ τὸ πρότερον, ἀλλὰ τῶν πιλοφόρων TOUS

ἀρίστους. The felt-capped are distinguished from the long-haired Dacians, who were of lower social rank. Of Scythians, cf. πιλοφορικῶν in Lucian Scyth. 1. In the Anthology [Lucian] has πιλοφορεῖν at 11.403,4. For πῖλος and its use, cf. Gow-Page on Antiphilus AP 6.199=16,2 GP. In Homer the word signifies a lining of a helmet (Il. 10.265): as a cap, Hes. Op. 545f. κεφαλῆφι δ᾽ ὕπερθεν / πῖλον

ἔχειν ἀσκητόν. Notable is Strabos information about the fact that many Armenian customs are the same as those of the Medes, and that the Persians,

too, have inherited some of the Median habits, including the costume: Strabo 11.13,9 τιάρα γάρ τις καὶ κίταρις καὶ πῖλος Kal χεριδωτοὶ χιτῶνες, KTA.; SEE Chaumont 184 with n. 26. On several Roman coins Armenians are depicted

with the head covered with different kinds of caps: see Chaumont 188f. πίνεται: for the expression ‘drink a river, referring to the inhabitants of the area where the river is located, see on Crin. 28,5f. πινόμενοι. Note the sound effect of mAo-, mive- in this line. See also next note.

3f.: for sheep with rough wool, resembling goat’s rather than sheep's, cf. the description of [Oppian] of the Yellow Sheep of Gortynia, Cyn. 2.379-81: λάχνη πορφυρόεσσα δ᾽ ἐπὶ χροὸς ἐστεφάνωται / πολλή τ᾽ οὐχ ἁπαλή re τάχ᾽ αἰγὸς ἂν ἀντιφερίζοι / τρηχυτάτη χαίτῃ δυσπαίπαλος, οὐκ ὀΐεσσι (mentioned already by

Brunck as ἃ parallel to the present description). Certain stylistic resemblances suggest that [Oppian] perhaps has in mind Crinagoras’ description: rpyxurarn χαίτῃ (~yatrat.../... τρηχύτεραι), οὐκ ὀΐεσσι (~od μήλοις, «rA.). [Oppian] uses

Crinagoras’ image in exact opposition, since the wool of the Yellow Sheep is

πολλή τ᾽ οὐχ ἁπαλή Te, while that of Crinagoras’ sheep is rough but, on the contrary, ψεδνή. It is further noteworthy that [Oppian] uses λάχνη to indicate the animal's wool in the first reference to it, a word which is used in a similar phrasing by Homer to sketch Thersites’ head, qualified by the Homeric ἅπαξ ψεδνός, appearing in the present epigram for the first time since Homer in

382

AP 9.430 = 38

extant poetry (Il. 2.219 ψεδνὴ δ᾽ ἐπενήνοθε Adyvy; cf. below, on ψεδναῶ. Thig perhaps indicates that [Oppian] goes back to Homeric vocabulary through. Crinagoras’ image.

For sheep that have goat's hair, cf. Strabo 5.2,7 γίνονται δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα (sc. in Sardinia) of τρίχα φύοντες aiyeiav ἀντ᾽ ἐρέας κριοί, καλούμενοι δὲ μούσμωνες; also Plin. NH 8.73 Histriae Liburniaque pilo proprior quam lanae. See Kelley

1.317, Chaumont 186. Cf. also Ael. NA 17.10 (reporting information from Dinon of Colophon (fourth century Bc), about Ethiopian sheep) πρόβατα ἐρίων μὲν ψιλά, τρίχας δὲ καμήλων ἔχοντα; the opposite is also recorded: Ael. NA 17.34

(reporting information from Ctesias about the Caspian Camels): ἁπαλαὶ γάρ εἰσι σφόδρα al τούτων τρίχες, ws καὶ rots Μιλησίοις ἐρίοις ἀντικρίνεσθαι τὴν μαλακότητα (cf. below on μαλακαῖς). Note further Aristotle's report that goats

in Cilicia are shorn like sheep (HA 606a,18f.). sheep's wool, see below on τρηχύτεραι. Notable is the alliteration of μ and A in line play with three words beginning with pad(A)-, nected etymologically in antiquity: cf. Et. Gud. associated with μῆλον.

For the possible roughness of 3. More specifically, there is a μηλ-ν two of which were cons.v. μαλλός, where this noun is

χαῖται... μαλλοί: certain emendations have been made to cure P’s obviously corrupt passage. Jacobs” proposed, without printing it, χαῖται δ᾽ od μήλοιο

γένους, Hecker (1843, 330) suggested the replacement of ἅτε mou by σπάτεος (σπάτος explained by Hesychius as δέρμα, σκύτος), Ellis (1890, 214) suggested οὐ μήλοισιν ἅτ᾽, οὐ μαλακοῖς ἐπὶ μαλλοῖς (‘the hair is not as sheep’s, not with soft

naps’), Piccolos (54) replaced που by μνοῦς and Stadtmüller by χνοῦς; none of these is an easy-to-explain corruption or offers a natural phrasing and meaning. As Gow-Page observe, the reading of Salmasius (1689b, 165) μήλων (appearing in Coisl. 352 (see Intr., Manuscript Tradition, p. 39), accepted by Brunck and Jacobs’) does not improve the text without any further change. The suggestion of Reiske (1754, 176 and 1766, 150), accepted by Waltz and MarziConca, χαῖται δ᾽ οὐ μήλοις ἅτε που μαλακοῖς ἐπίμαλλοι (“coma non est densa,

crispa, mollis, qualis esse solet ovibus delicatis, ‘sa toison nest pas &paisse comme la fine laine des tendres brebis’), results in the formation of the word ἐπίμαλλοι, attributed to χαῖται and forced to mean ‘thick’ (cf. πηγεσίμαλλος, δασύμαλλος,

βαθύμαλλος). What is more, the translations of this reading seem to dismiss the problem of the dative μήλοις... μαλακοῖς, rendered as a loosely ‘local’ dative (‘ovibus, ‘des brebis’) and the preposition errlis not exploited so as to justify the dative μήλοις." O. Schneider (1845, 809), followed by Dübner, Rubensohn, and

> A parallel in terms of construction and in part of vocabulary that illustrates the need for the dative as a complement to a verb compound with ἐπέ, including a comparison and involving imagery with sheep, is Aristoph. Nub, 978 τοῖς αἰδίοισι Spdaos καὶ χνοῦς ὥσπερ μήλοισιν ἐπήνθει.

AP 9.430 = 38

383

Paton, put a comma after χαῖται §’and read μαλακοὶ ἔπι μαλλοί, ‘Haare, nicht,

wie wohl sonst die Schafe, weiche Vliesse tragen sie, sparsamer jedoch u.s.w, obviously taking ἔπι as equivalent to ἔπεισι, as Rubensohn, Stadtmiiller, and Gow-Page note (Beckby partly adopts Schneider's reading, printing μαλακοῖς ἔπι μαλλοί, but translating ‘flockige Wolle nicht hat es, wie weich sie die Lämmer besitzen‘).

Schneider’s μαλλοί offers reasonable meaning and the corruption can be explained by the datives (Ἀρμενίοις, μήλοις, μαλακοῖς), which might have caused the same ending for μαλλοί. The verb ἔπεισι, however, fails to create a satisfactory phrasing. P’s μαλακοῖς can be retained as an attribute to μήλοις (see below, ad loc.). It is better to read ἔπι as a preposition and change only μαλλοῖς to μαλλοί. Thus we have the construction χαῖται δ᾽ οὐκ ἅτε που μαλλοὶ ἐπὶ μαλακοῖς

μήλοις and εἰσί is to be understood. The following ψεδναί stands as predicative to χαῖται, through an understood copulative εἰσί ‘hair is on them, not such as

the hair on soft sheep, but it is sparse, etc. Note that ἐστί is also understood in the opening sentence. Are continues the nominative χαῖται introducing μαλλοί of the same case and part of the speech (both nouns).

χαῖται: Salmasius’ correction (in his edition of the poem, 1689b, 165) of P's χεῖται. In Homer the word designates the flowing hair of men, gods, and horses’ manes; at verse-opening also in [Theocr.] 20.23, Xenocr. AP 7.291=1,1

FGE. Of a lion’s mane, cf. Eur. Ph. 1121. Of animals’ hair, cf. [Opp.] Cyn. 2.162 (a kind of wild bulls), 2.381 (the Yellow Sheep; see above on 3f.), and 3.255 (of the hair of the animal known as the Wild Horse), See Mair ad loc. Oppian uses

the word to designate the bristles of various fishes in Hal. 2.373, 3.147 (verse-opening). ἅτε mov: the expression does not appear elsewhere, with the exception of

three occurrences in Procopius (Bell. 5.19,4, 6.1,12; Aed. 4.3,4). Cf. the prosaic use of ὅπου at Crin. 30,1; see ad loc.° For ἅτε in a hyperbaton (though not identical to the present one), cf. Ap. Rh. 4.488f. πάντα δ᾽ ὅμιλον / πῦρ ἅτε δηιόωντες ἐπέδραμον. μαλακοῖς: the softness of sheep's fleece is traditional (Od. 4.124, Theoer. 5.50f.,

5.98, and 28.12, Ap. Rh. 1.1090). With P’s reading, accepted here, ‘soft’ is attributed to sheep, rather than to μαλλοί; thus, unless an adjectival enallage is discerned, the poet offers a variation of the usual motif. Aristotle believed that the wool of timid animals is soft: cf. Physiogn. 806b,8 δειλότατον μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἔλαφος λαγωὸς πρόβατα καὶ τὴν τρίχα μαλακωτάτην

ἔχει. Milesian wool was famous for its softness; cf. Strabo 12.8,16.

$ For words or expressions attested in epigrammatists and belonging to the prosaic tradition or re-appearing in late prose, cf. Giangrande 1975a, 41, n. 30 and 1975b, 15f.

384

AP 9.430 = 38

μαλλοί; for the reading, see above, on χαῖται... μαλλοί, Cf. Hes. Op. 234 εἰροπόκοι δ᾽ dues μαλλοῖς καταβεβρίθασιν, Compounds of the word in poetry occur, for instance, at 1], 3.197 (ἀρνειῷ.... πηγεσιμάλλῳ), Od. 9.425 (dies... δασύμαλλοι),

Pind. P 4.161 (δέρμα κριοῦ βαθύμαλλον). MaAAos is quite rare in poetry, occurring occasionally in tragedy: Aesch. Eur, 45, Soph. Tr. 690, OC 475 (sing., as

‘wool’), Eur. Ba. 113 (pl, of human hair). For a study on the origin and meaning of the word, see Greppin passim.’ yedvai: Crinagoras uses the Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in variation, since in

Homer it is used of the sparse hair of Thersites and is placed in the singular (II. 2.219 ψεδνή.... λάχνη; cf. above on 3f.), while here it is applied to an animal's fleece and is in the plural, qualifying a word (xatraı), that in Homer is applied to the hair of horses, men, and gods (see above, on χαῖται). This is the first appearance of the word since Homer. Later, cf. Nonnus D, 11.512, 14.137. The rarity of the adjective is reflected by its inclusion in lexica; cf. Moeris ψεδνὸς Ἀττικοί: ἀραιόθριξ “Ἕλληνες, Hesych. s.v, ψεδνὴ ἡ Opie ἡ dpardOpr€. As regards the rareness of the word, Pierson cited the present epigram in his comment on Moeris’ reference to the adjective (see above, on ἔνθα 7’).

ἀγροτέρων.... χιμάρων: normally χίμαιρα is a she-goat (a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον: Il, 6.181), χίμαρος a he-goat. Χίμαρος is a she-goat at Theocr. 1.6,

Theodoridas AP 6.157=3,3 HE. For the phrase, cf. Od. 17.295 alyas...ayporepas (cf. also 9.118f. alyes.../ ἄγριαι), Ap. Rh. 2.696f. ayporepwv.../ αἰγῶν. Homer attributes the adjective ayporepos to ἡμίονοι (Il. 2.852), σύες (Il. 12.146, Od. 11.611), ἔλαφοι (Od. 6.133).

τρηχύτεραι: for the goat's τρηχεῖα χαίτη in [Oppian], cf. above, on 3f. For the application of the adjective to wool, cf. Diod. Sic. 5.33,2. In the Anthology the poetic parallel form of the adjective, τρηχαλέος, is used to describe the

‘harshness’ of the colour of the hair in a depiction of Philoctetes at Julian AP! 113,4.

According to Aristotle, sheep have rough hair in northern climates because of the cold weather (GA 783a14-16). It is interesting to note that, while Crinagoras

states that this sheep's wool is rougher than wild goats, Comatas says something similar, expressed in the opposite way, in his invitation to Lacon: Theocr. 5.56f. ὑπεσσεῖται de χιμαρᾶν / δέρματα τᾶν παρὰ τὶν μαλακώτερα τετράκις ἀρνᾶν. See further Gow ad loc.

5f: for the image, cf. Crin. 23,1f. The abundance of milk, presented as a result of the unusually frequent parturition of Armenian sheep, corresponds to

” J. A.C. Greppin, ‘Gk. μαλλός “fleece, lock of wool” ’, Glotta 59 (1981), 70-5.

AP 9.430 = 38

385

the description of the abundance of dairy produce from Libyan sheep in the Odyssey, also following the account of the animal's triple mating in a year (see below on τριτοκεῖ; for the order of the Homeric lines see S. West on Od. 4.86).

For the motifof fertility of animals (and of nature, in general) in Greek literature, cf. Aesch. Pers. 611-18, Call. H. 1.48-50,° νηδύς: for νηδύς as ‘womb, cf. Crin. 12,6, also scanned νηδύς; see ad loc. [Oppian] in the Cynegetica often uses the noun for animals’ wombs (cf. 1.329, 3.60, 3.150, 3.519). τριτοκεῖ: ἃ ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The period of ovine gestation is five months: cf. Aristot. HA 573b21, Plin. NH 8.72. As Gow- Page remark, the present image seems to be a variation of Od. 4.86 τρὶς yap τίκτει μῆλα τελεσφόρον εἰς ἐνιαυτόν, a description ofa unique peculiarity of the sheep ofa specific place (Libya). West remarks

ad loc.: “No ewe could lamb three times in a year, since the gestation period is about five months (...) the emphasis is not on careful stock-farming but on astounding fertility. The ancient variant δίς must be a conjecture intended to bring Menelaus’ wild claims into line with reality’? The Homeric description of the Libyan sheep, however, is not necessarily a poetic exaggeration; cf. Aristot. Mir. 836al9f, παρὰ τοῖς Ὀμβρικοῖς φασὶ τὰ βοσκήματα τρὶς τίκτειν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ (see Merry and Riddell on Od. loc. cit.), for which see Flashar” 1076. Irigoin-

Laurens suggest that the verb in Crinagoras might denote birth of three lambs at a time (this is the alternative suggested also by LS] s.v. rpırorew) comparing Philip AP 6.99=15,5 GP διδυμητόκοι αἶγες; cf. also Theocr. 1.25 and [Theocr.] 8.45, where we have αἶγαί-ες... διδυματόκονί-οι. However, διδυμητόκος is indeed distinct from δέτοκος (a word comparable to the Crinagorean rpıroxeiv)

which in Anacr. 129 PMG means ‘having borne two children’; cf. Pollux 3,49, mentioned, together with the Anacreontic fragment, by Stadtmüller: Avaxpécv δὲ δίτοκον τὴν δὶς Temoücan.'” Needless to say, there is no reason to accept Hermanns (1805, 771) τριτοκεῖ᾽ (‘mutandum videtur in nomen adiectivum τριτόκεια᾽), or rather rprröreı , accord-

ing to Stadtmüller’s restoration of the accent of Hermanns emendation in his critical apparatus. Crinagoras’ tolerance to hiatus is well attested: see Intr., Language and Style, Metre, Hiatus.

® The present image of abundance recalls Golden Age-type descriptions of nature. Cf. Virg. Bel, 4.21f. ipsae lacte domum referunt distenta capellae / ubera, 'Tib. 1.3,451. ultrogue ferebant / obvia securis ubera lactis oves, the heavy udders of sheep in the Golden Age being a detail found only in Latin literature: see Murgatroyd on Tib. foc. cit.

> H. Flashar, Aristoteles, Mirabilia (Darmstadt 1972). © Although διτοκέω, -edw, means ‘give birth to two at a time’: Aristot. HA 558b23, Nic. fr. 73.

386

AP 9.430 = 38

ava πᾶν Eros: Cf. πᾶν ἔτος at Adaeus AP 6.2582,6 GP, an epigram which opens

in a way similar to the present one (cf. above, on τῆς dios). The phrase occurs mainly in prose; often in Herodotus. ex δὲγάλακτος Ι... πλήθεται: self-variation with Crin. 23,2 πουλυγαλακτοτάτην. Cf. also Theocr. 24.3 ἐμπλήσασα γάλακτος, of Alcmene having fed her babies. The genitive γάλακτος occurs often at verse-end in the epic, starting with Od.

9.246; see further H. White on Theocr. loc. cit. θηλή.... μαστοῦ: cf. Aristot. HA 493al3f. τούτων (sc. τῶν μαστῶν) ἡ θηλὴ διφυής, δι᾽ἧς τοῖς θήλεσι τὸ γάλα διηθεῖται. For θηλή as the teat of the sheep, cf. also Aristot. HA 500a,24, Eur. Cycl. 56. Not a Homeric word. Self-variation with 23,1 alya με τὴν εὔθηλον: see ad loc. and on |. 2, οὔθατα. Cf. also Lyc. 1328 μαστὸν

εὔθηλον θεᾶς. There is no need to change μαστοῦ to μαζοῦ because of the occurrence of μαζόν at Crin. 23,6 (Stadtmiiller), as the poet is not necessar-

ily consistent in the same grammatical form (see Intr., Language and Style, Dialect). Cf. μαστόν and μαζόν at Call, H. 4.48 and 274 respectively, both at

verse-end. Also μαστός at Call. H. 6.95, μαζός at H. 3.214; μαστός at Theocr. 18.42, μαζός at Theocr, 3.16. Maords in the Anthology occurs, for instance, at Philod. AP 5.13=2 GP=9,3 Sider and 132=12,3 GP and Sider, Mel. 5.204=60,5,

and Antip. Sid. 9.722=38,2 HE. For μαστός! μαΐζός used of an animal's udders, see on Crin. 23,6,

dei: recalling the Homeric account of the abundance of milk of the Libyan sheep, ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ παρέχουσιν ἐπηετανὸν γάλα θῆσθαι, Od. 4.89 (cf. above, on 5f.

and on rpırokei); the adverb is here placed in the corresponding sedes of the pentameter.

πλήθεται: of a teat, cf. Nonnus Ὁ. 35.326 duBpooins mANdovoar...OnAnv.

Homer has instance, Il. form of the 4,564, Qu.

only 5.87, verb Sm.

the active form of the verb, usually of rivers and streams: for 16.389, Od. 19.207. See Hollis on Call. Hec. fr. 98. The middle is relatively rare, in comparison to πλήθειν: cf. Ap. Rh. 3.1392, 8.53, 8.229. In the Anthology, cf. Moero 6.119=1,2, Leon.

6.293=54,4 HE.

οὐθατίου: here only. Bianor at AP 10.101=19,2 GP has τὸν ὑπουθατίαν μόσχον. Cf. Nic. Al. 358 νεαλὴς ὑπὸ οὔθατα μόσχος. Also cf. the adjective οὐθατόεις: πόρτιας οὐθατοέσσας in [Opp.] Cyn. 1.508. Stadtmüller compared Nic. Al. 90 οὐθατόεντα διοιδέα μαζὸν ἀμέλξας. The pleonasm of θηλή... μαστοῦ οὐθατίου stresses the abundance of the ani-

mals milk. For pleonasms in Crinagoras, see Intr., Language and Style, Pleonasms. 7: for the naming of the animals’ sounds, cf. Phrynichus Prep. Soph. 59.1 ὑῶν μὲν οὖν ἡ φωνὴ γρυλισμός, προβάτων δὲ βληχή, αἰγῶν δὲ καὶ ἐλάφων puny, βοῶν δὲ μυκηθμὸς ἢ μύκησις, κτλ. See also next note.

AP 9.430 = 38

387

βληχή: a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον: Od. 12.265f. μυκηθμοῦ τ᾿ ἤκουσα βοῶν αὐλιζομενάων / οἰῶν τε βληχήν. The peculiarity of the sheep presented in this

Crinagorean line, i.e. the paradox of its bleating which resembles the lowing of cattle, emphasizes the strangeness of this feature, as it recalls the separation of μυκηθμός and βληχή in the Homeric passage. An echo of the Homeric image

is also Ap. Rh. 4.968f. βληχή... μήλων / μυκηθμός τε βοῶν. For βληχή, cf. also

‘Plato’ AP 9.823=16,2 FGE βληχή.... τοκάδων, Opp. Hal. 4.316, of the bleating of a flock of goats. Nonnus has βληχηθμός (D. 14.157). For the onomatopoeia of the word, cf. Keller 1.327. See also prev. note. ἀσσοτάτω: ἀσσοτάτη Hecker (1843, 330), without need. The same adverbial form of the superlative occurs in Crin. 48,2; the adjective ἀσσότατος in Crin. 6,4. In extant poetry only Crinagoras uses this superlative adverbial form. The comparative of the adverb occurs twice in the Odyssey (19.506, 17.572). τερένης: the form stands for repeivns, elsewhere only in Alcaeus fr. 397 L-P τερένας ἄνθος ὀπώρας. For the formation of the adjective, cf. Et. M. s.v. répeva: ἀπὸ τοῦ τέρην τέρενος γίνεται τὸ θηλυκὸν répeva’ Kal προσθέσει τοῦ ı, γίνεται

τέρεινα. The adjective is attributed to δάκρυ (Il. 3.142, Ap. Rh. 3.461), χρώς (Il. 4.237, 13.553, al, Hes. Th. 5, Op. 522, Philod. AP 5.121=8 GP=17,2 Sider), φύλλα (Il, 13.180), στόμα (Ap. Rh. 1.1238), ποίη (Ap. Rh. 1.1143, 3.898), etc. For

its attribution to the calf, cf. Eur. fr. 467,3 TrGrF μόσχων τέρειναι σάρκες. μυκήματι μόσχου: cf. Theocr, 16.37 μόσχοι... ἐμυκήσαντο βόεσσι, Ap. Rh. 1.1269 (ταῦρος) ἴησιν μύκημα, Demetrius Bith. AP 9.730=1,1 FGE μόσχος μυκήσεται; also Eur. Ba. 691 μυκήμαθ᾽... βοῶν, Nonnus D, 1.455, 2.254, 2.614. Theocritus

uses the word of the roar of a lioness in 26.21; cf. Gow ad loc. Homer has μυκηθμός, of the βόες (Il. 18.575, Od, 12.265). Cf. above on |. 6. Mécyos is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 11.105).

Note the alliteration of u which creates the effect of reproduction of the animals sound. 8 For the generalizing statement about the diversity of features of countries, cf. the opening of Crin. 30 ἔρδοι τὴν ἔμαθέν τις, a poem in which the poet also deals with information acquired during a trip to a distant land; see ad loc. For the moralizing conclusion, see also ad loc., Il. 5f. ὦ kaköv.../...ayabov and Intr., Language and Style, Structure. Whether this gnome, placed after the exemplifying cases, can be taken as a priamel is doubtful: see Race 29f. For a similar expression (for which see also next note), preceding the example cases, cf. Pind. N. 3.6 διψῇ δὲ πρᾶγος ἄλλο μὲν ἄλλου, 1. 1.47 μισϑὸς yap ἄλλοις ἄλλος ἐφ᾽ ἔργμασιν ἀνθρώποις γλυκύς; see Race 14.

ἄλλα... ἀλλοῖαι: self-variation with Crin. 48,3 ἄλλοις ἄλλ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὄνειρα. For the expression, see LS] s.v. II 2. It occurs typically at verse-opening in the epic. Cf.

388

AP 9.430 = 38

Hes. Op. 483 ἄλλοτε δ᾽ ἀλλοῖος Ζηνὸς νόος. Also, Pind. O. 7.95, Β 3.104, I. 3/4.4, Archias AP 6.181=7,2 GP, Aratus 751, 780, Qu. Sm. 6.5, 13.291, Opp. Hal. 3.194;

in Hesiod, Aratus, Oppian, and Quintus Smyrnaeus always at verse-opening, Ἄλλα yap aAA- occurs often in prose (for instance, Plut. Mor, 433a, 4371, 695e); in extant poetry elsewhere only in Eur. Hipp. 1108 ἄλλα yap ἄλλοθεν ἀμείβεται. ἄλλα... πάντα: a common phrase since Homer. Cf. I]. 1.22 ἄλλοι μὲν πάντες,

3.234, 11.693, 24.156, Theogn. 812, Eur. Supp. 936, IA 1055, Ap. Rh. 1.283, 4.888,

φέρουσι: for the common expression describing products derived from the earth, cf. Od. 19.111, Hes. Op. 32 τὸν γαῖα φέρει, 232 τοῖσιν φέρει μὲν γαῖα πολὺν βίον.

Cf. ἄρουρα φέρει: Call. H.3.130, Od. 4.229, 9.357, Hes. Op. 173, 237. For this use of pépecy regarding living beings, see LS] s.v. A V. γέαι: as Gow-Page remark, there is no need for ©. Schneider's (1845, 810) change of the word to γύαι (‘a certain measure of land’: see LSJ s.v. IT), printed by Dibner, to match with which Stadtmüller suggested a further alteration of ἀλλοῖαι to aAAotoı and compared Aesch. fr. 196,4f. TrGrF αὐτόσποροι / γύαι φέρουσι βίοτον ἄφθονον. The plural of γῇ is indeed attested: cf. Hdt. 4.198. Cf. Clem. Al. Strom. 1.15,69,5 (quoting Democritus) ἀέρας re καὶ yéas. See also Schwyzer 2.51, 8. Cf. the plural, unique in literature, xdöves at Crin. 25,1. For the word, cf. Herodian Gr. Gr. 3.2,912,9 κατὰ ποιητὰς εἴρηται καὶ yéa καὶ γαῖα καὶ ala, and 3.1,283,29, 3.2,319,27, 3.2,424,35. Views were not unanimous on the

etymology of γῆ: cf. Philoxenus Gramm. fr. 80* Theodoridis παρὰ τὸ ya, τὸ χωρῶ' ἡ πάντα χωροῦσα. Τοῦτο δὲ παρὰ τὸ χῶ, ἀφ᾽od παράγωγον xeiw, Zonaras sv. Γαῖα' ἡ γῆ. Παρὰ τὸ yo τὸ τίκτω, ἐξ οὗ γίνεται γέα διὰ τοῦ ε ψιλοῦ.

AP 9,542 =39

Θάρσει καὶ τέτταρσι διαπλασθέντα προσώποις μῦθον καὶ τούτων γράψαι ἔτι πλέοσιν' οὔτε σὲ γὰρ λείψουσι, Φιλωνίδη, οὔτε Βάθυλλον τὸν μὲν ἀοιδάων, τὸν δὲ χορῶν χάριτες. _— AP 9.542 Κριναγόρον caret Pl μῦθον Ap, V.™%, Reiske: μύϑων P | γράψαι ἔτι Reiske: γράψα ἐνὶ P

4 Φιλωνίδη Ap. VW, Porson: -6:P

4 χορῶν Ap. V."%, Porson: χορὸν P

Reiske n. 727, Brunck post ἢ. 46 in nott., Jacobs’ n. 47, Rubensohn n. 40

Have courage and write for yourself a story shaped for four parts or for even

more; for you shall not be lacking in grace, Philonides, nor Bathyllus, the one in singing, the other in dance. Crinagoras encourages Philonides to write the libretto of a pantomime to be

performed by Bathyllus. The epigram is divided in two distichs, the first of which contains two verbs in the imperative (θάρσει, γράψαι) that create an atmosphere of enthusiasm

which encourages composition of the mime, without mention yet, however, of the persons to whom this encouragement is addressed. The second distich has one verb in the indicative (λείψουσι), which affirms the ability of these persons,

who are now named, to produce the work most successfully. The epigram’s five nouns (προσώποις, μῦθον in the first couplet, ἀοιδάων and χορῶν χάριτες in the

second) sketch in an extremely dense fashion the substance of the mime: it is a story with roles and it is enacted through singing and dancing, the supreme word of praise, graces, being placed emphatically at the end to signify the vital importance of the notion of art, which is ultimately the desired result and the essence of mime. Poems of the Anthology on pantomimes and dancers are Diosc. AP 11.195=36 HE, Antip. Thess. AP! 290=78 and Boethus AP 9.248=1 GP (both on Pylades), Leon. Schol. API 283, 284, 286, 287, 288, anon. AP] 289 on various dancers, Paul. Sil, AP 7.563, Lucillius 11.253 and 254, Palladas 11.255.

IR

AP 9.542=39

For Pantomimus, a mimetic representation of a story by means of movementg:

and gestures of a dancer, the pantomimist, see RE 18.3,833f,; for a collection of Greek and Latin epigraphic and epigrammatic evidence on pantomimus,

see Rotolo 87-122. Philonides is otherwise unknown. Bathyllus of Alexandria, a freedman of Maecenas (see schol. on Pers. Sat. 5.123), together with Pylades of Cilicia, gave new elaboration to the art. Jerome, who refers to Pylades in

particular, in his notes to Eusebius’ Chronicle for 22 Bc, places this innovation

in that year. According to RE, this epigram must have been written after that

date; see RE 18.3,834. Pylades and Bathyllus were regarded as the artists who introduced pantomime to Italy: Athen. in 1.20d-e states τῆς de κατὰ τοῦτον. ὀρχήσεως τῆς τραγικῆς καλουμένης πρῶτος εἰσηγητὴς γέγονε Βάθυλλος 6 Ἀλεξανδρεύς, ὅν φησι παντομίμους ὀρχήσασθαι Σέλευκος. Τοῦτον τὸν Βάθυλλόν φησιν Ἀριστόνικος καὶ Πυλάδην, οὗ ἐστι καὶ σύγγραμμα περὶ ὀρχήσεως, τὴν Ἰταλικὴν ὄρχησιν συστήσασθαι ἐκ τῆς κωμικῆς, ἢ ἐκαλεῖτο κόρδαξ, καὶ τῆς

τραγικῆς, ἣ ἐκαλεῖτο ἐμμέλεια, καὶ τῆς σατυρικῆς. Recent scholarship has cast doubt on Jerome's date, and earlier dates have been suggested for the introduction of pantomimic dancing to Rome: mid-first century Bc (Jory 1981, 157), early or mid-20s sc (Leppin 38-40). Jory (1981, 148) argues for 23 sc (rather

than Jerome's 22), when the games of Marcellus were held, as the date when it

was Officially launched; see also Lada-Richards 22f., 58. Bathyllus and Pylades developed the so called ‘Italian style’ of dance; Pylades specialized in more serious dancing and Bathyllus in lighter (see Athen. 1.20e, Sen. Senior Contr. 3 pref. 10; see also Robert! 111, Jory 1981, 149). For the rivalry between the two

pantomimes, see Dio Cass. 54.17. The first attestations of the pantomime in Greece are dated to the fourth century. In Symp. 9, Xenophon describes a pantomimic performance of the loves of Dionysus and Ariadne, with the accompaniment of flute (ηὐλεῖτο ὁ Baxyetos ῥυθμός). An epigram of Dioscorides (AP 11.195=36 HE) attests the existence of pantomimic dance in third-century Alexandria: Γάλλον Ἀρισταγόρης ὠρχήσατο, xd.’ Pylades’ innovations lie in the use of music (instruments and choral song) in this spectacle: Macr. Sat. 2.7,12 (cf. also Jory 1981, 151, Leppin 39). Leppin (39) holds that the reference to Bathyllus in Tac. Ann. 1.54 implies that it was this artist, and not Pylades, who * ‘Pantomimen im griechischen Orient, Hermes 65 (1930), 106-22. ? See further Weinreich (1948) 32ff., Kyriakides 13, Jory (1981) 147-51, Leppin 34. Kokolakis

(32) observed that ‘one should not exclude as alien to the direct line of tradition in the art of pantomimus some classical instances’ (referring to Xenophon's passage, and also to artistic repre-

sentations) ‘simply because they do not fulfil all the technicalities (including masks) which an established form of pantomimus in Roman times required. For a discussion of Dioscorides’ epigram, see Weinreich (1948) Nf, Kyriakides 28f., Kokolakis 12. It has been argued that evidence of mimic dancing can be traced to the time of Aeschylus, who created the σχήματα of the chorus

(Athen. 1.21e-f), These should not be understood as merely rhythmical but as mimic figures; see Weinreich (1948), 123ff. (who further discusses evidence from iconography on Attic vases) and Kyriakides (31). Aristotle includes dancing in the mimic arts (Po. 447320) and from his account of

the dancers’ performance it seems that he speaks of soloist and not of group mimic dancing. See Kyriakides 32f.

AP 9543239introduced pantomime to the Iudi scaenici of Rome, and that Pylades’ estab-

lished reputation as the leading figure of the genre in Rome is due to the ‘reliable propagandists of his achievements’ (cf. Athen. 1.20d-e and Zosimus 1.6, who mention both Bathyllus and Pylades as the persons who introduced the pantomime to Italy, and Suda s.v. Πυλάδης, who mentions Pylades alone as the inventor

of the ‘Italian dance’). For Pylades’ predominance in our extant sources on this matter, see also Jory 1981, 151. For Bathyllus, see further below, on Βάθυλλον.

The pantomimist wore a mask with closed lips (Lucian Salt. 29f., 63),* and was accompanied by other artists who sang and played instruments, such as flutes and pipes (Macr. loc. cit.), but also the lyre, drums, etc. (see Lada-Richards 41). Music, however, was not an indispensable part of the spectacle: cf. LadaRichards 63, on a pantomimist who performed without the aid of any musical accompaniment to prove the value of his art in its own right; also, Quint. Inst. 11.3,66 saltatio frequenter sine voce intellegitur atque afficit and Libanius Or. 64.88,8-10 οὐ yap ἡ ὄρχησις ὑπὸ τῶν ἀσμάτων πληροῦται, τῆς ὀρχήσεως δὲ

évexa τὰ ἄσματα εὕρηται; see also Jory (2008) 161. The performer would play more than one part (see below, on τέτταρσι... προσώποις). The themes of the getire were typically drawn from Greek mythology; cf. Lucian Salt. 37-61, Leont. Schol. A Pi 287, anon. API 289. See also Jory (2001) 3, (2008) 160, Hunt passim

(for the Roman pantomime), and the index in Lada-Richards 239 (under pantomime themes)” Statius wrote the pantomime Agave for the pantomime Paris: see Juv. 7.87.

It is reported that Lucan also wrote pantomimes, and, since the persons that our sources mention as authors of the libretti were poets, it seems likely that the libretti were written in verse rather than in prose.* However, these texts did not survive because their existence depended on the spectacle (see Jory 2008, 161f.).

From the time of the late republic until at least the second century aD pantomime was associated with the Muses, which means that the genre was regarded as one of important individual artistic quality (cf. Boethus AP 9.248=1,3f. GP, ὁτεχνήεις Πυλάδης ὀρχήσατο κεῖνον / ὀρθὰ κατὰ τραγικῶν τέθμια μουσοπόλων). Furthermore, Polymnia is presented as the Muse of pantomime in art in the second century; see further Jory (2001) 18. It is a plausible assumption, in the present poem, that Philonides is encouraged to be both the author of the libretto and the solo singer of the song accompanying the dance, which means that ἀοιδάων is to be interpreted as ‘songs, rather than ‘instrumental accompaniment’ (in the latter case, needless to say, Philonides should be envisaged as playing strings, rather than pipes or flutes). Actually, the lyrics could have been indeed sung by a solo singer (cf. Leont. Schol. API 287,If. "Exropa μέν τις ἄεισε, νέον

3 For a detailed discussion of the dancers’ outfit, see Kokolakis 33ff.

4 Y, Hunt, ‘Roman Pantomime Libretti and their Greek Themes, in Hall and Wyles, 169-84.

Mythical were also the themes of the mimic dancing in Byzantium, the dancers called θαυματοποιοί (see Koukoules 5.110).

$ See Hall (2008) 29, Jory (2008) 159f.

392

AP 9,542 =39

μέλος- Ἑλλαδίη δέ, 7 ἑσσαμένη χλαῖναν, πρὸς μέλος ἠντίασεν, κτλ.), as well as by a chorus.° Gow-Page suggest that in addition to Philonides’ song accompany. ing Bathyllus’ dance, an instrumental background should be also imagined.

1 θάρσει: the imperative is very common in this sedes in Homer, always at the beginning of the sentence, Il. 8.39, 15.254, Od, 2.372, 13.362, 19.546, 22.372, al.; cf. Theocr. 15.13, 15.56, 24.73 with H. White ad loc. In Homer it is often followed by μηδέ, which, together with the imperative that follows, expresses a negative

command, Il. 4.184, 10.383, 24.171, Od. 4.825. In the present poem, there is a variation on the Homeric expression of discouragement, since the imperative is followed by an expression of encouragement introduced with καί, This conjunction indicates that a second imperative is needed and so γράψαι has to

convey such a form (see also below, on καὶ τούτων... πλέοσιν). τέτταρσι... προσώποις: Reiskes (1754, 145 and 1766, 122) correction to τετόρεσσι

and Rubensohns correction to τέσσαρσι are not necessary. See Intr., Language and Style, Dialect. Bathyllus was an artist who played many roles, πολυπρόσωπος. For the pantomimist playing many roles, cf. Athen. 1.20e ἦν δὲ ἡ Πυλάδου ὄρχησις ὀγκώδης παθητική τε Kal πολυπρόσωπος. Cf, Plut. Mor. 71le-f, Lucian Salt. 63 αὐτὸς ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ὠρχήσατο τὴν Ἀφροδίτης καὶ Ἄρεως μοιχείαν, Ἥλιον μηνύοντα καὶ Ἥφαιστον ἐπιβουλεύοντα.... καὶ τοὺς ἐφεστῶτας θεοὺς ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, KTA., Salt. 66, Anth. Lat. 2.20. Cf. also Aristaen. 1.26 (on the pantomime Panarete) οἷά tis Φάριος Πρωτεὺς ἄλλοτε πρὸς ἄλλα μεταβεβλῆσθαι δοκεῖ and Lucian Salt. 46 τὴν Ἰλιακὴν (sc. ἱστορίαν) πολλὴν οὖσαν καὶ πολυπρώσωπον. See Weinreich (1948) 52 with n. 4, Kokolakis 34, Jory (2001) 2, Lada-Richards 40f.

διαπλασθέντα: the form is prosaic and occurs only here in poetry. Cf., however, διέπλασεν in Diosc. AP 12.37=10,1 and Posid. API 275=19,11 HE. προσώποις: dramatic personae, the characters of the play. Cf., for instance, Lucian Cal. 6 τριῶν δ᾽ ὄντων προσώπων καθάπερ Ev ταῖς κωμῳδίαις τοῦ διαβάλλοντος καὶ τοῦ διαβαλλομένου καὶ τοῦ πρὸς ὃν ἡ διαβολὴ γίγνεται, κτλ. 2 μῦθον... γράψαι: μῦθος recalls the mythical subject matter of the panto-

mime (see above, intr. note); it is also used for the pantomime in an inscription of the Roman period from Gortys, IC’ 4.222 A, 2 μύθων Spxnlarns] (see further Rotolo 113 with the relevant note). Macrobius uses an equivalent term to describe the plot of the pantomime, fabula (Sat. 2.7,17). Other terms used

for the libretti of the pantomime are ἀδόμενα and ᾷσματα in Greek (Lucian

° See E. Hall, “The singing actors of antiquity, in P, Easterling and E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors (Cambridge 2002), 29f., Lada-Richards 42. ” M. Guarducci (ed.), Inscriptiones Creticae, vol. 4, Tituli Gortynii (Rome 1950),

Sait. 62 and

74

respectively),

canticum

in Latin

(Macr.

Sat.

2.7,13:

see

Hall 2008, 29). An expression equivalent to μῦθον γράφειν occurs in the Elder Seneca, when he speaks of the author of the libretto of a pantomime, qui pan-

tomimis fabulas scripsit (Suas. 2.19, on the son of Abronius Silo). See Jory (2008) 158f. Reiske's γράψαι ἔτι (1754, 145, and 1766, 122), accepted by Diibner, Beckby, Paton, Waltz, and

Gow- Page, means that Philonides will write for himself as

well as for Bathyllus. See further above, intr. note. Brunck (who printed the poem at the end of his comments on Crinagoras), followed by Jacobs (Jacobs’

in the notes beneath the text; Jacobs? in the text), Geist, and Holtze corrected to γράψον ἔτι, γράψον already appearing in Ap. V., in margine. Rubensohn prints γράψον Evi. However, the change of the verb to the active is not necessary, because, since Philonides will be singing the libretto, as is implied in the last couplet, the sense ‘write for one's self’ is indeed suitable here. For this sense, see LSJ s.v. BI. For the epic correption between the short

syllables of the dactyl (a further reason for which Rubensohn preferred the form γράψον), which is rare in the authors of Philips Garland with most of the exceptions found in Crinagoras, see Intr., Metre, Correption. See also next note.

καὶ τούτων... πλέοσιν: Rubensohn maintained P’s ἐνὶ printing γράψον Evi, and

associating the preposition with the participle and the datives ([évi] τέσσαρσι διαπλασθέντα προσώποις καὶ τούτων γράψον ἐνὶ πλέοσιν). Such syntax, how-

ever, is impossible. Stadtmüller prints γράψαι eve (Ξἔνεστι), interpreting it as ‘licet scribere. However, Reiskes ἔτι can be supported, since it is likely that it should appear near a comparative. Cf. also the Homeric ἔτι πλέονας (Il. 5.679, 21.211). Cf also Il. 16.651 ἔτι καὶ πλεόνεσσιν. In the Anthology, Antiphil. 11.66=51,5 GP καὶ ἣν ἔτι πλείονα ῥέξης, Lucian 11.5 πεινάσαιμε.... ἔτι πλέον.

A variation of this expression is used by Crinagoras again in 36,5 καὶ τούτων κρέσσων; cf. Call. H. 6.92 καὶ τούτων ἔτι μέζον ἐτάκετο.

3 οὔτε... λείψουσι: for the construction, cf. Eur. Supp. 1158 σὲ τ᾽ οὔποτ᾽ ἄλγη πατρῷα λείψει.

οὔτε oe... οὔτε: for the expression in poetry with the two οὔτε at the same sedes of the hexameter, first and fifth foot, cf. I. 4.359 οὔτέ oe νεικείω περιώσιον οὔτε

κελεύω, Theogn. 1207, Plato Junior API 161=5,1 FGE. Φιλωνίδη: the correction of P’s Φιλωνίδι to Φιλωνίδη is generally accepted. Porson (in Monk-Blomfield 309) in fact proposed it, as editors state, but the correction also appears in Ap. V. in margine. P’s reading was altered by Reiske (1754, 145 and 1766, 122) to Φιλωνίδου, who furthermore made the necessary change of putting the following accusatives into the genitive (Βαθύλλου, τοῦ μέν, τοῦ δέ), changes approved (though not printed) by Brunck. Φιλωνίδου and

Βαθύλλου is also approved by Jacobs’ in the notes beneath the text.

wa

AP

wee

ew

9.542 =3

=~

The name is too common for any attempt at identification. Βάθυλλον: the naine, which, according to Et. M. 143,1, isa diminutive of Βαθυκλῆς,

occurs in the same sedes, at the end of the hexameter, in Antip. Sid. AP 7.30=17,3

and Diosc. 7.31=19,3 HE, of Bathyllus, a love of Anacreon (cf. Hor. Epist. 14.8; cf. Anacr. 126 PMG=137 Rozokoki with note ad loc.). An inscription from Rome, CIL 6.10128 (cf. RE 3.1,138) Sophe Theorobathylliana arbitrix imboliarum, con-

nects the name ‘Theoros with Bathyllus, and Weinreich (1948, 48) suggested that they were identical. The name Gaius Theorus appears on Roman inscriptions celebrating his victory in pantomimic contests: Weinreich suggested that Gaius Theoros was the name given by Maecenas to his freedman on his emancipation (while as a slave he was simply the dancer Θέωρος), and that Bathyllus, now bearing this name, became famous in Rome as a master of his art. In Maecenas’ circle, friends were known by nicknames, and, since Maecenas would clearly enjoy being compared with Anacreon, the name Bathyllus, which belonged to Anacreon’s love, was a highly appropriate Kiinstlername for the pantomime.

See Weinreich (1948) 45-50 and Starks 125 with n. 44.° For a

review of this suggestion and for other opinions on the matter (for instance that

Theorobathyllus may be a pantomime who created his name from two famous earlier pantomimes,’ Sophe perhaps being a member of his troupe), see Starks 125-7. For Bathyllus’ fame and his status as the representative par excellence of his art, cf. Sen. Senior Contr. 3 pref. 16 si pantomimus essem, Bathyllus essem. 4 ἀοιδάων.... χάριτες: ἀοιδάων, plural genitive of ἀοιδή, is a very rare form: it

occurs only at Ap. Rh. 1.27, Call. H. 4.5, perhaps at Xenophan. 6,4 JEG. See Mineur on Call. loc. cit. Reiske (1754, 145 and 1766, 122) corrected to χεροῖν and Jacobs? to χερῶν

(accepted by Rubensohn, Stadtmiiller, Dibner, Paton, Beckby, Holtze, Waltz, and Marzi-Conca); Jacobs! accepted, in his note beneath

the text, Reiske's

χεροῖν. Χερῶν may be right, as the χειρονομία of the pantomimist was a quality particularly admired. Stadtmüller cited Antip. Thess. API 290=78,6 GP (on Pylades) ὁ παμφώνοις χερσί, Lucian Salt. 63 ἀλλὰ μοι δοκεῖς ταῖς χερσὶν αὐταῖς λαλεῖν and 78 οὐκ ἀπήλλακται ὄρχησις καὶ τῆς ἐναγωνίου χειρονομίας, Anth.

Lat. 1.111,9f. R mirabilis ars est / quae facit articulos ore silente loqui and 6 quae

* For Bathyllus’ erotic involvement with Maecenas, cf. ‘Tac. Ann. 1.54, Dio Cass. 54.17. Cf the effeminacy of the rich household's dancer in Lucian, ἀνιᾷ δή σε.. ὅταν σε παρευδοκιμῇ κίναιδός τις ἢ ὀρχηστοδιδάσκαλος ἢ Ἰωνικὰ συνείρων Adckavipewrixds ἀνθρωπίσκος (Merc, Cand, 27,1-4.), and the description of the dancer in id. Salt. 2 as θηλυδρίαν ἄνθρωπον; cf. also Nonius Marcellus 5.16 cinaedi dicti sunt apud veteres saltatores vel pantomimi, with Kokolakis’ discussion of the term cinaedus (see Kokolakis 14ff.). For the pantomimes’ effeminacy and its moral connotations, as

seen from their critics’ point of view, see further Lada-Richards 691. ° For pantomimes adopting the name of their famous earlier colleagues, sec also Lada-Richards 177, n. 18.

AP 9.542= 39

393

resonat cantor, motibus ipse probat. Cf. also Leont. Schol. API 283,3f. ὄμμα δὲ of καὶ ταρσὰ ποδήνεμα, καὶ σοφὰ χειρῶν 7 δάκτυλα καὶ ΪΠουσῶν κρέσσονα καὶ

Χαρίτων

and

Nonnus

D.

19.216.

Γανυμήδεος

ἔγραφε

μορφὴν

/ χερσὶν

ἀφωνήτοισι κτλ. (on a performance of dance imitation of the gods).’° However,

χορῶν, suggested by Porson (in Monk-Blomfield 309), found also in Ap. V. (in margine; similarly to Φιλωνίδη; (see above, ad loc.) and to μῦθον), accepted by

Gow- Page, is also suitable, since ‘dance; too, can be perfectly well descriptive of the pantomimist's movement. Cf. Boethus AP 9.248=1,3 GP οἷον ὁ τεχνήεις Πυλάδης ὠρχήσατο κεῖνον (sc. Διόνυσον), Athen. 1.20e, and Lucian Sait. 63 (see above on τέσσαρσι... προσώποις). Furthermore, the coupling of singing and dancing together is classical and ἀοιδή would go more appropriately with χορούς, rather than with χεῖρας: cf. Od. 1.421f. and 18.304f. οἱ δ᾽ εἰς ὀρχηστύν re καὶ ἱμερόεσσαν ἀοιδήν / τρεψάμενοι τέρποντο, h. Ap. 149, Theogn. 791 with Van Groningen ad loc. For the coupling of music with yopds in particular, cf. Od.

8.248, h. Merc. 451. ‘Graces’ in the plural occur once in Homer (Od. 6.237). In regard to art, cf. Diosc. AP 7.410=20,1f. HE Θέσπις ὅδε τραγικὴν ὃς ἀνέπλασα πρῶτος ἀοιδήν / κωμήταις νεαρὰς καινοτομῶν χάριτιις (Same 5665). The personified Graces are

typically associated with dancing: Od. 18.194, h. Dian. 15, Pind. O. 14.9, Xen. Symp. 7.5. For the pantomime’ ‘grace, cf. Mart. 11.13,4 ars et gratia (in an epitaph for Paris, the pantomimist put to death by Domitian). 10 For more passages that demonstrate the importance of the hands’ skilfulness for a pantomimist, see Weinreich (1948) 136-45, Rotolo 7. See also Lada-Richards 44 and Jory (2008) 163f.

AP 7,380 = 40

Ei καὶ τὸ σῆμα λυγδίνης ἀπὸ πλακός καὶ ξεστὸν ὀρθῇ λαοτέκτονος στάθμῃ, οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ἐσθλοῦ. Mn λίθῳ τεκμαίρεο, ὦ λῷστε, τὸν θανόντα’ κωφὸν ἡ λίθος, τῇ καὶ ξοφώδης ἀμφιέννυται νέκυς. Κεῖται δὲ τῇδε τὠλιγηπελὲς ῥάκος Εὐνικίδαο, σήπεται δ᾽ ὑπὸ σποδῷ. 4

5.

a

4

>

-

-

ta

>

[4

&

€

-----

AP 7.380 [Ὁ] Κριναγόρου [J] eis Εὐνιικίδαν τινὰ οὗτινος ἡ λάρναξ ἀπὸ λυγδίνης πλακὸς ἐχρημάτιζεν [(] ἰαμβικόν caret Pl

4AdC:6P

δτώλιγηπελὲς Ap. Β.: -γωπ-

Ρ

7 σήπεται C: -πετεΡ

Reiske n. 600, Brunck n. 36, Rubensohn ἢ. 16

Even if the tomb is made of shining marble and polished by the stonemasons straight rule, it is not that of a good man. Do not judge, my friend, the dead

from the gravestone; senseless is the stone by which even a foul black corpse may be covered. Here lie the feeble remains of Eunicidas, which rot under the dust. Epitaph for Eunicides, a vile man, for whom 41 is also written. The epigram opens with an assertion concerning the status of this tomb (that the tomb does not belong to a righteous man, although it is magnificent)

and proceeds with generalizing statements (concerning the point that one

should not judge the dead by the appearance of the grave). In the two last lines we finally hear the name of this tomb’s occupant, on whom the thoughts contained in the first five lines were expressed. Both the opening declaration and the statement about the senselessness of the stone, surrounding the address to the passer-by/reader, which is realized with the imperative rexjaipeo, consist of phrases where ἐστί is omitted: these are the opening concessive clause, its apodosis, and the concise affirmation κωφόν ἡ λίθος. This technique emphasizes the axiomatic character of the opinions stated and stresses the impression of their unquestionable validity. The brightness and splendour of the stone in

the first part of the poem (λυγδίνης, ξεστόν) is in sharp contrast to the darkness

and worthlessness of the dead in the second (ζοφώδης, τὠλιγηπελὲς ῥάκον). The closing words of all the lines but one are nouns designating the stone/the tool used for its manufacture, the tomb thus seen as an artefact (mAakös,

στάθμῃ, λίθος), and death/the dead, described in terms annihilation, placed on a physical level (νέκυς, ῥάκος, the second part of the poem is highlighted as being a of the material magnificence presented in the first part.

signifying decline and σποδῷ); thus death in direct deconstruction For the terms’ further

implications on the moral level, see below, on λυγδίνης and Codwéns... νέκυς.

Other satirical epitaphs are Theod. AP 13.21=15 HE on Mnasalcas, ‘Simon. 7.348=37 FGE on Timocreon, Erycius 7.377=13 GP on Parthenius. Also, Leon. 7.455=68, (and its variation, Antip. Sid. 7.353=27, mentioned above), Diosc.

7.456=29 HE, on bibulous old women; see further Small 127 and 143, and cf. on Crin, 41, intr. note. Erycius’ poem is especially relevant here, as it perhaps conveys an allusion to the man’s servile status, too; see on 41,4 δούλιον οἰοπέδην. In each of the two epitaphs on Eunicidas, Crinagoras is reversing a funerary epigrammatic fopos: here, that of the inequality of tomb and dead man (see below on μή λίθῳ rexpaipeo), and in 41, that of terra levis. See there on χθὼν ὦ δυσνύμφευτε. Cichorius (1888, 49) saw the name as a patronymic of Eunicus, mentioning Pliny’s Eunicus (NH 33.55 and 34.19; a silversmith from Mytilene) as an example of the occurrence of the name in the island, and places the poem in Mytilene. Since the person to whom the epigram refers is in all probability a Greek, it is probable that it was written in Mytilene (cf. Prote of Crin. 14). Eunicidas, however, is not necessarily the patronymic of Eunicus; see below, on Εὐνικίδαο. Rubensohn (50f.) attributed the poem to Antipater of Thessalonica, regarding it as an imitation of Crin. 41, on Eunicidas. His arguments for the rejection of Crinagoras’ authorship, as they are grouped by Gow-Page, were: a) He could not see the reason why Crinagoras wrote 41, also on the same subject. The two poems, however, are a sarcastic variation of the practice of inscribing an iambic and an elegiac poem on the two sides of the gravestone. For iambic-elegiac pairs of inscriptional epitaphs, cf. Peek 2018=pref. 222b Kaibel (Miletus, ~ AD 200), Peek 2026=325 Kaibel (Thasos, AD 11), Peel 2038=208 Kaibel (Thasos, c.100 Bc), Peek 1976=566 Kaibel (Rome,

AD II), Peek 1906=646 Kaibel (Rome, IJI-IV ap). Funerary epigrams on the same person in different metres are also Mart. 6.28 (hendecasyllables)

and 6.29 (elegiac couplets), 5.34 (elegiac couplets) and 5.37 (choliambs). Ὁ) Rubensohn described the phrases τὠλιγηπελὲς ῥάκος and ζοφώδης... νέκυς

as ‘unfortunate inventions, σήπεται δ᾽ ὑπὸ σποδῷ as a clumsy imitation of 41,6 λείψαν᾽ἔτι xAwpns ἔμπλεα τηκεδόνος, and the genitive Εὐνικίδαο

as unsuitable to the iambic style. All these reasons (also see ad locc.) are not sufficient enough to make one reject the ascription of the poem to Crinagoras.

Rubensohn ascribed the poem to Antipater of Thessalonica for the following reasons: i) he noted the similarity of |. 3 to Antipater 7.18=12,1 GP ἀνέρα μὴ πέτρῃ τεκμαίρεο. However, far from being surprising, one would be expected to observe verbal and thematic similarities among poets of the same period; ij) Antipater wrote other iambic poems, AP 7.390=62, 7.692=107 GP.' This argument is more important, especially if we notice that Apollonides’ iambic

7.693=9 GP is perhaps inspired by (τίη. 46 (see ad loc.): this provides a parallel for the existence of an Apollonidean variation, in iambics, of a theme of

Crinagoras, in elegiacs. Further support for this view can be drawn from the pair of satirical pseudo-epitaphs on Maronis, a bibulous woman, the one

by Leonidas, AP 7.455=68 (iambic), and the other its elegiac paraphrase by Antipater Sidonius, AP 7.353=27 HE (see Gow-Page on Antipater 27, intr. note). However, Antipater’s 27 is an exact repetition of Leonidas’ 68 HE, differ-

ent only in phrasing and metre; Apollonides’ 9 GP, again, if indeed inspired by Crin. 46, moves quite away from his model. The two poems on Eunicidas, on the other hand, speak of the same person, share the same spirit and, to some degree, the same imagery (cf. σήπεται δ᾽ ὑπὸ σποδῷ--χλωρῆς ἔμπλεα τηκεδόνος, τὠλιγηπελὲς ῥάκος--ἡμιπύρωτα λείψανἾ, but do not repeat each other: the

iambic is briefer and does not say much about the deceased, while the more analytical elegiac insists on a repulsive description of Eunicidas. A similar observation can be made about Leonidas’ AP! 306 (elegiac) and 307 (iambic)

on Anacreon, the elegiac being an expanded version of the iambic (although here the two poems say exactly the same things, only with varying extent of development). The general impression of the two poems on Eunicidas is that their author knew the man and wrote two versions of the same theme, while it seems hard to suppose that Antipater read Crin. 41 and wrote an iambic variation of it not even touching its main subject (the description of Eunicidas), and imagining that the man was buried in a fine tomb, of which nothing is said in the elegiac epigram. 1 ei καί: Jacobs’ remarked that ὅμως is implied in the apodosis οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ἐσθλοῦ, comparing Erycius AP 7.377=13,1f. GP ei καὶ ὑπὸ χθονὶ κεῖται, ὅμως ἔτι καὶ κατὰ πίσσαν |...xedare «rd, Cf. Crin. 35,1ff, ei καί σοι ἑδραῖος ἀεὶ Bios,.../ ἔμπης ἐπιβήμεναι. Occurrences of εἰ καὶ without an adversative particle in the apodosis are not rare; cf. Leon. 7.198=21,1-3 HE, Archias 7.68=14,3f. GP, Jul.

Aeg. 7.58,1ff, Paul. Sil. 7.560,1-3, al. Crinagoras is reversing the usual notion that the simple stone is not worthy of the great man, saying that this evil man is

* Rubensohns other examples of imitations of epigrams from later epigrammatists include Antipaters possible imitation of ‘Iheocr. AP 7,660=12 IE in 7.398 (see Gow-Page on Antip. 65 GP), and the relation between Antip. Thess. 9.112=5 GP and anon, 7.157.

not worthy of his fine sepulchre. Cf. the exactly analogous-opposite opening of

anon. AP 7.20 (on Homer) ei καὶ Bards ὁ τύμβος, ὁδοιπόρε, μή με παρέλθῃς. λυγδίνης: of white marble, as λύγδος was a variety of Parian marble, famous for

its whiteness: Hesych. λύγδος- λίθος eis τὰ ζῴδια ἢ 6 Πάριος. Cf. Antip. Thess. AP 6.209=10,2 GP εἴδωλον λύγδινον; see further Blümner 3.33. Poets compare

the skin’s whiteness to it; see further Gow-Page on Asclep. AP 5.194=34,3 HE and on Antip. Thess. 6.209=10,2 GP, Page on Rufinus 5.28=10,2, Sider on Philod. 5.13=9,3. Δύγδος and λύγδινος do not occur in Homer, early poetry, or tragedy. As the ‘darkness’ of Eunicidas is a metaphorical description of (various fea-

tures of) his character, the ‘shining’ grave here further suggests a metaphor of human virtue which Eunicidas lacks. Cf. Plut. Marc. 10.6,2 ἄνδρα λαμπρὸν οὕτω τὴν ψυχήν, Diod. Sic. 4.40,1 ψυχῆς λαμπρότητι, al., and canidus applied to inge-

nium (Hor. Epod. 11.11f., with L. C. Watson ad loc.,), anima (Sat. 15,41), index (Epist. 1.4,1). See also below, on ξεστὸν ὀρθῇ ... στάθμῃ and ζοφώδης ... νέκυς, πλακός: a flat stone. Not in Homer. Ina funerary context, cf., for instance, Leon. AP7,480=74,2 HE, Apollon. 7.378=5,3 GP, anon. 7.324=27,1 PGE. Other terms for the sepulchral stone in the Anthology are Adas ruußirns, merpos, λίθαξ; see Weisshäup! 54. Weisshäupl further noted, in regard to the Jemmatist’s equation of πλάξ with λάρναξ here, that πλάξ has the sense of the cover of the sarcophagus in Leon. AP 7.480=74,2 HE (see also Gow-Page ad loc.).

2 ξεστὸν ὀρθῇ... στάθμῃ;: for the phrasing, cf. Crin. 3,3 ἐυσχίστοισι διάγλυπτον κεράεσσιν, A,lf. σιδήρῳ / γλυφθὲν καὶ Barry πορφύρεον κυάνῳ. Seorös is Homeric; cf. ξεστὸς λίθος (or in the plural) αἱ Il. 6.244, 18.504, Od.

3.406, al. Of a funerary stone, cf. Pind. N. 10.67 ἀγαλμ᾽ Aida, ξεστὸν πέτρον, Peek 1745=234,3f. Kaibel (Smyrna, III Bc), Peek 632=89,5 Kaibel (Athens, III Bc).

For ξέω, ξεστός, εὔξεστος, and other cognates as technical terms for the work on stone, wood, marble, etc., see Bliimner 2.177. Crinagoras use of στάθμη as a stonemasons rule is a variation of its Homeric meaning, a carpenter's rule (see Leaf on Il. 15.410, Merry and Riddell on Od. 5.245); the whole second line is probably a variation of the phrase at Od. 17.341f. and 21.43f. (σταθμόν, οὐδόν) ὅν or τόν more τέκτων | ξέσσεν ἐπισταμένως καὶ

ἐπὶ στάθμην ἴθυνεν (ξέσσε δ᾽... ἴθυνε again at Od. 5.245). Cf. also Il. 15.410f. ἀλλ᾽ὥς τε στάθμη δόρυ νήιον ἐξιθύνει 7 τέκτονος ἐν παλάμῃσι δαήμονος (on the

‘straightness’ οἵ στάθμη) and Theogn. 805f. The metaphor regarding human virtue, which Eunicidas is implicitly presented as lacking, continues with this image of rightness after the ‘whiteness’ of the marble (see above on λυγδίνης). For the idea of ‘straightness’ of mind, cf.

Pind. P 10.68 νόος ὀρθός, O. 8.24 ὀρθᾷ.... φρενί, Soph. OT 528 ὀρθῆς φρενός; see LSJ s.v. ὀρθός, HI 2. Cf. also Hom. Il. 18.508 ὃς μετὰ τοῖσι δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴποι and the Hesiodic ἰϑεῖαι δίκαι (Th. 86, Op. 36 and 225f.). Of further relevance

400

AP 7.380 = 40

is the metaphoric use of ‘square’: for instance, Simonides 37.1,1-3 PMG ἄνδρ᾽ dyaddv.../..xepaty τε καὶ ποσὶ Kai vow {τετράγωνον ἄνευ ψόγου τετυγμένον, Aristot. Rhet. 1411b26 τὸν ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα φάναι εἶναι τετράγωνον μεταφορά (ἄμφω γὰρ τέλεια).

λαοτέκτονος: here only. An echo of the Homeric τέκτων; see next note. Fora stonemason, cf. also λατύπος in Philip AP 7.554=27,1 GP (with Gow-Page ad

loc.). Δαοτύπος is poetical; cf. Agath. AP! 59,2, Theaet. Scholasticus AP! 221,2, Peek 655=441,10

Kaibel

(Trachonitis, ap

II-II; a sculptor), Alcaeus AP

7.429=16,3 HE (as an adjective) λαοτύποις σμίλαις. Other terms for a stonemason: λιθουργός, λιθοτόμος, λιθοκόπος, λιθοξόος, εἴς,; see Blümner 3.3ff.

(mentioning also Crinagoras ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, p. 5). For other compounds with Auo-, cf. Bianor 9.272=11,6 GP Aaorivarrov ὕδωρ. See Giangrande (1967) 19. 3 οὐκ... ἐσθλοῦ: figure of Arrörns: see Lausberg 268. Cf. Crin. 15,2 οὐ κείνης ἥδε xepeiorepn, 4,5 ἀπ᾿ οὐκ ὀλίγης... φρενός. For ἐσθλός in a moral sense in Homer, see Ebeling s.v. d (omni genere virtutum’),

μὴ λίθῳ rexpaipeo: cf. Antip. Thess. AP 7.18=12,1f. ἀνέρα μὴ πέτρῃ τεκμαΐίρεο' λιτὸς ὁ τύμβος 7 ὀφθῆναι μεγάλου δ᾽ ὀστέα φωτὸς ἔχει, Diod. 7.235=11,1 GP μὴ μέτρει Μάγνητι τὸ πηλίκον οὔνομα τύμβῳ, anon. 7.137,1{ μή με τάφῳ σύγκρινε τὸν “Ἕκτορα μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ τύμβῳ / μέτρει τὸν πάσης EAAddos ἀντίπαλον. Crinagoras

is reversing the common motif of a small grave covering a great man, for which cf. also Geminus AP 7,73=1,6 GP, Peek 1924,54=618b,11 Kaibel (Rome, AD I-II), Peek 588=106,1 Kaibel (Athens, Ap III), Simias AP 7.21=4 HE (on Sophocles), anon. 7.84 (on Thales), Antip. Thess. 7.136=55 GP (on Priam); see further Skiadas (1965) 56 with nn. 5-7. For the motif in Latin, cf. Mart.

10.63,1f. Marmora parva quidem sed non cessura, viator, | Mausoli saxis pyramidumque legis. 4 ὦ λῷστε: common exclamation in addresses. In the Anthology, cf. Call. 7.725=42,2 HE, Glaucus API 111=3,5 GP, anon. AP! 192,1. Note that Il. 2 and 3 open with contrasting words (οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ἐσθλοῦ--ὦ λῷστε), which further

stress the impression of Eunicidas’ vileness, juxtaposed, as it is, with the goodness ofa simple passer-by. τὸν θανόντα: for θανών as a noun in sepulchral epigrams, cf. Leon. AP 7.657=19,11, Nicomachus 7.299=1,3 HE, Palladas 7.610,3. κωφὸν ἡ λίθος: cf. Peek 1994a,1 (AD II) κωφὴ μὲν λίθος εἰμί, 1298,1 (AD Π) κωφῆς ἐκ πέτρης λόγον δέξαι, ὁδῖτα. Kadds is a conventional epithet in a funerary

context; in the Anthology, cf. Pinytus 7.16=1,1 κωφὸν ἔχει τάφος οὔνομα Σαπφοῦς, Antip. Thess. 7.287=58,3f. κωφόν σῆμα, Marc. Arg.7.395=20,6 κωφόν... γράμμα, Heracleides 7.392=2,6 GP κωφὴν στησάμενοι λίθακα (a cenotaph), Antip. Sid. 7.467=54,8 HE κωφά.... κόνις. In the present poem, as Gow-Page

AP 7.380 = 40

401

remark, the stone is insensitive because it does not care for the vileness of the

person that it covers. For the phrasing, cf. Crin. 50,8 ἐσθλὸν ἡ δίκη.

5 Jacobs and Rubensohn suspected a gap after 1.4, nulla enim est relatio inter vocabula κωφὸν et ζοφώδης (Jacobs'). The meaning, however, seems perfectly sound and complete as it is, and there is no reason why the lack of relation between ‘insensitive and ‘dark’ should present problems of coherence.

καί: as Gow-Page comment, the phrase means ‘even a scoundrel may have a fine sepulchre’; for this nuance of καί, see Denniston 293, II A. Cf. Call. AP 9,336=60,4 HE πεζὸν κἀμὲ παρῳκίσατο with Gow-Page ad loc. Reiske (1754, 139, in the notes to n. 600) suggested πᾶς, instead of καί, unnecessarily.

ζοφώδης... νέκυς: the adjective occurs in Aristotle (De mund. 39b,6, al.) and often in medical writers. It is rare in poetry, but perhaps occurs in Pind. fr. 302. For νέκυς, see on Crin. 15,2 and 45,3. Gow-Page remark that it is difficult to find examples in Greek of such a use of ‘dark qualifying a person in reference to his character and compare the Latin niger, mentioning Οἷς, Caecin. 10.27 Clodius...nec minus niger, etc. and (after Jacobs’) Hor. Sat. 1.4,85 hic niger est, hunc tu, Romane, caveto and Plut. Mor. 12e μὴ συνδιατρίβειν μέλασιν ἀνθρώποις διὰ κακοήθειαν (the only example from Greek); see also Gowers on Hor. loc. cit. Gow-Page further cite, as regards a ‘dark heart/ mind, Lobo fr. 522,4f. SH γλῶσσα δέ οἱ διχόμυθος / ἐκ μελαίνης

φρενὸς γεγωνῇ and Pind. fr. 123,5 μέλαιναν καρδίαν. Further examples ofa ‘dark mind’ are Aesch. Eum. 459 κελαινόφρων (of Clytaemnestra), interpreted by the Scholiast as δολιόφρων,2 and Marc. Aurel. 4.18 and 4.28 μέλαν ἦθος. In Latin, cf. also [Sen.] Anth, Lat. 412,2 pectora nigra with Dingel (on 21,2) and Breitenbach

(on 15,1-2) ad loc. Sommerstein comments on Aesch. loc. cit. that the adjective has the sense of ‘evil’ and compares Soph. Aj. 954/5 κελαινώπαν θυμόν; see also Finglass on Soph. loc. cit. The phrase ζοφώδης.... νέκυς are not words ‘vix feliciter inventa’, as Rubensohn (50) maintained, because a) the idea of the man’s

metaphorical darkness creates an antithesis with the shining white marble that covers him and stresses the reversal of the funerary topos (see intr. note), and b) ζόφος is traditionally associated with death (see on Crin. 18,4). Crinagoras is

combining the darkness of Eunicidas’ character with the typical darkness of Hades; likewise Sappho says to the woman who has not cultivated the Muses (fr. 55,4 L-P) φοιτάσῃς red ἀμαύρων νεκύων ἐκπεποταμένα,

2 The Homeric μέλαιναι φρένες (Il. 1.103 and 17.83, 499, and 573) are explained by Hesychius as αἱ βαθεῖαι, καὶ ἀγαθαί, καὶ πυκναί ἢ αἱ δειναὶ καὶ ἰσχυραί and by Suda (s.v. μελαίνῃ) as af ἐν βάθει κείμεναι" τὸ γὰρ βαθὺ μέλαν.

where ἄμαυροι probably refers to obscurity in terms of lack of fame (cf. Bowra 1961, 207), but also accords with the traditional darkness of the underworld.’

ἀμφιέννυται: the concept of the dead as ‘wearing’ the earth that covers him is common. Cf. Leon. AP 7.480=74,4 γῆν ἐπιεννύμεθα, Hegesippus 7.446=4,2 Ἀργείαν γαῖαν ἐφεσσάμενος, Mnasalcas 7.242=7,2 δνοῴφερὰν ἀμφεβάλωντο κόνιν,

Theocr. 7.660=12,4 HE, Adaeus 7.238=4,2 GP, Agath. 7.551,4, Peek 1248,4 (Rhodes, HI-II Bc); also Alcaeus fr. 129,17 L-P γᾶν ἐπιέμμενοι, Aesch. Ag. 872,

Pind. N. 11.16, Eur. Hel. 851f., Xen. Cyr. 6.4,6. See Gow-Page on Diosc. AP 7.708=24,4 HE, Gow on Theocr. ep. 9,4, Fraenkel on Aesch. loc. cit., Geficken on Leon. 32,4. The expression ‘wearing the gravestone’ is rarer than ‘wearing the earth. Cf. Nicomachus AP 7.299=1,4 HE od’ épardy πάτραν κείμεθ' ἐφεσσάμενοι, Peek 1449,2 (Chalcis, HI BC) κεῖσαι τόνδε μέγαν τύμβον ἐφεσσάμενος.

6 κεῖται δὲ τῇδε: for the common sepulchral formula, cf., for instance, ‘Simon? AP 7.249=22b,lf. FGE τῇδε / κείμεθα, Simias 7.60=6,2 HE, Marc. Arg, 7 A03=32,3, Philod. 7.222=26,1 GP ἐνθάδε κεῖται; see Sider on Philod. 33,1. The

reference to the place of burial is commonplace in funerary poems; see on Crin. 16,6. For the ‘continuative’ δέ, see Denniston 162f, τὠλιγηπελές: the correction of P’s τὠλιγωπ- to τὠλιγηπ- occurs in Ap. B. in margine (τ᾽ ὠλιγοπελές in textu), while Ap. G. and Ap. R. have τοὐλιγηπ- in textu, printed by Brunck. Ap. V. keeps P’s reading τὠλιγωπελές. Homer has ὀλιγηπελέων (Il. 15.24, 15.245, Od. 5.457, 19.356; Et. M.: ὀλιγηπελέων' ὀλιγοδρανέων, ὀλίγον ἰσχύων, ἐξησθενηκώς) and ὀλιγηπελίη (Od. 5.468); the form ὀλιγηπελής only here and Opp. Hal. 1.767. A similar case is the Homeric ὀλιγοδρανέων (Il. 15.246, 16.843, 22.337) appearing as ὀλιγοδρανής at Aristoph. Av. 685f. (see Kakridis and Dunbar ad loc.). Also, cf. περισθενέων (Od. 22.368-

περισθενής (Pind. N. 3.16). See further Schwyzer 1.724, Frisk 376, Chantraine (1958) 349. With the Homeric ὀλιγηπελέων and ὀλιγηπελίη as a model, Callimachus coins εὐηπελίη (H. 6.135) and Nicander κακηπελέων (Th. 878, Al. 93) and κακηπελίη (Th. 319).

Rubensohn condemns the expression τὠλιγηπελὲς paxos probably because the adjective ‘weak is attributed to a corpse, rather than to a living creature, as is the case in all the above cited passages, in Homer and Quintus Smyrnaeus (the same holding true for ὀλιγοδρανέων, -ής): cf. also Crin. 47,3 ψυχῆς ἀσθενὲς

ἕρκος. Crinagoras may have in mind the ‘weakness’ of the dead in the Homeric νεκύων ἀμενηνὰ κάρηνα (Od. 10.521 and 536, 11.49), which, of course, refers to * It has been argued, on the contrary, that ‘dark’ as the basic meaning of djaupds should be rejected and ‘feeble’ should be rather suggested. See A. P McKinlay, ‘On the Way Scholars Interpret anaupds, AC 26 (1957), 12-39. According to McKinlay’s (29) interpretation of the word in the Sapphic passage, there is no reference to lack of fame: the woman who has not produced any work

of her own ‘has no merit’ in the underworld. See also Dunbar on Aristoph. Av, 685.

their souls, but ıs also in accordance with the account of the fate of the body,

destroyed by the funeral pyre, which Anticleia gives Odysseus in Od. 11.217-21; see Merry and Riddell on Od. 10.521. Note that Eunicidas’ body, described here as a ‘rag, is also burnt (or at least half burnt): cf. 41,5f. Εὐνικέδου ἡμιπύρωτα / λεέψαν", corresponding directly to τὠλιγηπελὲς ῥάκος / Bivictdao.

ῥάκος: the ‘remnants’ of Eunicidas, referring to his corpse. At Antiphil. AP 9.242=20,5 GP ἁλίοιο βίου ῥάκος, the metaphor is bolder, ‘the rags of a life’; see Gow- Page ad loc. Jacobs’ cites Soph. Tr. 1103 ὧδ ἀναρθρος καὶ κατερρακωμένος, Clem. Paed. 3.9.46,4 (τὰ λουτρά) ... θᾶττον ἢ προσῆκεν ῥακοῖ τὰ σώματα Kat

προγηράσκειν ἀναγκάζει Cf. further Lucian Merc. Cond. 39 καὶ ῥάκος σε πολυσχιδὲς ἐργασάμενος, Tim. 32 ἀποδῷ πάλιν ἐμοὶ ῥάκος ἤδη γεγενημένον, Aesch. Pr. 1023 σώματος μέγα ῥάκος, Rufinus AP 5.21=7,3 Page σῶμα ῥακῶδες,

Antiphil. 11.66=5L1f. GP paxderra.../ χρῶτα (on the ragged skin). See Jebb, Kamerbeek, and Davies on Soph. and Page on Ruf. focc. citt. Cf. also Aristotle's example of metaphor, Rhet. 3.11,13 εἰκάσαι.... τὸ ἐρείπιον ῥάκει οἰκίας. Brecht (5, with n. 22a) suggested that this image may belong to the Arae literature. See also on Crin. 41, intr. note.

7 Εὐνικίδαο: Εὐνικίδης is rarely attested in inscriptions; see LGPN II (three inscriptions from Athens, IV-I sc), III.A (one inscription from Messenia, II Bc), IILB (three inscriptions from Boeotia, II-I Bc), s.v.; in the inscriptions from

Messenia and Boeotia we have Euvucidas. For Cichorius’ suggestion, see above, intr. note. For the epic genitive form in -do, usually in verse-end in the hexameter verse (Αἰακίδαο, Οἰδιπόδαο), see Chantraine (1958) 200f.

σήπεται: the form occurs once in Homer (Il. 24.414, on the corpse of Hector). See LSJ s.v. II.

ὑπὸ σποδῷ: the word is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, Od. 9.375 μοχλὸν ὑπὸ

σποδοῦ ἤλασα πολλῆς. Gow- Page remark that the word is not well chosen, as it usually indicates the ashes of a dead man’s cremated body (especially in tragedy: see LS] s.v. I), while here it is to be distinguished from Eunicidas’ relics, since it refers to the earth that covers the dead, and cite Hdt. 4.172,4 of δὲ τῆς χαμᾶθεν σποδοῦ λαβόντες as an example of σποδός meaning dust. At the end of Crin. 41, however, we read χθὼν... κακοσκηνεῦς ἐπὶ rédpys... μὴ κούφη κέκλισο: in the final couplet of the two epigrams Crinagoras works out the same

image in a reverse manner, playfully using two words, τέφρα and σποδός, which are otherwise synonyms, to denote the two objects, body and earth. In the iambic poem the body lies ὑπὸ σποδῷ of the earth; in the elegiac, on the contrary, it is now earth which lies ἐπὲ τέφῤρης of the body. For the construction, cf. ὑπὸ σποδῷ in Theocr, 24.88 πῦρ... ὑπὸ σποδῷ εὔτυκον ἔστω, and 11.51 Evri... καὶ ὑπὸ σποδῷ ἀκάματον πῦρ (see Hunter ad loc.).

AP7.401=41

5.

Τήνδ᾽ ὑπὸ δύσβωλον θλίβει χθόνα φωτὸς ἀλιτροῦ ὀστέα μισητῆς τύμβος ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς στέρνα τ᾽ ἐποκριόεντα καὶ οὐκ EVOOMOV ὀδόντων πρίονα καὶ κώλων δούλιον Toromeönvt, ἄτριχα καὶ κόρσην, Εὐνικίδου ἡμιπύρωτα λείψαν᾽ἔτι χλωρῆς ἔμπλεα τηκεδόνος. «Χθὼν ὦ δυσνύμφευτε, κακοσκηνεῦς ἐπὶ τέφρης ἀνδρὸς μὴ κούφη κέκλισο und ὀλίγη.

ΑΡ 7.401 [Ὁ] Κριναγόρου [J] ἕτερον ἀνώνυμον eis Εὐνίδικον οὗτινος τὰ 607d ἀτημέλητα

ΡῚ ΠῚΡ 23 (εἰς movnpoVs), 1 Κριναγόρου 3 στέρνα (7 Pes Ph: -vov Par | τ᾽ ἐποκριόεντα Jue: τεπεκρείκοντα Ρ [τ supra ρει scr. C], re πλεῖα δόλοιο Ρ] [ὀδόντων CPl:-ra Ρ 5 Εὐνικίδου Brunck: Εὐνιδίκου CPI,

Εὐνίδικον

7 κακοσκηνεῦς Reiske: -σκήνευς PP]

8 κέκλισο μηδ᾽ CPl: κεκλίσομαι δ᾿ Ῥὶ

Brunck n. 37, Rubensohn ἢ, 17

In this foul-clodded earth, the tomb above this hated head presses a villain’s bones and projecting chest and the malodorous saw-line of teeth and the servilely legs and his hairless head, the half-burned remains of Eunicidas, still full of green corruption. O earth who have an evil bed-mate, lie neither light nor thin on the ashes of this man with the ugly corpse. Epitaph for Eunicidas; see on 40, intr. note. The poem consists of a list of the parts of Eunicidas’ body, which are pre-

sented in negative terms, to underline his physical and mental deformities: δύσβωλον, οὐκ εὔοδμον, Arpıya, δυσνύμφευτε, κακοσκηνεῦς. The list is a more

common feature of dedicatory epigrams (see on Crin. 43, intr. note), but is not, of course, restricted only to them; cf. Siedschlag 40, n. 2. The last couplet of the poem recalls the first one: δυσνύμφευτος χθών corresponds to the opening δύσβωλον .... χθόνα (χθών being repeated and in both places qualified by an adjective beginning with övo-), φωτὸς ἀλιτροῦ corresponds to kakooknveös...

ἀνδρός and the concluding curse that the soil lie heavy on the dead corresponds

to θλίβει... ] ὀστέα of Il. 1-2 The whole epigram is thus enclosed in the image of the ‘unhappy earth’ ‘pressing’ the remains of ‘hateful’ Eunicidas; for this

Crinagorean technique, see Intr., Language and Style, Structure. Crinagoras’ description of the dead man is repulsive and recalls the Homeric

Thersites (see below passim), who combines ugliness with moral baseness (cf. I], 2.248).' Thersites, whose appearance and attitude are ‘laughable’ (ZI. 2.215), and comprise the comic element,’ is a negatively exceptional figure described with numerous ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in Homer (φολκός, φοξός, ψεδνός). The case

of the adjectives qualifying Eunicidas is similar; cf., apart from the dubious ἐποκριόεντα, the very rare ἡμιπύρωτα and the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον κακοσκηνεῦς.

As Gow-Page comment, the vocabulary of this epigram is particularly hightoned and elaborate. Given that the two poems on Eunicidas are parodies of normal epitaphs that praise the virtues of the dead (cf. below, on Il. If, 7f.), and Eunicidas is sketched here as a Thersites-like, ridiculously ugly figure, Crinagoras’ elevated style is in contrast with the baseness of his subject, a contrast which also exists in Arae literature;* see also on Crin. 40,6 ῥάκος.

Crinagoras’ attack on Eunicidas is characterized by an Archilochean (as Brecht, 5, observes) or Hipponactean rage unattested elsewhere in his poems.‘ Eunicidas’ physical characteristics are similar to those belonging to persons ridiculed in epigrams of Book 11 of the Anthology; cf. below on οὐκ evodwov. For ugliness,

cf. 11.196-204 (a large nose is the feature usually ridiculed); for deformity in both soul and body, cf. Antiochus 11.412 and anon. 11.273.° Referring to the poems of Book 11 of the Anthology, Brecht (5) remarks that Crinagoras is

the first epigrammatist who makes such satirical attacks. We have, of course, the satirical epitaphs of Book 7, coming from the Hellenistic era (see on Crin. 40, intr. note); Brecht refers rather to the particularly vehement attack realized

through the grotesque description of the epigrammatist’s target. If. τήνδ᾽: for the commonplace reference to the location of the tomb in epitaphs, see on Crin. 16,6.

δύσβωλον χθόνα: the adjective elsewhere only at Vit. Hom. Vit. Herod. 251. “Χθὼν ὦ δυσνύμφευτε in |. 7 is a variation of this phrase; see further below, ad loc. ' ‘The two qualities tending to coincide in the epic world. See Kirk on Il. 2.216. Cf. also C. Higbie, Heroes’ Names, Homeric Identities (New York 1995), 33.

? See G, Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans (Baltimore 1979), 262, and W. G. ‘Thalmann, “Thersites: Comedy, Scapegoats and Heroic Ideology in the Hiad, TAPA 118 (1988), 16f.

* Cf, the elaborate rhetorical style and the simplicity of content of inscriptional curses: see L. C. Watson (1991) 113. ‘This contrast (elaboration of style-repulsiveness of the object of description) corresponds to the contrast between Eunicidas’ fine sepulchre and his personal vileness (Crin. 40).

* Cf. the figure of Sannus mocked by Hipponax in fr. 18,1 JEG, and, generally, the Hipponactean practice of exaggerated realism to describe the figure of the pharmakos; see C. Miralles, J. Portulas, The Poetry of Hipponax (Rome 1988), 1431. > See Rolleston 32.

AB 7401 =41 OXiBeı.../ ὀστέα: cf. Crin. 37,6 θλίβειν ἀρχαίων ὀστέα Βακχιαδῶν and see ad loc. Leonidas in AP 7.655=17 HE sees the magnificent tomb as a burden to the dead and expresses the idea through the verb ἐπιθλίβοι (στήλη) at |. 2f. Gow-

Page (on Leon. 17,3f.) compare Lucian Dial. Mort. 24,2 (Diogenes to Mausolus, on the latter's grave) ὅτι μᾶλλον ἡμῶν ἀχθοφορεῖς ὑπὸ τηλικούτοις λίθοις πιεζόμενος.

φωτὸς ἀλιτροῦ: ἀλιτρός is a Homeric rarity (Il. 8.361, 23.595, Od. 5.182). As an

adjective qualifying men, cf. Theogn. 377, Ap. Rh. 2.215f. Ἀλιτρός stands often at verse-end; cf., for instance, Hom. Il. 23.595, Theogn. and Ap. Rh. locc. citt., Theogn. 731 and 745, Call. H. 2.2. For its religious associations (opposition to gods), see Ε Williams on Call. A. 2.2. μισητῆς: the word is rare in poetry; cf. Aesch. Ag. 1228. Elsewhere in the Anthology only at anon. 11.250,2. Mionros means ‘lewd’ and μισήτη ‘prostitute’ (see LSJ s.v.), although the difference of meaning between μισητή and μισήτη probably developed in the course of the writers’ use, rather than existing originally; see Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1228-30. For the ‘hatefulness’ of such a figure, cf. the description of Thersites as ἔχθιστος (to Achilles and Odysseus) at Il. 2.220. ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς: at the same sedes at Theocr. AP 7.658=7,4 HE (Gow, Theocr. ep.

15); Crinagoras (16) is perhaps remotely reminiscent of the last couplet of the Theocritean poem and reverses its spirit: €

χαιρέτω οὗτος ὁ τύμβος", ἐρεῖς, ἐπεὶ Εὐρυμέδοντος κεῖται τῆς ἱερῆς κοῦφος ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς" 2

T

τς

4

>

9

my

\

>

‘

In Theocritus, the tomb lies lightly on the ‘righteous head’ of Eurymedon; in Crinagoras, on the other hand, the grave crushes Eunicidas’ bones (θλίβει... ὀστέα) above his ‘hateful head’; note the contrasting pair ἱερῆς--μισητῆς (which moreover sound similarly because of their ὁμοιοτέλευτον), in both poems

standing at the same sedes. Similar to the Theocritean last line is also anon. AP 7.3,1 τὴν ἱερὴν κεφαλὴν κατὰ γαῖα καλύπτει which is an epigraphic topos;

see Skiadas (1965) 8f. For the commonplace of periphrases with κεφαλή in sepulchral poems, see also Gow-Page on Philip AP 7.362=78,1 GP and Theodoridas 7.479=16,2 HE.

3f. στέρνα τ᾿ ἐποκριόεντα: στέρνον is used in Homer for the chest of males only;

for its formation, see Chantraine (1979) 192. Planudes’ στέρνα re πλεῖα δόλοιο is printed, among editors of P, by Brunck and Jacobs’. Oxpiders is used of ‘jagged’ stones (this is the Homeric sense: Il. 4.518, 8.327, 12.380, al.) or of ‘ground encumbered with them’ (see Gow on [Theocr.] 25.231); for the latter meaning, cf. Aesch. Pr, 281 ὀκριοέσσῃ χθονί. The adjective can also have the meaning

‘sharp, pointed, as in [Theocr.] loc. cit. At Ap. Rh. 1.1093 Δινδύμον ὀκριόεντος

AP 7.401 =41

207

it probably refers to two peaks of the mountain; see Chryssafis on [Theocr.] loc. cit. Eroxpıaw, which

means ‘be rough, uneven, is used by Nicander,

Th. 789. βαρέαι δ᾽ ἐσκλήκασι yrdas, / olare πετραίοισιν ἐποκριόωσι παγούροις, and the scholiast explains the verb as τραχύνονται. Gow-Page remark that the

description must refer to Eunicidas’ living body, rather than his corpse, despite the summarizing phrase ἡμιπύρωτα λείψανα, Gow-Page further argue that

the phrases ‘malodorous teeth’ and ‘bald head’ are meaningful in regards to the living man, rather than the deceased, since all half-burned corpses have bald heads (note, however, that Philip describes in similar terms the skull of a corpse; see below), and it would be pointless to describe their teeth as malodorous; as

regards the ‘jagged’ chest, all skeletons are ‘projecting’ (LSJ s.v.), so the adjective must refer to a kind of deformity Eunicidas had in life. Yet, Gow-Page state that

they cannot imagine the deformity that is here described and that they are suspicious as to the originality of the adjective ἐποκριόεις here. The assumption

that Crinagoras is describing the living Eunicidas seems to be correct, since this is further supported by the reference to the mans servile status in 1. 4 (which can be established by the adjective δούλιον, even if the following word is corrupt). Furthermore, Crinagoras may be deliberately using terms which suit

both a living body and a corpse, playing with the reader's expectations. The only possible deformity of a living man that can be described here is Adpdwars, the body bending backward so as to be convex in front (LSJ s.v.). Crinagoras’

στέρνα ἐποκριόεντα implies that this deformity concerns the upper part of the body. Cf. Hippocr. Art. 48.10-12 ἣν δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἄνω μέρει μᾶλλον τὸ Adpdwpa γένηται, παντὸς τοῦ σώματος ἀκρατέες καὶ κατανεναρκωμένοι γίνονται. Some

physical weakness on the part of Eunicidas is likely; cf. τὠλιγηπελὲς ῥάκος in 40,6. Eunicidas’ ‘jagged’ upper body, therefore, is the opposite from the ideal of masculine beauty, which traditionally involves a ‘broad’ and ‘shining’ chest,° and recalls the famous ugliness of the Homeric Thersites’ who also has a hump and deformed chest: Il. 2.217f. rw δέ of ὥμω / κυρτώ, ἐπὶ στῆθος συνοχωκότε. Στέρνα in the plural occurs in Homer at Il. 3.194, 13.282, 23.365, al. The word

appears in poetry, and especially in tragedy, as the seat of feelings, the heart (see LSJ s.v.1 2). Jacobs’ noted that the expression στέρνα ἐποκριόεντα non male

ad mores asperos, duros et insuaves transfertur, citing Hesych. ὀκριόεν' τραχύ, σκληρόν, στερεόν, ὀργίλον. ὀκριόεντο' ἐτραχύνοντο, ὠργίζοντο, μεταφορικῶς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄκρα πολλὰ ἐχόντων λίθων; Jacobs” remarked on the phrase that nunc

quidem de gibbosi thoracis deformitatae accipio and Jacobs (1826) 326 noted: pectoris thorax videtur intelligi, gibbus ille et inaequalis, Although these terms certainly concern Eunicidas’ body on a first level, a further allusion to his character cannot be ruled out; cf. the similar connotations of ὀδόντων πρίονα. ° Cf, Od. 18.686. φάμεν δὲ of edpées ὧμοι ἰστήθεά re στιβαροί τε βραχίονες (of Odysseus). Also Il. 3.194, Aristaph. Nub. 1012, Theocr. 2.79, 24.80 (with H. White ad loc.), Qu. Sm. 7.255.

? This resemblance was already noted by Rolleston (32).

AP7/4U1=41

See below, ad loc. The general impression of unevenness and roughness suits both Eunicidas’ body (alive and/or corpse) and his soul; see on Crin. 40,1 Avydivys.

οὐκ εὔοδμον: cf. the figure of litotes also in 40,2 οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ἐσθλοῦ; see ad loc. Homer has ὀδμή, but the Homeric adjective is εὐώδης (e.g. Il. 3.382). See Chantraine (1979) 429. Cf. Hesych. εὔοδμος- εὐώδης. Most compound adjectives display the variation -oöwos, τοσμος in Herodotus, Pindar, Aristotle; see

Buck- Petersen 208f., Chryssafis on [Theocr.] 25.69, Rossi on Theocr. 17.29. For evodpos, cf. Theocr. 3.23, 17.29, often in Nonnus. Elsewhere in the Anthology, Strato 12.195=36,6 Floridi, Palladas 11.54,5. At Nonnus D. 17.75 we have evodjeov at the same sedes as in the present epigram. For a persons malodorous mouth as the subject of satire, cf. Lucillius’ and

Nicarchus’ epigrams in AP 11.239-42, Lucian 11.427, For the motif, see further Brecht 95.

ὀδόντων / πρίονα: a periphrasis in the same sedes also meaning ‘line of teeth’ is Mac. Cons, AP 11.374,3f. ὀδόντων / öpxarov. Perhaps here, as well as in Crin. 47,2f. ἀγλώσσου θ᾽ ἁρμονίη στόματος, / ψυχῆς ἀσθενὲς ἕρκος (also of a skull’s

mouth; see ad loc.), Crinagoras has in mind the Homeric ἕρκος ὀδόντων Ll. 4.350, 9.409, Od. 1.64, al., ὀδόντων also at the clausula of the hexameter), offer-

ing two different variations of the epic phrase. Cf. Aristoph. fr. 61 K-A στόμια πριονωτά. Πρίειν often describes the grinding of the teeth (see LS] s.v. II), especially with anger; cf. Aristoph. Ran. 927, Ap. Rh. 4.1671, [Opp.] Cyn. 4.139. Cf. also anon. AP! 265 on Momus (cf. below, on arpıya... κόρσην), Il. 5f. Crinagoras’

description of Eunicidas’ teeth, in addition to referring to their shape, which may have been ‘even more saw-like than those of ordinary men’ (Gow-Page ad loc,), perhaps also does hint at the dead man’s character; see also above, on στέρνα τ᾽ ἐποκριόεντα. IIpı- is here long, as in earlier poets, while it is short at Nic. Th. 52, Leon.

AP 6.204=7,2 (see Gow-Page ad loc.) and Mel. 7.196=13,3 HE. κώλων: the word often designates feet; cf. Aesch. Eum. 375f. σφαλερὰ καὶ τανυδρόμοις / κῶλα, Eur. Ph. 1185 χεῖρες δὲ καὶ κῶλ᾽, Hel. 1301f. δρομάδι κώ- / Aw;

Hec. 1164, Ba. 168; cf., in the same sedes and phrasing, Philip AP 7.383=32,6 GP καὶ κώλων ἔκλυτος ἁρμονίη; see also next note. δούλιον Τοἰοπέδηντ: SovAcos is the poetic form for δουλικός of Attic prose; Homer uses it only in the phrase δούλιον ἦμαρ, Il. 6.463, Od. 14.340, 17.323. Cf Aesch. Sept. 471 and 793, Ag. 1226 δούλιον ζυγόν, Soph. Aj. 499 δουλίαν ἕξειν τροφήν, Hipp. fr. 26,6 LEG δούλιον χόρτον, 115,8 IEG δούλιον ἄρτον," Ap. Rh. 4.38

δούλια ἔργα. As Gow-Page observe, since the man buried in a fine tomb cannot

bea slave, the phrase can only mean that Eunicidas started his life as a slave. For ® Some scholars have attributed the poem to Archilochus; see Kirkwood 22, n. 41.

AP 7.401 =41

AUY

the reference to slave origin in insults, cf. Hipp. fr. 28,5 [ΕΟ vixdpra (the artist is certainly not a slave; Hesych. s.v. explains δουλέκδουλος; see Masson 1962, 121). Another insult probably hinting at someone's origin is (the spurious) Hipp. fr. 147 IEG ἑπτάδουλος (see Masson 1962, 174); also cf. Anacreon’s merci-

less satire of Artemon who started his career at the bottom of social hierarchy, being probably a barbarian (Anacr. 43 PMG; see Kirkwood 174f. and Bowra 1961,

298f.), comparable to Hor. Epod. 4, a caustic attack on an ex-slave. For the similarities between the two poems and for further literary examples of people of humble origin who subsequently rose socially, see L. C. Watson (2003) 145-52.

As is probably the case in Crinagoras, Horaces shackles, Epod, 4.4, crura dura compede. For ad loc. P’s reading οἰοπέδη (=uovoreön, according as membrorum compagem, vinculum deserto in

ex-slave had his legs fettered in this practice, see L. C. Watson to Jacobs’), explained by critics loco jacens (Brodaeus 1549, 390,

Brodaeus-Obsopoeus 411), quod fortasse compedum genus fuit (Jacobs'), inter-

preted in the sense given by Jacobs’, who suggested that Eunicidas’ legs were malformed and that he walked with a limp as if he were a slave in chains,

requires too much use of the imagination on the reader's part. Gow-Page rightly remark that, while δούλιον and -πέδην suit each other and κώλων (cf. Ap. Rh. fr. 12.13 δούλια δεσμά, Nonnus D, 15.31, 27.198, 34.166 ζυγὰ δούλια, 15.155, 17.122,

34.206 δούλιον eis ζυγόδεσμον, also anon. AP! 15,3 κατὰ κῶλον ἀλυκτοπέδῃσι

λυγωθείς), οἰοπέδη is vox nihili, perhaps meaning ‘a woollen bandage for sore feet’ (>ols; see LS] s.v.), Their suggestion δουλιογυιοπέδην, however,’ is not particularly convincing either, as yuco- would be a mere repetition of κώλων.

Hecker suggested ἰχνοπέδην (1852, 11, ‘compedes, quibuscum Eunicides contemtu et negligentia libitinariorum sepultus esse a poeta fingitur’. Hecker is here repeating the thought of Jacobs’ about ἡμιπύρωτα; see below, ad loc.), which is not suitable in the context, since it designates a kind of trap for animals (Antip. Thess. 6.109=54,2, anon. 7.626=1,5 GP); in any case, Eunicidas cannot be imagined

as being buried with such an object. Noteworthy, although not very easily justifiable from a palaeographical point of view, is Borthwick’s δουλιοκλοιοπέδην. Borthwick suggests that the term is a coinage of the rare word κλοιόπους, the wooden shoe of a slave (Tzetzes Chil. 13.300), the feminine ending being supported by the parallel word ξυλοπέδη; for the wooden shoes worn by slaves either as a punishment or as a means to restrict their movements, see further Borthwick 429. Another word designating a limb fetter in the Anthology is the (perhaps corrupt) ἀρθροπέδη in Phanias 6.297=4,3 HE. However, we cannot justify the appearance of any object that serves to establish Eunicidas’ identity as a servant in the present epigram, unless it leads us to discern a reference to Eunicidas’ (former) servile status. One may compare Erycius’ attack * Γυιοπέδη occurs at Pind. P 2.41 ἐν δ᾽ ἀφύκτοισι γυιοπέδαις πεσών, Aesch. Pr. 168f. xparepais / ev γυιοπέδαις alkılouevov, Opp. Hal. 2.85, Nonnus D, 13.488, 36.365 and 383.

410

AP 7.401=41

(AP 7.377=13 GP) on the dead Parthenius, perhaps the enslaved and later manumitted Nicaean author, with a reference, in the last line, to a collar

imagined as restricting his neck in Hades and described as a κλοιός. Erycius probably alludes to the servile status of Parthenius in the first and the last line of the poem; see Gow-Page on Erycius 13,8 and Seth-Smith 70 with nn. 25

and 26.'° The Homeric compound with πέδη is ἱστοπέδη, the step of the mast where

Odysseus was tied up, in order to sail safely past the Sirens, Od. 12.51, 162, 179, For compounds of -πέδη also in the end of the pentameter in the Anthology,

cf. anon. 12.160=31,2 HE, Paul. Sil. 5.230,6, Agath. 9.641,6 ἀλυκτοπέδη, Antip, Sid. 6.14=1,4 HE and Antip. Thess. 9.76=80,4 δεραιοπέδη, Isidorus 9.94=5,2 GP ἱμαντοπέδη. e

/

5 ἄτριχα.... κόρσην: Crinagoras uses κόρση to avoid the repetition of κεφαλή

(1. 2), as [Theocritus] does in 25.255 (see Gow ad loc.). Képan (the Ionic form for the Attic xöppn: see Chantraine 1979, 434) in Homer ‘temple’; cf. Pollux 2.40 τοὺς δὲ κροτάφους ἔνιοι καὶ köppas κόρσας, ἤγουν κεφαλάς, Hesych. s.v. kxöppn, τράχηλος ἢ τὸ ἢ κρόταφος. Κόρση, κεφαλή, ἔπαλξις, κλίμαξ, κρόταφος.

has always the sense ὀνομάζουσιν, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀπίσω τοῦ τραχήλου, Képan means simply

‘head’ in Ionic and Attic prose, as well as in late epic; see Bornmann on 3.78. In the Anthology, cf. Antiphilus 6.199=16,1, Philip 7.383=32,4 below), Jul. Aeg. AP! 113,3. A@p:é is a rarer adjective than ἄτριχος; instance, Ael. NA 7.16,7. In poetry, Matro fr. 538,3 SH; Nonnus seems

Call. A. GP (see cf., for to echo

Crinagoras’ phrase in D. 18.348 πόθεν Adyes ἄτριχα κόρσην;. Cf, also NonnusD.

11.510 λιπότριχι δήσατο κόρσῃ, 26.159 λωβητὴν ἐκάλυπτε λιπότριχον ἄντυγα κόρσης,

and ψιλοκόρ[σης

at Call. fr. 191,29 (cf. Hesych.

s.v. ψιλοκόρρης"

φαλακρός). Perhaps Philip has in mind Crinagoras’ account of Eunicidas, when he describes the body of a drowned man washed ashore in AP 7.383=32,3f. GP τῇ μὲν ἐρημοκόμης κεῖται καὶ χῆρος ὀδόντων / κόρση (although this poem is

closer to Crin. 47; see ad loc., intr. note, and Gow- Page on Philip 32, intr, note). While in Philip the hairless head is the dead man's skull, Crinagoras is probably describing the living Eunicidas, baldness being a traditional feature of ugliness; cf. Thersites’ head, Il, 2.219 dofds ἔην κεφαλήν, pedv7 δ᾽ ἐπενήνοθε λάχνη. For the association of ugliness with evilness, cf. anon. API 265, on a statue of Momus (see also above on ὀδόντων πρίονα) depicted as old and ugly; cf. his baldness αἱ]. 8 ψιλὸν γηραιᾷ χειρὶ βαλών κρόταφον. Jacobs compared Lucian AP

11.434 (=Jacobs’ Lucian 18) on a ‘bald fool, probably referring to a Cynic, where he observes that calvities apud veteres risui erat obnoxia, mentioning the mock-

ery Julius Caesar occasionally suffered due to his baldness, Suet. Caes. 45. Εὐνικίδου: Rubensohn changed the ending to Eüvıridew as he did with Kpivayöpov in 15,6 (cf. Νικίεω in 22,3 and P’s Ἀράξεω in 38,1). A poet's consistent 1° A. Seth-Smith, ‘Parthenius and Erucius, Mnemosyne 34 (1981), 63-71.

AP 7,401 =41

Ait

conforming to the same form is not to be taken as a general rule, however; cf. Diodorus’ Aidew in AP 7.624=5,2 and A{dov in 7.627=6,2 GP; see further Intr.,

Language and Style, Dialect. For the name, see on 40,7 Eivixidao. ἡμιπύρωτα: elsewhere only in Stob. 1.26,le, on Berosus, who said that the moon is an ἡμιπύρωτος σφαῖρα. The more common adjective is ἡμίκαυτος, «στος; for instance, Paus. 10.35,3, Aelian ΝῊ 13.2,24. Arupwros is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, ‘untouched by fire, all-new’ (Il. 23.270). In Hellenistic times

both inhumation and cremation were practised (see, as regards Athens, Kurtz-Boardman 163);'' Jacobs’ suggested that the word signifies the neglect and contempt of the undertakers and compared Ov. Ib. 633 Cliniadaeve modo circumdatus ignibus artis / membra feras Stygiae semicremata rati (note, however, that Ovid is describing Alcibiades’ death by fire) and Cic. Mil. 13.33 cadaver ejecistidomo—tu infelicissimis lignis semiustulatum nocturnis canibus dilaniandum reliquisti. This assumption, however, is not compatible with Eunicidas’ splendid tomb, as described in 40, unless one accepts that the poem is not written by Crinagoras. Probably the poet uses on purpose terms which designate the ambiguous situation of Eunicidas’ corpse. See further below, on ἔτι.

6 Aetipav’: at the same sedes (though in a different case) at Crin. 47,4. Frequently found in the plural, the word designates the relics of the dead; cf., for instance,

Soph. El. 1113f. In the Anthology, cf. Phanias 7.537=8,4 HE, Thallus 7.373=4,3, Bianor 9.278=13,1 GP, al.; see Viansino on Agath. 35=7.204,8. Cf. the phrase λείψανα πυρκαϊῆς (Bassus 7.386=4,4 GP with Gow-Page ad loc.).

ἔτι: Gow-Page suggest that the poet ‘was pleased to think of the body as being

as “full of green corruption” in death as it was in life, which justifies the ἔτι: this would mean that yAwp7 τηκεδών refers both to Eunicidas living body and to his corpse (see ad loc.). Such an assumption is plausible, granted the ambiguity of the terms that describe Eunicidas in the poem. Alternatively, ἔτι could indicate that in the poet’s imagination Eunicidas dead body has not yet been completely dissolved at the time of the composition of the poem. yAwpis... rnkeöövos: Crinagoras’ phrasing recalls Erycius’ AP 9.233=9,3f. GP, on a spider's bite: χύδην δ᾽ ἔβρυξε μελαίνῃ σηπεδόνι χλωρὴν σάρκα κατ᾽ ἀστραγάλους.

4 Cremation, as in the archaic and classical period, can be divided into primary cremation, where the body was burnt in the grave itself, and secondary, in which the corpse was burnt on a pyre and then buried in a grave; in the second case, the remains were placed in a clay or metallic urn (see Kurtz-Boardman 73, 98f.); in the Hellenistic period the urns are more luxurious and

carefully decorated (sce Kurlz-Boardman 163).

413

AP 7.401 =41

Crinagoras may be reversing Erycius’ image,'” in which ‘black corruption’ goes into the ‘fresh flesh’'* of a healthy person, to produce an image in which the remains of a dead man who has been described in the other poem on the same subject as ‘black’ (40,5) are riddled with yAwpy corruption. XAwpy is

placed at the same sedes as in Erycius, is altributed to τηκεδών, a variation of Erycius’ σηπεδών, and is now qualifying a sickly condition, rather than a

healthy one, as is the case in Erycius. A variation of Crinagoras’ phrase again occurs at the same sedes at Agath. AP 5.289,10 ξυνῆς ἄλγεα τηκεδόνος. Τηκεδών is a Homeric ἀπαξ λεγόμενον, ‘consumption’ (Od. 11.201). Cf. also Ap. Rh. 4.902; frequently in medical writers. For its formation (σήπω--σηπεδών, τήκω--τηκεδών), see Chantraine (1979) 361. Τηκεδών rarely takes the sense of ‘putrefaction’ (cf. Plato Tim. 826), the usual term for this being σηπεδών; Crinagoras’ χλωρὴ τηκεδών recalls the Hippocratic χλωρὴ σῆψις (Prorrh. 1,99, when a fluid discharges), by contrast to ξηρὴ σηπεδών (Epid. 5.1,4). For τηκεδών associated with a physical disease, see LSJ. s.v. II.

XAwpos as ‘green’ occurs at Od. 16.47: the word literally qualiftes the flora (cf. its derivation from χλόη; see Frisk s.v.), and usually appears in poetry in the sense of ‘green’ in an idyllic context.'* XAwpy at the same sedes in the Anthology occurs in Zonas AP 6.22=1,4 GP. Given the more general association of χλωρός with the pallor designating weakness and illness in medical writers (cf. LS] s.v. II 2; also Il. 10.376, 15.4 χλωρὸς ὑπαὶ δείους, Sappho fr. 31,14 L-P xAwporepa δὲ ποίας, Call. fr. 75,12 κακὸς xAdos with Harder ad loc.) and its connection with

death and the underworld as well (see Geoghegan on Anyte 5(=AP 7.486),4), Crinagoras combination of yAwpds with τηκεδών exploits the ambiguous meaning of yAwpos to hint at the general sickly condition of the living Eunicidas (see on στέρνα τ᾽ ἐποκριόεντα): on the one hand the adjective refers to the earth, as ‘green, and on the other it also implies the state of Eunicidas’ living body as ‘yellow; ‘pale. XAwpés does retain its connection with the earth (the τηκεδών is

‘greet’ because the body is in the ground), but, instead of qualifying a beautiful land, it refers to the corruption caused by death. The 1566 Stephaniana reserved in BNF, Res Yb 354, has a note in marg. explaining χλωρῆς as wxpäs φθίσεως. ἔμπλεα: the epic form is ἔμπλειος (cf. Od. 18.119, 20.26, 22.3, Ap. Rh, 3.1281) or ἐνίπλειος (Od. 14.113, 17.300, al.); cf. ἐνίπλεος at Ap. Rh, 3.119. Ἔμπλεος occurs

at Nic. Al. 162 (perhaps echoing Leon. 6.334=3,5 HE; see Gow-Page ad loc.) and often in Nonnus; at Nic. Al. 164 ἔμπλεα is the accusative of the feminine. In the '? For the date of Erycius who was presumably slightly earlier than Crinagoras, see Gow-Page GP 2.279.

15 For interpreting yAwpés here as ‘healthy, see Gow- Page on Erycius 9,4 GP. For this meaning of the adjective (‘fresh’), see LS] s.v. III.

* Cf. h, Ap. 223, Soph. Ant. 1132, Eur. Hipp. 17. In the Anthology, for instance, Pamphilus 7.201=1,1 HE, Archias 7.213=21,1 GP.

AP7MIEN— Anthology, ἔμπλεος occurs at Leon. loc. cit., Polyaenus of Sardis 9.1=1,2 GP. At the same sedes and phrasing, cf. Agath. 5.216,2 ὀλισθηρῆς ἔμπλεον ἱκεσίης

and 7.574,4 τῆς νομίμης ἔμπλεον ἡλικίης.

7 χθὼν ὦ δυσνύμφευτε: Gow-Page comment that earth is usually conceived as the mother, not the bride, of the deceased. Dead girls, however, are often said to be married to Hades in epitaphs. Cf. Mel. AP 7.182=123,1 HE, Parm. 7.183=3,2

GP, Leon. Alex. 7.547=9,4 FGE; see Rose’* 238, n. 2. Cf. also Eur. JA 461. Men, again, are often said to marry the earth or the tombstone in Greek tradition; see Alexiou 230, n. 64. The phrase is a self-variation of 17,7£. ὦ χθὼν σηματόεσσα, and it is followed by the wish that the earth lie heavy on Eunicidas, a reversal of the conventional funerary topos of the wish of terra levis which follows the apostrophe in 17,7 (see ad loc.). Cf. the curses that Propertius casts on a dead witch for corrupting the mind of his girlfriend, 4.5,1f. terra tuum spinis obducat, lena, sepulchrum, / et tua, quod non vis, sentiat umbra sitim. A reversal of the topos of terra levis (albeit with a different motivation) occurs also in the final couplet of Agath. AP 7.204 (on the poet's partridge, killed by a cat). Cf. the playful ironical twist of the motifof terra levis in Ammianus AP 11.226 εἴη σοι κατὰ γῆς κούφη κόνις, οἰκτρὲ Néapye, ὄφρα σε ῥηιδίως ἐξερύσωσι κύνες (already mentioned by Brecht, 5) and Mart. 9.29,}1{ sit tibi terra levis mollique tegaris harena, / ne tua non possint eruere ossa canes. The formula is often paraphrased; cf. the poor man’s apostrophe to earth and the gods at Call. AP 7.460=47,2-4 HE Γαῖα φίλη, / Μίκυλος ef τι πονηρὸν ἐπήνεσα μήτε σὺ κούφη / yiveo, μήτ᾽ ἄλλοι δαίμονες οἵ μ᾽ ἔχετε; this idea recurs in CIL 6.7579 (inscription from Rome). See Brecht 5,

n. 24, Autore 42ff., Howell on Mart. on 9.29,12. Δυσνύμφευτος occurs here only. δύσγαμος at Eur. Ph. 1047, Tr. 1114, whereon Fraenkel compared Supp.

5.34,9-10, Grewing on 6.52,5/6, Henriksén Cf. δύσνυμφος in Eur. IT 216, Tr. 144; also Lyc. 1089, and δυσδάμαρ at Aesch. Ag. 1319, 1063 γάμον δυσάνορα.

xaxooxnveds: here only. For σκῆνος as the corpse ofa dead man, cf. Peek 967=226,4 Kaibel (Ap III), Peek 2035=502,1 Kaibel (An III-IV). For the Ionic eu=eo (cf. the Homeric μευ, φιλεῦντας, yevevs), see Chantraine (1958) 58f., Buck 40. Cf. Crin. 7,6 κάλλευς, also 32,5 λάβευ, 3,3 ῥύευ, 48,1 τεῦ. Kado- and xaxo- gradually

prevail as first compounds against «J- and övo- in the Greek language; see Jannaris'° 305-6. The correction, attributed to Reiske by Stadtmüller (see Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Short note on old editions and emendations with unrecorded sources), to -veds (κακοσκηνής), printed by Jacobs (1826, 326), is in fact supported 15. Ἡ J. Rose, “The bride of Hades, CPh 20 (1925), 238-42.

16 A, N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, chiefly of the Attic Dialect, as written and

spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the present time (London 1897).

414

AP 7.401 =41

by grammatical theory. According to Herodian (Gr. Gr. 3.2,687,2-10), third declension adjectives in -ys deriving from third declension disyllabic neuter nouns with ἢ in the penultimate, such as σκῆνος, are accentuated in the last syllable (e.g. δῆνος-δυσδηνής), with the exception of those whose thematic consonant is mute (cf. ἦθος-- κακοήθης). A similar mistake of accentuation in both P and Pl seems to occur also at (τίη. 26,1. See ad loc., on βαθυαγκέες. ἐπὶ τέφρης: Brunck, followed by Jacobs’, printed τέῴρῃ to avoid the juxtapos-

ition of non-coherent genitives. However, since it is clear that κακοσκήνευς cannot qualify the τέφρη, confusion is avoided and there is no reason to change the genitive τέφρης. Tédpy occurs twice in Homer at verse-end (Il. 18.25 and 23.251).

8 κέκλισο: the form only here in the Anthology. Κλίνεσθαι in a sepulchral context often occurs in epigrams referring to the dead man, in the sense of buried, first at Pind. O. 1.92. Cf. Leon. 7.655=17,2 HE (=Geffcken 16,2 with Geficken ad loc.), Zenod. 7.315=3,4, Mnasalcas 7.488=9,2, Antip. Sid. 7.493=68,2 HE,

Archias 7.278=12,8 GP. On the contrary, the concept of the grave as lying on the dead is rare: cf. Leon. 7.480=74,2 HE πλὰξ ἐπικεκλιμένη. For the perfect

imperative, rarely used in the second person and being more emphatic than the present or the aorist imperative, see Goodwin 33f. ($107). Cf. IL 5.228 σὺ τόνδε δέδεξο.

ὀλίγη: Crinagoras’ use of the adjective as a synonym of κούφη, in the context of

the topos of ‘light earth, is unique: ὀλίγη κόνις or βῶλος in sepulchral poems usually denotes the modesty of the grave (Leon. 7.656=18,1 HE, anon. 7.137,5) or, in a literal sense, describes the thin layer of soil over the dead man (Diosc. 7.76=33,4 HE, on a corpse uncovered by the flooded Nile; cf. Hegesippus 7.276=7,4 HE τῇδ᾽ ὀλίγῃ θῆκαν ὑπὸ yapddw).”

17 Furthermore, the adjective often refers to the dust to which the dead body itself is reduced; see Viansino on Agath. 50,5=AP 9.677.

AP 6.232 = 42

5.

Börpves οἰνοπέπαντοι ἐυσχίστοιό τε ῥοιῆς θρύμματα καὶ ξανθοὶ μυελοὶ ἐκ στροβίλων καὶ δειναὶ δάκνεθαι ἀμυγδάλαι ἥ τε μελισσῶν ἀμβροσίη πυκναί τ᾽ ἰτρίνεαι ποπάδες καὶ πότιμοι γέλγιθες ἰδ’ ὑελοειδέες ὄγχναι δαψιλῆ οἰνοπόταις γαστρὸς ἐπεισόδια" Πανὶ φιλοσκίπωνι καὶ εὐστόρθυγγι Πριάπῳ ἀντίθεται λιτὴν δαῖτα Φιλοξενίδης.

—

AP 6.232 Kpwvayopov [(] ἀνάθημα Φιλοξενίδου τῷ Πανί Suda s.vv. οἰνοπττέπαντοι

(1-2 θρύμματα), στρόβιλος (2 καὶ -στροβίλων), ἀμυγδαλῇ (3 καὶ -ἀμυγδάλαι), ποπάδες (3 4-4), γέλγιθες (5-6), ἐπεισόδιον (γέλγιθες κ᾿ ἄὄγχναι καὶ ῥοιαὶ καὶ σταφυλαὶ Ἐ6) caret Pl

3.δειναὲ Toup: δειλαὶ PSuda | ἥ re P: ἡ δὲ 1 ἐυσχίστοιο CSuda: εὐἰισχ-Ρ ut videtur Suda 5 ὑελοειδέες scripsi: ὑελακυκάδες P, ἠδέ τε Suda 7 φιλοσκίπωνι C: -σκηπ- P Reiske n. 481, Brunck ἢ. 6, Rubensohn ἢ. 6

Wine-ripe grape clusters, and bits of split pomegranate, and blond marrow from cone kernels, and almonds ready to be bitten, and bees’ ambrosia, and many honey cakes, and tasty garlic heads, and glass-like pears, abundant

diversions for the stomach of the wine-drinker; Philoxenides dedicates these as a modest feast to Pan, lover of the shepherd’ staff, and to Priapus with his well-fashioned spike. Dedication of items of food to Pan and Priapus by Philoxenides. The accumulation of offerings in the first six lines of the poem is comparable to Crin. 43, where the deities addressed are in a similar way juxtaposed in a paratactic relationship; the two epigrams copy the form of each other and apparently form a pair: see ad loc., intr. note. The presentation of a long series of dedications creates the impression of abundance.’ All the offerings are * Cf. the image of the miracle of Dionysus (compared to Priapus, together with Ceres, as deities of nature, Priap, 53.1: cf. Goldberg ad loc.) at Eur. Ba. t42f. pet δὲ γάλακτι πέδον, ῥεῖ δ᾽ οἴνῳ, / ῥεῖ δὲ

presented in the nominative (βότρυες, μυελοί, ἀμυγδάλαι, ἀμβροσίη, ποπάδες, κτλ), but the only verb is ἀντέθεται, which, of course, needs accusatives as objects, Editors evade the problem through their translations; for instance, Waltz ren-

ders ‘voici des raisins, etc.: cest le modeste regal que Philoxenides offre ἃ Pan’ The following four suggestions (though not necessarily in this order) are put forward by Gow-Page: a) the final couplet is corrupt, although it is impossible to correct it without

radical rephrasing. Ὁ) a couplet is missing after |. 6. Gow-Page observe that a ten-line epigram would have been unique in the Garland of Philip; yet, Gow-Page have included, though with reservation, the ten-line AP 6.109=Antip. 54 GP (a dedication to Pan), among the epigrams of Antipater of Thessalonica. c) two epigrams have been conflated, the first (Il. 1-6) missing its final couplet, the other (ll. 7-8) missing all the rest of it; Gow-Page incline towards this suggestion.

d) the incoherence is original. Gow-Page rejected this possibility on the grounds that there is no parallel for such incoherence and that it is unlikely to appear in such a carefully constructed epigram. The first point was

later reconsidered by Page, since a similar case is P. Oxy. iv (1904) n. 662, col. ii 12ff=Amyntes 2,1ff. FGE, which conveys a syntactical anacoluthon comparable to that of Crinagoras (see Page ad loc.): τὰν πάρος ἄτρεστον Λακεδαίμονα... ... ἤριπε (an accusative providing the subject of the verb). The nominative, of course, sometimes stands in an absolute sense in literature. See K-G II (1) 47, 6, Schwyzer 2.66,4 (for an example in poetry, cf.

Il. 6.395 θυγάτηρ μεγαλήτορος Ἠετίωνος, / Ἠετίων, ὃς ἔναιεν ...). This

linguistic characteristic supports Diels’ change of the present poems /Javi to πάντα (in Rubensohn 47), accepted by Rubensohn. Such a solution,

however, spoils the neat distribution of the two adjectives, by applying both to Priapus (although this would not be exceptional; cf. anon. AP 5.200=36,3 HE τῷ γλυκερῷ καὶ θῆλυ κατιλλώπτοντι Ilpnmw, Zonas 6.22=1,5 GP ἀγροιώτῃ τῷδε μονοστόρθυγγι [Πριήπῳ, Theaet. Schol, 10.16,11

ποντομέδοντι καὶ ὁρμοδοτῆρι Πριήπῳ). More importantly, σκίπων suits Pan (see below on ITavi φιλοσκίπωνι!) better than Priapus; the case given by Suda is exceptional (s.v. Πρίαπος' τὸ ἄγαλμα τοῦ Πριάπου τοῦ “Qpov map’ Αἰγυπτίοις κεκλημένου ἀνθρωποειδὲς ποιοῦσιν, ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ σκῆπτρον

κατέχον). A way out that does not involve any change at all, although still not entirely satisfactory, is to assume that the objects are addressed in the

μελισσᾶν verrapı, with Dodds ad lec. GE. also the abundance of goods that Peace brings, in the description of Trygaeus, at Aristoph. Pax 1000f.

AP 6.232 = 42

417

vocative,” and the object οἴ ἀντίθεται (ὑμᾶς) is omitted. Objects are indeed

often addressed in the Anthology, albeit in a more straightforward manner. Cf. Anyte

6.123=1

HE,

Mnasalcas

6.128=5 HE

and

9.324=16

HE,

Moero 6.119=1 HE, Antiphilus 6.97=21 GP. See Seelbach 14 and Geoghegan on Anyte loc. cit., intr. note. The most reasonable way of handling the text

as it stands is to print a semicolon at the end of |. 6, as editors do anyway, and to take δαψιλῆ ἐπεισόδια as a predicate to all the objects through an omitted εἰσίν: grapes, pomegranates, etc. are abundant diversions for the drinkers; (this) modest portion is dedicated, etc. For dedications identical to those of Crinagoras (grapes, pomegranates) and other fruits appearing on gems, carvings, and other monuments, see Herter

272. The series of offerings is typical of Leonidas: cf. AP 6.4=52, 6.205=8, 6.288=41, 6.289=42, 6.300=36, 6.305=56 HE. See further Salemme 14f. with n. 5, Later epigrammatists also present the objects in the same manner. Cf., for instance, Philip 6.5=8, 6.38=10, 6.90=12, 6.94=14, 6.101=16, 6.102=17 (to Priapus), 6.103=18, 6.104=19, 6.107=20, 6.247=22, Zonas 6.22=1 GP. W. H. Parker (2)

observed that only in Zonas 6.22=1 GP and in the present poem of the dedicatory epigrams to Priapus in the Anthology there is no reason given for the

offering nor do we hear any request in return for the gifts. The two poems have other important similarities, too: both display rare words (for Zonas, see Gow-

Page ad loc., intr. note); offerings common to both are ‘bits of pomegranates’ (ἀρτιχανῆ porav Zonas, ῥοιῆς θρύμματα Crin.), grapes (βότρυν μεθυπίδακα Zonas, βότρυες

οἰνοπέπαντοι

Crin.),

and

nuts

(walnut

(κάρυον)

Zonas,

almonds

(ἀμυγδάλαι) Crinagoras); Priapus is called μονοστόρθυγξ in Zonas (1. 5), while Crinagoras calls him εὐστόρθυγγα (I. 7; see ad loc.). If the identification of Zonas with Strabo’s Elder Diodorus, called Zonas (Strabo 13.4,9), is correct (see

Gow-Page GP on Diodorus, intr. note), Zonas was active during the reign of Mithridates (120-63 Bc), and his work certainly preceded that of Crinagoras, so that it can be assumed that Crinagoras has in mind the older poem. Rubensohn (48) attributed the present poem to Philip, comparing Philip 6.99=15 and 6.102=17 GP and arguing that there is no other Leonidean-type poem in Crinagoras. The diction of (at least) Crin. 43, however, proves this

wrong, as Gow-Page observe in their intr. note to the present poem. The only similarity between Philip 6.99=15 GP and Crinagoras’ poem is that a Philoxenides

makes an offering (this time the sacrifice of a goat) to Pan. Philip 6.102=17 GP, on the other hand, is regarded as an imitation of Zonas 6.22=1 GP (it is ‘plainly indebted to Zonas, Gow-Page remark on Philip 17, intr. note); the epithet φιλοδαῖτα that Philip probably gives Priapus (if this is the correct reading: see 2 This was suggested by Bahr (385): ‘lassen sich nicht die fünf ersten Verse (mit der dazu gehérigen Apposition im sechsten Vers) als eine Anrede auffassen, entnommen etwa einem Gedichte des Crinagoras, wozu dann als Schluss oder gewissermassen als Unterschrift das Distichum Vs 7 und 8 dient?”

418

AP 6.232 = 42

Gow-Page on Philip 17,7 GP) may be a reminiscence of Crinagoras’ dvridera: λιτὴν δαῖτα and indicate that Philip, though mainly imitating Zonas, also has Crinagoras’ poem in mind. For the origin, cult, services, parentage” of Priapus, and his connection with

Pan, see Herter 38ff., 201ff., O'Connor 18fl., LIMC Suppl. s.v. Ithyphallic figures were common in the Greek countryside, but their identification with Priapus, the deity from Lampsacus, was probably less old; see Gow on Theocr. 1.21. For the Romans, as for the Greeks, Priapus was a god of fertility and protector of gardens (cf. λαχάνων φύλακα

of Leon. API 236=83,2

HE, ruber custos of Tib. 1.1,17,

custos,.. horti of Virg. Ecl. 7.34, rustice custos of Priap. 80.10 Parker), and also the protector of graves.* The ‘marine’ aspect of the god, protector of sailors and fishermen as he appears in epigrams of the Anthology, does not occur in Roman Priapic poetry. Cf. Buchheit’ 61f,, O'Connor 56. Other epigrams involving ‘rustic’ offerings to Priapus are anon. AP 6.21=18 FGE, Zonas 6.22=1, Philip 6.102=17 GP; those involving ‘marine’ offerings are Maccius 6.33=6 and 6.89=7, Archias 6.192=10 GP, Flaccus 6.193, Cf. also the parody of dedicatory poems to the god, Myrinus 6.254=2 GP with Gow-Page ad loc.; also Hedylus 6.292=1 HE, dedication to Priapus by a woman on winning a beauty competition, and anon. 5.200=36 HE, also dedication by a woman; in Archias 10.7=27 GP the god is the speaker and describes his

services and the sailors’ subsequent dedications, and in anon. 10.9=21 FGE he asks for offerings as the due expression of the fishermens gratitude. For other kinds of Priapic epigrams, that is paraenetika (advice by Priapus or an unnamed speaker to travellers), skoptika, minae (threats by Priapus to whoever approaches his garden or grove, all from the Planudean Anthology), aretalogiae, see O'Connor 60ff. For votive offerings to Priapus, see Herter 272ff., also O'Connor 56ff.: such can be apples, figs, pomegranates (apples® in Priap. 16, 21.2, 42.2, 60.1 Parker, all three Zonas 6.22=1,1-2 GP), grapes (see on βότρυες), nuts (Zonas 6.22=1,4 GP), olives (Virg. Priap. 2.9 (85 Biicheler 1882)), etc.; see below passim.

For the genealogy, features, and functions of Pan, see Herbig 41ff., 67f, Borgeaud 66ff., 73ff., 201ff., and passim, LIMC Suppl. s.v. (p. 923). In the Anthology, the god is the recipient of the nets of three brothers for three kinds of hunting (birds, beasts, fish) in two series of epigrams of the sixth book (6.11-16,:179-87), which are variations of one another (cf. Gow-Page on Leon. 46, intr. note); cf.

the double, ‘rustic’ and ‘marine; quality of Priapus. Pan is offered an apple, a fig, and water in anon. 6.42,3; for ‘rustic’ offerings to the god (honey, wine, milk,

cheese), cf. Herbig 42, Borgeaud 240, Clausen on Virg. Ecl. 7.33. See also below on μελισσῶν / ἀμβροσίη. In Maccius 9.249=9 GP Pan is usually, as Priapus, the ° He was the offspring of Dionysus and Aphrodite, or of Zeus and Aphrodite, or of Hermes (or an ass) and the nymph Dione. * See P. Grimal, Les Jardins Romains (Paris 1969), 47ff. ° V. Buchheit, Studien zum Corpus Priapeorum (Munich 1962).

° For the possible sexual implications of which, see Goldberg ad loc.

AP 6.232=42 guard of a garden. He can also appear as a protector of fishermen; see Gow on Theocr. 5.14. The functions of Priapus and Pan overlap (cf. Gow-Page on Archias

27, intr, note) and the two gods are often associated; see Herter 224, RE 22.2.1937, Borgeaud 86 with n. 79. Both gods are mentioned together in Theocr. AP 9.338=19,3 HE, as well as in [Moschus] 3.27f, when ‘Priapi’ and ‘Panes’ mourn for Bion (for the plural, see Herter 242). An inscription published by K. Romaios in 1912 is a votive offering to them (1.4 Πανὶ καὶ Πριάπῳ); see Herter 224. Because

of their lascivious character they are also related to courtesans; cf. Alciphron 413,16 καὶ οὐκέθ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐδόκουν προσβλέπειν ws πρότερον ai Νύμφαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Πὰν

καὶ ὁ Πρίαπος. See Herter 227. In a Latin inscription from Dacia (CIL 3.1139), Priapus’ identification with Pan is suggested; see W. H. Parker 28f. Rustic deities mainly received fruits as offerings. Demeter in particular was

principally honoured with such dedications; see further Merentitis 231ff. See also Rouse 49, Pausanias (8.42,11) mentions that in Phigaleia Demeter received, inter alia, grapes and honeycombs. If. βότρυες οἰνοπέπαντοι: cf. Archestratus 37,2 Olson-Sens οἰνοφόρου βότρυος,

Nonnus D. 12.24 oivorökov...Börpuv. The adjective here only; Philip in AP 9.561=55, 5-6 GP attributes ἀπέπαντοι, ‘unripe, to βότρυες, a very rare adjec-

tive: see Gow- Page on ad loc. For πεπαίνω, in the sense of ripening of vine and other fruits, see LSJ s.v. 1. Börpvs is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, Il. 18.562 (cf. βοτρυδόν in Il. 2.89), also in Hes. Op. 611. In the Anthology it often appears at verse-opening, usually of the pentameter: Moero 6.119=1,2, Alc. Mess. 7.536=13,2 HE, Antip. Thess. 9.231=35,4 GP, Paul. Sil. 6.168,1. Grapes are also offered to Priapus in Zonas 6.22=1,3 GP, Hor. Epod. 2.20 (cf, below, on ὄγχναι), Priap. 2.8 (85 Bücheler 1882), 3.14 (86 Bücheler 1882).

Grapes and wine are suitable gifts to Priapus, as they imply his association with Dionysus, who was Priapus father, according to some sources (see above, intr. note); see L. C. Watson on Hor. Epod. 2.20-1. Grapes, together with cakes, πέμματα, are presented as inappropriate offerings to Ares and are regarded as

gifts more suitable for the Nymphs in Leon. Alex. 6.324=3 FGE. See Page ad loc. ἐυσχίστοιο: again at Crin. 3,3 (see ad loc.) and nowhere else in the Anthology. Adjectives which are compounded with eö- are often attributed to dedicated objects (cf. also on Crin. 3,3 and 43,7), as the quality of the objects is, expectedly, emphasized. For instance, Phanias 6.304=6,2 εὐάρχαν... ἐμπολέα, Leon. 6.305=56,4 εὐρυχαδῇ κύλικα, 5 εὐχάλκωτον ἐύγναμπτόν TE Kpedypa, Ariston 6.306=1,7-8 θυείαν / εὔπετρον, Antip. Sid. 6.160=4,4 HE κλωστῆρα.... εὔδρομον, Archias 6.179=5,3 GP évBpoxov ἅμμα πετανῶν, Gaetul. 6.190=2,3 FGE πεντάδα.... εὐρωγέα, etc.

ῥοιῆς θρύμματα: it is possible that the poet is recalling the description of Alcinous gardens, where trhe trees mentioned in fact produce fruits suitable as offerings to rustic deities (cf. above, intr. note): Od. 7.115f. ὄγχναι καὶ porat καὶ

AP 6.232=42

μηλέαι ἀγλαόκαρποι | συκέαι re γλυκεραὶ καὶ ἐλαίαι τηλεθόωσαι.7 The account of the abundance of the fruits that follows (Il. 117-21) is also in accord with the

impression of abundance given by Crinagoras in the long series of offerings. See above, intr. note. In Homer ῥοιή, like ὄγχνη, denotes the tree. Crinagoras uses

both words for the fruit; see also below, on ὄγχναι. At h. Cer. 372 and 412, ῥοιῆς κόκκον, ῥοιή denotes the fruit. Inthe samesensealsoat Theodoridas A P7.406=14,3 HE, Philip 6.102=17,1; at Mel. 4.1=1,28 50:9 denotes the pomegranate tree.

The pomegranate is suitable as an offering to Pan and Priapus, as it was associated, inter alia, with fertility and was also regarded as an aphrodisiac; see Allen-Halliday-Sikes on h. Cer. 372, Faraone® 236f. For pomegranate as a delicacy which accompanies the main course, see below on ἀμυγδάλαι. Θρύμματα is a very rare word, occasionally occurring in medical writers; elsewhere in extant poetry in Aristoph. fr. 173,2 K-A ἄρτων περίλοιπα θρύμματα (cf. Hesych. s.v. θρύμματα-: κλάσματα ἄρτου), Aglaias 18.20 SH ἀφροῦ θρύμμα Φακουσιακοῦ.

ξανθοί: for applications of the adjective to comestibles in literature, cf. Simon. 88 PMG ξανθὸν μέλι, Alc. Mess. AP 7.55=12,4 HE; also anon. 9.384.12 ξανθῆς κεράσου, Mac. Cons. 9.645,8 ἐκ βοτρύων ξανθὸν... γάνος; as a metaphor for

wine, cf. also Nonnus D, 35.358, 40.238 ξανθὸν ὕδωρ. μνελοὲ ἐκ στροβίλων: μυελός, ‘marrow, always occurs in the singular in Homer (11. 20.482, 22.501, Od. 2.290, 20.108, in the passages of the Odyssey in the phrase ἄλφιτα... μυελὸν ἀνδρῶν, where barley is regarded as producing the marrow). Metaphorically, cf. Eur. Hipp. 255 μνελὸν ψυχῆς. In the description ofa plant, cf. Theophr. HP 1.2,6. Crinagoras scans jv-, as in epic, while in Attic we have «ö-. See LSJ s.v. 5.

LT popiros is, inter alia (‘cyclone;, ‘pirouette’ ‘eggshell’: cf. Gow-Page ad loc.), the fruit of the pine tree. Cf. Theophr. HP 3.5,6 of στρόβιλοι τῆς πεύκης; also 3.9,1, Suda s.v. στρόβιλος" ἡ νῆσος. Kai εἶδος ὀρχήσεως, καὶ ὁ τοῦ δένδρου καρπὸς

τῆς πίτυος. The word has replaced the older κῶνος. Cf, Schol. on Nic. Al. 548 εἰσὶν οὖν κῶνοι πίτυος ol στρόβιλοι. AS Gow-Page observe, pine cones are sel-

dom mentioned among delicacies of the table; cf. [Aeschines] Ep. 5.2,7f ἐκ στροβίλου ἅμα καὶ ἀλεύρων Kal ἀρωμάτων πεποιημένα ἐν τύποις τραγήματα, Athen. 2.570 Μνησίθεος ὁ Ἀθηναῖος ἰατρὸς ἐν τῷ περὲ ἐδεστῶν ὀστρακίδας καλεῖ τῶν κώνων τοὺς πυρῆνας, ἔτι δὲ κώνους, although their medical use is more

commonly attested (Diosc. 1.69, Pliny NH 15.9,36). Gow-Page hold that μυελοί indicates the kernels of the cones and refer to Athen. i.c. Cf. also Galen, 19.113,3 Kühn κόκκαλον' of μὲν πλεῖστοι τὸν πυρῆνα τοῦ arpoßikov.

The pine is associated with both gods: on the one hand it is one of the trees under which Priapus’ statuettes were often placed (see Herter 285); on the ” The same lines also at Od. 11.588f, lines which describe the torture of Tantalus. ® C. A. Faraone, ‘Aphrodite's xeoros and Apples for Atalanta: Aphrodisiacs in early Greek Myth and Ritual, Phoenix 44 (1990), 219-43.

other, Pan wears a crown of pine (cf. Crin. 43,3 Πανὸς...

πιτυστέπτοιο: see ad

loc.), a habit resulting from his unhappy love affair with Pitys. See Borgeaud 123f. Page corrected P's στροβίλων to στροβίων, arguing that it is unlikely that Crinagoras would have ignored the long quality of the « though -iAo-is a common suffix by contrast to the rare -ἴλο- (ἄργϊῖλος, πέδτιλον), On the other hand, however, the poet likes rare scansion. Cf. Crin. 43,6 where he scans ἱδρὄσιες, like Callimachus’ ἱδρῦμα, fr. 75,73; see ad loc. 3f. δειναὶ δάκνεσθαι: Reiske (1754, 34 and 1766, 29) printed δειλαὲ δακρυοῦσσαι

(from Ap. L’s δακρυέσθαι; see Intr, Manuscript Tradition, Apographs of P Apographon Lipsiense), rendering miseras ploratrices amygdalas and explaining in the notes (1754, 60, note on ἢ. 481) 'δακρυοῦσσαι pro daxpudecoat lacrymosae, quod lacrymis, id est oleo abundant. Another far-fetched and unnecessary suggestion is that of Jacobs’ (in his notes) κἀργαλέαι, nuces fractu difficiles. All edi-

tors, except Gow-Page, keep P's δειλαί, However, the meaning ‘afraid of being cracked’ (Paton; quae ne frangantur timent Jacobs', who explains δειλαί as δειλιάζουσαι, δεδοικυῖαι; morsum timentes Jacobs?) does not seem very probable,

although the adjective has been elsewhere metaphorically applied to plants: cf. Plut. Mor. 939c δειλὰ πρὸς χειμῶνάς ἐστι, ‘afraid, i.e. sensitive to winter. Toup

(1760-6, 1.24~5) suggested maturae, and rendered amygdalae quae facile frangi queant, and, similarly, Hecker (1852, 245) suggested fractu faciles et mollioribus putaminibus munitae; this interpretation (‘timidity’=softness) appears also in Waltz, ‘des amandes qui se brisent sous la dent: Toup later corrected P's SecAaé to deal (Toup 1775, 13 and 1790, 3.26-7); the two words are also variant readings in Aristoph. Pl. 445 (on which see Rogers, Appendix 151), Eur. Or. 777. Toup explained that δεινός means excellens or efficax, rendering the phrase here as esu

praestantes. Almonds are suitable to be bitten because they stimulate thirst (cf. Athen. 2.524). Gow-Page, on the other hand, regarded δεινός as a synonym of χαλεπός and rendered ‘almonds hard to bite’; for almonds of a soft and of a hard kind, cf. Plut, Mor. 2338 ἐπεὶ δέ τις τῶν ἀμυγδαλῶν τὰς σκληρὰς ἑώρα

διπλασίου πωλουμένας, un σπάνιοι ἔφη οἱ λίθοι; Offerings to the gods should have some positive quality, as do the ἀμβροσίη of the bees and the πότιμοι γέλγιθες: cf. the olive Phanias offers Hermes, which is soft and friendly to the gums, φιλουλίς / δρύππα (AP 6.299=5,3-4 HE). δεινός is indeed suitable in the sense ‘skilful} ‘apt’ (LSJ s.v. ID). Cf. Aristoph. Nub. 243 νόσος... δεινὴ

φαγεῖν, Dem.

Olynth. 2 20 ai yap εὐπραξίαι δειναὶ συγκρύψαι τὰ τοιαῦτ᾽

ὀνείδη. For δεινός in a construction with a passive infinitive, cf. Dem. Meid. 139 δεινοί τινές εἰσιν... φθείρεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς πλουσίους, ‘prone to abase themselves towards the wealthy’ (Loeb Classical Library: J. H. Vince, Demosthenes,

Against Meidias, London et al. 1935): almonds ‘apr or ‘prone’ to be bitten, then, are crispy and delicious. ἀμυγδάλαι: regarding the accentuation of the word opinions differed in antiquity. Cf. the account of the various options given by Athenaeus, 2.52f-53b: ὅτι περὶ

τῆς προφορᾶς τοῦ τόνου τῆς ἀμυγδάλης Πάμφιλος μὲν ἀξιοῖ ἐπὶ τοῦ καρποῦ

mr 0,232=972

βαρύνειν ὁμοίως τῷ ἀμυγδάλῳ:" τὸ μέντοι δένδρον θέλει περισπᾶν, ἀμυγδαλῇ καὶ poön. (...) Ἀρίσταρχος δὲ καὶ τὸν καρπὸν καὶ τὸ δένδρον ὁμοίως προφέρεται κατ᾿ ὀξεῖαν τάσιν. Φιλόξενος δ᾽ ἀμφότερον περισπᾷ. (...) Τρύφων δὲ ἐν Ἀττικῇ προσῳδίᾳ ἀμυγδάλην μὲν τὸν καρπὸν βαρέως, (...) ἀμυγδαλᾶς δὲ τὰ δένδρα, CA. Suda s.v. ἀμυγδαλῆ: τὸ δένδρον. Ἀμυγδάλη δὲ ὁ καρπός, although Hesych. s,v, ἀμυγδαλη (in which both accentuations are possible; see Latte's’ apparatus) says τὸ δένδρον. Kai ra τραγήματα; cl. also ἀμύγδαλον in the sense ἀμυγδαλῇ in Lxx

Ecel. 12.5. The word occurs only rarely in extant poetry and principally in comedy; cf. Phryn. Com. fr. 73,3f. K-A, Aristoph. fr. 605,1 K-A, Eupolis fr. 271,1 K-A, Almonds can indeed accompany wine-drinking (cf. the following οἰνοπόταις «rA.): Eupolis fr. 271 K-A. For almonds and pomegranates together as delicacies

after the meal, cf. Men. fr. 83 K-A. Almonds are not attested as offerings elsewhere; nuts are offered to Priapus at Zonas 6.22=1,4, Philip 6.102=17,4 GP; see above, intr. note. μελισσῶν / ἀμβροσίη: for ἀμβρόσιος in a description of honey, cf. the dedication at Apollon. AP 6.239=3,3 GP ἀμβροσίων éapos κηρῶν. Also, Mel. 12.164=80,1 GP

γλυκὺ νᾶμα μελισσῶν. At Antiphilus 9.404=42,8 the bees are νέκταρος ἐργάτιδες and in Apollon. 6.239=3,5-6 GP honey is μελιχρὸν νέκταρ, Cf. also Eur. Ba. 142f;

see above, intr. note. The fact that ἀμβροσία and, more usually, νέκταρ often describe what the bee produces is another indication of the insect’s divine quality, for which see A. B. Cook, “The Bee in Greek Mythology, JHS 15 (1895), 1-24, Triomphe 254f. Bees are reported to have been nurses of Zeus: cf. Call. H. 1.49ff.,

Moero fr. 1,44} Both ambrosia and nectar are treated as both liquid and solid in Greek literature. See Olson-Sens on Archestratus 16,3-4 and 59,11, Janko on Il. 14.170-1.

Priapus and other gods of the garden (Flora, Pomona) receive honey from a rustic in Calp. 2.66 rorantesque favos damus et liquentia mella. See Herter 275. Pan and Priapus are protectors of beehives. Cf. Zonas 9.226=6 GP (where Pan

also receives honey as an offering), Nicias AP! 189=8 HE; see Fraser’ 108. Honey is also highly appropriate as a gift to Pan (cf. intr. note), since it is asso-

ciated with fertility,” and moreover because the reeds in the god's syrinx are bound with wax; cf. Eur. [T1125f. See Gowon Theocr. 1.128 and 129. Furthermore, μέλι is also associated with love (cf. the Hellenistic example of Nossis 5.170=1,2

* K. Latte, Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, 2 vols. (Copenhagen 1953-66). *° According to Callimachus, the nymphs that took Zeus ‘in their arms’ are the MeAfac (H. 1.47). According to Apollodorus 1.5, these nymphs are daughters of Melisseus or ‘of the bees, readings varying between ελισσέως and μελισσέων. For the association of peAca with μέλι in Callimachus (cf. the hint of the statement that Zeus ate γλυκὺ κηρίον at |. 49), see McLennan on Call. H. 1.47 and

1.50; see also Triomphe 219f., who also sees a link between the ‘honey’ of the Meliai and fertility. " H.M. Fraser, Beekeeping in Antiquity (London 1951’). 2 See C. Balandier, ‘Production et usages du miel dans lantiquité Gréco-Romaine,, in M. C. Amouretti, G. Gomet (eds.), Des hommes et des plantes (Université de Provence 1993), 114.

HE with Gow-Page ad loc.; also Mel. 5.163=50,1ff. HE, Paul. Sil. 5.244,6) and is

thus suitable for the two gods of nature and eroticism.” The form μελισσῶν always occurs at the end of the hexameter in the Anthology: Mel. 12.164=80,1 HE, Philip 6.236=2,3, Antiphilus 9.404=42,1 GP. Also Nic. Th. 741, Theocr. 7.84 μελισσᾶν, The word usually appears in verse-end in epic poetry; see Hatzikosta on Theocr. loc. cit.

πυκναί: Gow-Page observe that the word must mean ‘numerous’ rather than ‘compact? as womdSes are in fact ‘thin’ (see next note). On the other hand, such solidity (see LSJ s.v. A I 1) need not be excluded by the thinness of the cakes. Nevertheless, the idea of abundance, which dominates the poem, rather points

to the number of the cakes as the meaning of πυκνός here. For this sense, cf. Aesch. Pr. 658f. πυκνούς / θεοπρόπους ἴαλλεν, Eur. Ph. 844 πυκνὴν δὲ βαίνων

ἤλυσιν, ‘preceding with short and frequent steps’; see Mastronarde ad loc. In the Anthology, cf., for instance, Antip, Thess. 6.291=101,7-8 GP διὰ πυκνῶν | σχοίνων, the many holes of the sieve. ἱτρίνεαι ποπάδες: both words here only. At 6.231=21,3 GP Philip has ποπάνευμα,

which is a conjecture in Theocr. 26.7; see further Gow-Page ad loc. Πόπανον is around cake, often serving as a sacrificial offering. Cf. Aristoph. Pl. 660, Thesm. 285, Hesych. s.v. πόπανα' πλακούντια ἀπὸ ἄρτου, and $.v, merava' πλακούντια, Suda s.v. πόπανα’ πλακούντια πλατέα καὶ λεπτὰ καὶ περιφερῆ. Eustathius offers

various etymological explanations of the word in his comments in the Iliad: 1.234,3 πέττω ἢ πέπτω πόπανον, 1.688,18 καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πόπος Kai ἄναξ... πόπανον τὸ θεῷ ἄνακτι καθοσιούμενον; ἡ cf. also 774.60. The first one is likely to be the

correct: see Chantraine (1968), Frisk s.v. πέσσω. As far as Irpıov is concerned, Athenaeus (14.646d) says that it is a πεμμάτιον λεπτὸν διὰ γινόμενον. Cf. Galen 4.526,17 Kühn ὀνομάζεται δὲ irpıa τοιαῦτα πάντα πλατύσματά τε καὶ πέμματα, Hesych. s.v. καὶ τραγήματα. Athen. 3.125f-126a describes the Roman

σησάμου καὶ μέλιτος τε καὶ ῥύμματα τὰ ἔτρια"... πέμματά τε libum as πλακοῦς ἐκ

γάλακτος ἰτρίων τε καὶ μέλιτος. In poetry the word appears at Anacr. 28,1 PMG (=30,1 Rozokoki with Rozokoki ad loc.), Aristoph. Ach. 1092 (see also

Olson ad loc.). For the formation of izpiveos from ἴτριον, cf. Buck-Petersen 38: ἐρίνεος;» ἔριον. Cf. also the analogous poetic formations by Leonidas πυξίνεος (6.309=45,2

HE)

for

πύξινος»πύξος,

pupixiveos

(6.298=55,5

HE)

for

μυρίκινος»μυρίκη (cf. also Gow-Page on Leon. 45,2 HE), by Nicander ipiveos (Al. 203, 241) for ἔρινος»ἶρις, xeSpiveos (Al. 488) for «éSpivos>«édpos. Further,

dnyiveos for φήγινος » φηγός at Maccius 6.33=6,5 GP and Orph. Arg. 67. 13 "Ihe music of Pan's flute, which is μελίπνους (Theocr. 1.128 with Gow ad loc.), has erotic connotations, too. Cf. Eur. Alc. 576f. συρίζων / ποιμνίτας ὑμεναίους; see further Borgeaud 128f. For the ‘honey’ of poetry and music in general, see 5, Scheinberg, “Ihe Bee Maidens of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, HSCP 83 (1979), 22f,, Triomphe 260. 4 Eor inscribed dedications of πόπανα to deities, cf. IG 2 1367 to Apollo, Artemis, Zeus Georgos, Poseidon, 2 4962 to Apollo, Hermes, al.

Ap. B. reads ποκάδες, although it is stated in a marginal note ἱποπάδες legit

Suidas’ (this statement appearing also in Ap. G. and Ap. R. in margine), and suggests in this note the correction to Yrpıydar κοπάδες, explained as pieces of the stomach (of an animal); this suggestion is traditionally attributed to Salmasius and it is, of course, far-fetched and unnecessary (κοπάδες is suggested

in the marginal notes of Ap. G. and Ap. R., as well, with the interpretation τὰ ἐπικεκομμένα δένδρα, this suggestion appearing in the note of Ap. B., too), Ap. L. corrects P’s irpıveaı (kept in Ap. B., Ap. G., Ap. R.) to irpiveaı, which is

also Suda’s accentuation. For offerings of cakes (mAakoüvres, πέμματα, πόπανα) to gods in general, see Merentitis 201ff.; in Latin poetry we have numerous references to liba offered to Priapus: Virg. Ecl. 7.33, Calp. 2.64, Prud. Contra Symm. 1.113 see further Herter 273ff. Cakes (ψαιστά) are offered, inter alia, to Nymphs, Hermes, and Pan in Leon. 6.334=3,5 and to Aphradite in 6.300=36,3 HE; imitations of the latter are Gaetulicus 6.190=2 and Longus 6.191=1 FGE (see Gow-Page Leon.

36 HE, intr. note), where the ψαιστά also appear in the series of the offerings;

for these cakes, see Gow- Page on Leon. 3,5 HE. Mention of both πόπανον and (rprov occur in papyri; for a brief discussion, see Battaglia 108 (irpıov) and 123 (römavov).'? A recipe for pancakes, ryyaviraı, is given by Galen, 6.490,13 Kühn.

See Dalby-Grainger 38; for ἴτρια, see also 78.’° Gow-Page remark that the phrase is probably equivalent to ἔτρια; for pleonastic expressions in Crinagoras, see Intr., Language and Style, Pleonasms.

5 πότιμοι: the adjective was first applied to water, ‘drinkable; fresh’: Heracleitus fr. 61, Hdt. 8,22, Polyb. 34.9,5. The meaning of the word was extended to ‘pleasant-tasting, qualifying something other than water first at Theophr. CP 4.4,12 καρποὶ γλυκεῖς καὶ πότιμοι (a use similar to that of Crinagoras) and later, as

Gow-Page note, to ‘pleasant’ in general: the earliest passage displaying this meaning is Theocr. 29.31 ταῦτα χρή oe νόεντα πέλην ποτιμώτερον. Gow remarks ad loc. that the examples of LSJ of later uses of the word in the sense ‘pleasant’ in general (Plut. Mor. 469c of πολλοὶ ra χρηστὰ καὶ πότιμα τῶν ἰδίων ὑπερβαίνοντες

ἐπὶ ra δυσχερῆ καὶ μοχθηρὰ τρέχουσι, Philostr. Int. 1,.20,1 μὴ ἐπαίνει τὸ ὕδωρ: καὶ γὰρ εἰ πότιμον καὶ γαληνὸν γέγραπται, ποτιμωτέρῳ ἐντεύξῃ τῷ Ὀλύμπῳ, and

Heliod. 3.10,3 εὐόμιλόν τε καὶ ποτιμώτερον τὸ συμπόσιον ἀπεργαζόμενος) Occur in fact in contexts related to drinking; Gow-Page also mention Plato Phaedr. 243d, where πότιμος λόγος is opposed to ἁλμυρὰ ἀκοή, a metaphor implying the sense of liquid. Similar observations can also be made regarding Plut. Mor. 151d πότιμον καὶ γλυκεῖαν... τὴν βασιλείαν, 600d τὸν βίον ποιοῦσιν... ποτιμώτερον,

expressions which actually appear in metaphorical accounts of ‘drinking the sea and ‘streams of misery’ respectively.

5. E, Battaglia, Artos’ Il lessico della panificatione nei papyri greci (Milan 1989), 15 A, Dalby, 5. Grainger, The Classical Cookbook (London 1996).

AP 6.232242 γέλγιθες: a rare word, appearing mostly in scientific writing. Its declination can be yeAyıs -ıdos as well as -ἰος and -ἰδος. See LSJ s.v.; Hesych. and Zon. s.v.

γέλγιθες" ai τῶν σκορόδων κεφαλαΐ, similarly Suda. In the plural the word can also mean the cloves composing the head: Theophr. HP 7.4,12, CP 1.4,5. For a different declination, cf. Theophr. CP 6.10,7 τῆς yeAyidos, according to certain codices (see Goold’s apparatus in the Loeb edition). Brunck, followed by Jacobs’, printed yeAyiöes in our poem, unnecessarily.

ἰδ for the Homeric conjunction in the Anthology, cf. Antip. Thess. 9.26=19,7 GP ἰδέ, Ignatius 15.30,5 (¢,’” both at the same sedes of the hexameter, which is also usual in Homer: Il. 3.194, 6.4 and 469, 8.162, 9.658, 11.15, al. It is interesting to notice that in Maccius’ dedication to Priapus the conjunction is also placed before a word related to ὕαλος: AP 6.33=6,5f. GP ἐρείκης / βάθρον id’ ὑαλέην οἰνοδόκον κύλικα.

ὑελοειδέες: Jacobs’, Rubensohn, Stadtmiiller, Holtze, Paton, Gow-Page, print P's tueAaxunddest

(Ap. L. has ὑελοκυκάδες).

Dübner, Waltz, Beckby,

and

Conca-Marzi-Zanetto adopt Hecker’s (1843, 136 and 1852, 245) deAokıkades:"” as Gow-Page observe, the Latin cicci means ‘thin membranes’: a pear ‘with glassy membranes’ would mean ‘si fine quon voit la chair au travers’ (Waltz). The word is unattested in Greek. Other conjectures are also far-fetched and unlikely: ὑετοκυκάδες Reiske (1754, 35 and 1766, 30, translating aquosa pyra sylvestria), ὑελοοίδακες Toup (1775, 13-14 and 1790, 3.26-7, rendering ‘bottle or bell-pears, citing Suda s.v. ofdaxes: of λεγόμενοι φήληκες and Aristoph. Pax 1165 τόν te φήληχ᾽ ὁρῶν οἰδάνοντα, ‘swelling wild figs), εὖ μάλα κυκλάδες Jacobs’,

ὑελοχυλάδες Emperius (307), ὑαλοκοκκάδες (‘with smooth pips, Harberton 319 and 545), ὑελομιμάδες Piccolos (18), at μελιπίδακες Geist (19, comparing Zonas AP6.22=1,3 GP βότρυν μεθυπίδακα). Pezopoulos (181-2) suggested ὑελοβικάδες,

Bixos being a jar; the critic cited several examples of jars made of glass in literature and maintained that ῥελοβικάδες ὄγχναι are pears resembling glass jars in regard to shape, colour, or surface sheen. Lumb (26) suggests ὑελοπωπάδες, ‘glassy faced) or γλαυκώπιδες, ‘gleaming. However, critics do not seem to have suspected that the termination - κυκάδες might be influenced by the proximity of ποπάδες in the previous line,'” so that we should not look for a word with this or a similar ending. A meaning close to ὑελόεσσαι, crystal-like (cf. Hesych. s.v. badder: διαφανές, λαμπρόν), should be sought. Adjectives formed from ὅαλος or comparisons with ὕαλος are used by epigrammatists to render the (splendid)

appearance of unexpected objects; cf. Rufinus AP 5.48=19,1 Page ὑαλόεσσα

mapeın and Strato 12.249=91,2 Floridi ὑαλέην ὄψιν (on the face's brightness); see 17 Perhaps also Agathias has (6’al 9.644,9. See ViansinoSs apparatus on 47. 18 Dübner's ὑελοκκικάδες which does not scan is obviously a misprint. 19 Cf. the obviously corrupt αἰπολίον in Alpheus AP 9.101=9,4 GP; there, in the next line, appears the adjective αἰπολικόν.

AP 8.232 = 42 Floridi ad lac., Page on Ruf. 12=AP 5.36,7 ὑάλῳ ἴσος (for a girl’s feminal), and, Gow-Page on Leon. AP 6.211=2,3 HE μηλοῦχον ὑαλόχροι (a breast band in

‘the colour of the glass’). “The colour of the glass’ (‘translucent or transparent,

according to Gow-Page ad loc.) seems to be ‘light green, like the Latin vitreus (see Trowbridge 51{., explaining daAdypoos: cf. further 58). Ὑελοειδέες can be

proposed for the present poem, meaning ‘transparent, ‘shining’ (Brunck’s suggestion ὑαλοχρώδεες, printed by Jacobs’, is unattested and a somewhat implaus-

ible formation). For ὑαλοειδής, often used by medical writers to describe the humours of the body, but also denoting the glass-like shine or consistency of various objects, such as the sun, the moon, gems (cf. Orph. Lith. 280, of the topaz), etc., see Trowbridge 46-9. ‘Some kinds of ripe pears do, of course, look shiny and semi-translucent’ remarks Trowbridge (280) in commenting on Crinagoras adjective (as transmitted by the codex). Interestingly, in modern Greek, pears of a certain kind are called «povoraAAca, probably due to their

hardness and freshness.”° Cf. also the comment of Gregory of Nyssa on Homer's description of Alcinous’ gardens with the ‘shining’ pears, Epist. 20.10-11 τὴν ὄγχνην λευκοτέραν τοῦ νεοξέστον ἐλέφαντος (in regard to Od. 7.115, ὄγχναι καὶ ῥοιαὶ καὶ μηλέαι ἀγλαόκαρποι, a passage Crinagoras seems to have in mind; see above, on ῥοιῆς 7 θρύμματα). If the ending -ddes is not spurious, the reading ὑελολευκάδες can be suggested, ‘white as glass, λευκάς being the feminine of λευκὸς; cf. LS] s.v. In addition, there is Nicander’s phrase uupras ὄχνη (Th. 513), the ‘Cordate Pear-tree’; so here ὑελομυρτάδες ὄγχναι might be also suggested, in

the sense ‘glass-like cordate pears, although such a specific reference does not seem likely in this context.” ‘YaAfit in the also see HE. For

has primarily a short v: later poets lengthen to daA- to make the word dactylic metre. See LSJ s.v. ὕαλος III, with examples from the Anthology; Floridi 386. For the forms ὕαλος-- ὕελος, see Gow-Page on Hedylus 3,3f. ὕαλος (glass/crystal), first appearing in Herodotus (3.24, where it does

not signify glass), see Hollis on Call. Hec. 18,2 and E. M. Stern, ‘Ancient Glass in a Philological Context, Mnemosyne 60 (2007), 341-406. ὄγχναι: the colloquial form öxvn appears in Callimachus (H. 6.27), Nicander (Th. 513), Theocritus (7.144), as well as elsewhere in the Anthology: Palladas 9.5,1 and 4 (in 4 at verse-end), 9.6,1 (verse-end), anon. 9.317=54,2 HE. In ?° See Koukoules 5.106. A kind of grape also bore the adjective κρυστάλλινα in Byzantine times: see ibid.

* Other suggestions that attempt to explain the « after deAa- do not offer a natural meaning: ὑελόκαρποι is unlikely, as it suits the pear tree itselfand not the fruit. Κοκκύμηλον is the plum tree, cited together with pear and pomegranate trees by Pollux 1.232 dyyvat, porwi, κοκκύμηλα; for the derivation of κοκκύμηλον from κόκκος, see Chantraine (1958) and Frisk s.v. Compounds

With -xonnos, like καλλύκοκκος (see Buck-Petersen 671), do exist, but the occurrence of a word with -xoxxo- as its second compound is problematic here: ὑελόκοκκοι would refer to the pear's seeds, the description of which as ‘glass-like’ seems incoherent. Needless to say, ὑελόκαρποι and

ὑελόκοκκοι would require tolerance of the hiatus between this and the next word (öyyraı); hiatus is, of course, not rare in Crinagoras (see Intr., Metre, Hiatus).

Homer

öyxvn

means a

‘pear

tree’ (like

in Callimachus,

Nicander,

and

'Palladas locc. citt., also at Nonnus D. 3.144 and 12.256) except for Od. 7.120, where the word denotes the fruit itself, as it does at Theocr. 7.144: here we have an image of abundance, recalling that in the Odyssey (cf. Gow on 135), which Crinagoras is probably hinting at (cf. above, on ῥοιῆς / θρύμματα): ὄχναι μὲν πὰρ mooat, παρὰ πλευραῖσι δὲ μᾶλα / δαψιλέως ἁμῖν exvdivdero”* (for similar descriptions, cf. Gow on 135). See also Hatzikosta on Theocr.

7.144, Lembach”* 137ff. Both pears and grapes are offered to Priapus and Silvanus in Hor. Epod. 2.19.

6 δαψιλῆ: copious, abundant; the word is mainly prosaic, first in Hdt. 2.1218 (ποτόν), 3.130 (δωρεή), Hippocr. De diaeta in morb, acut. 65 (ὕδωρ), etc.; cf.

Emped. fr. 33 Wright δαψιλὸς αἰθήρ. In Hellenistic poetry the word occurs fairly frequently; cf. Call. H. 4.125 δαψιλὲς ἠπείλησεν, Theocr. 7.145 δαψιλέως (cf. above on ὄγχναι), both at verse-opening. In Lycophron the adjective qualihes σφραγίς (779f.), ἐρημία (957), in Antiphilus AP 9.404=42,6 GP the γλυκὺ νᾶμα of the bees. At Herondas 7.84 it is a synonym for πολύς; see Headlam ad loc. Before Hellenistic times, δαψιλής appears in extant poetry only at Antiphanes fr. 286 K-A δαψιλῶς; see Gow on Theocr. loc. cit. and Mineur on Call. loc. cit.

οἰνοπόταις: elsewhere in the Anthology, for instance at Call. 7.454=62,1 HE, Myrinus 7.703=3,3 GP (both at the same sedes), Eratosth. Schol. 6.77,1, anon. 7.28=35a,2 FGE (on Anacreon). For a similar generalizing image, cf. Marc. Arg, 9.246=25,1 GP ἡδεῖα map’ οἰνοπόταισι Adyuve, Mac. Cons. 11.59,8 ἀσταφὶς

οἰνοπόταις ἄρκιος ἡ Βρομίου (same sedes of the pentameter). First in Anacr. fr. 4 IEG; Homer has οἰνοποτήρ (Od. 8.456).

γαστρός: the form in the Anthology at Mel. 5.204=60,6 HE, Antiphilus 9.310=41,5, Isid. Aeg. 7.156=1,3 GP γαστρὸς ἕκητι (in an analogous metaphorical sense), al. In connection with food, cf, for instance, Od. 6.133 κέλεται δὲ € γαστήρ, 17.228 βόσκειν ἣν yacrep, Aesch. Ag. 726 γαστρὸς ἀνάγκαις, etc. See LS] s.v. 1 2.

ἐπεισόδια: Gow-Page remark that comestibles such as those mentioned here are ‘episodic’ to ‘the principal business of drinking (οἰνοπόταις). The word occurs first in Aristotle as a technical term describing a parenthetical addition to the main plot; in epic, Po. 1459a36, in poetry in general, 1451b34; in tragedy the word denotes the ‘episodes’ between two choral odes, 1452b20. In the present sense, addition for the purpose of giving pleasure, 1,5] cite, together with Crinagoras’ passage, Plut. Mor. 629c τῶν eis τὰ δεῖπνα καὶ τὰ συμπόσια παρασκευαζομένων... τὰ μὲν ἀναγκαίων ἔχει Tak... τὰ δ᾽ ἐπεισόδια γέγονεν 22 Note that the description refers to some location near a cave of the Nymphs (], 137),

associated of course with Pan and the cult of rustic deities.

22 Καὶ Lembach, Die Pflanzen bei Iheokrit (Heidelberg 1970).

428

AP 6,232 =42

ἡδονῆς ἕνεκεν, 710d τοσαύτην ἐν τῷ διαλέγεσθαι χάριν ἔχοντες ὅμως ἐχρῶντο τοῖς ἐπεισοδίοις καὶ διεποίκιλλον τὰ συμπόσια παιδιαῖς τοιαύταις, κτλ. The word hasa similar sense and occurs at the same sedes, this time as an adjective, αἱ Rufinus AP5.19=6,4 Page φύκους ἄνθους ἐπεισόδιον, where the φύκους ἄνθος is ‘episodic

‘in the sense that it is an artificial addition to beauty’ as Page remarks on Ruf. 6,3-4. Rufinus’ phrase is quoted together with Crinagoras’ γέλγιθες, κτλ. + 1.6 by Suda s.v. ἐπεισόδιον; see Apparatus Criticus. 7; note the chiasm between the gods and their analogous attributes: godadjective-adjective-god. Moreover, there is assonance in each couple: of 7 and v in Πανὶ φιλοσκίπωνι (the assonance of m extending to the remote /Iparw as well) and of ῥ in εὐστόρθυγγι Πριάπῳ.

Πανὶ φιλοσκίπωνι: C’s correction of P’s -σκηπ- to -σκιπ- (printed only by Waltz, Gow-Page, and Conca-Marzi-Zanetto) is strange enough, since at Call. AP 7.89=54,7, Ariston 7.457=2,1, Leon. 6.293=54,1, Phanias 6.294=2,1, Antip. Sid.

7.413=67,5 HE, Antip. Thess. 7.65=77,4 GP, the Corrector corrects oxır- to σκηπ-. Herodian's views are contradictory, as he approves σκηπ- in Part. Boissonade 126-7, where he associates the word with σκήπτομαι, σκῆψις, σκῆπτρον (cf. Photius Lex. and Suda s.v. σκῆπτρον! ῥόπαλον, map’ ὃ καὶ

σκαπάνιον), while he accepts the spelling σκιπ- in Gr. Gr. 3.2,581,21, orimwvἡ βακτηρία διὰ τοῦ ı γράφεται. For a different etymology, cf. Et. M. s.v. σκίπων' παρὰ τὸ σκηρίπτω κατὰ ἀποβολὴν τοῦ τ καὶ TOU p Kal συγκοπῇ TOU ἡ, σκίπων.

The form σκίπων is attested at Hdt. 4.172. At Aristoph. Vesp. 727 some codices read σκηπ-; see the apparatus of MacDowell. Modern critics accept the spelling σκιπ- as well as the association with σκῆπτρον, explaining the ı as an alteration to the stem, and compare with scipio -onis. See Chantraine (1968) and Frisk s.v. The god is quite frequently given epithets with φιλο-: φιλοσκοπέλῳ at Agath. AP. 6.32,3 and Nonnus D. 6.275 (verse-opening, as in Agathias), dıAwpeira at Erycius 6.96=1,3 GP, φιλαγραύλῳ at Mac. Cons. 6.73,3, φιλόδενδρος at Theaet. Schol. API 233,1, φιλοσπήλυγγι at Lucill. 11.194,1. For other gods, cf. φιλοδῖτα

(or φιλοδαῖτα: see intr. note), Πρίηπε (Philip 6.102=17,7), φιλόπυρε / Δηοῖ (Philip 6.36=9,1-2), φιλαγρέτις ...

Ἄρτεμις (Paul. Sil. 9.396,5f.).

Greek herdsmen in ancient times carried crooked sticks, as they still do

today: cf. Dion. Hal. AR 14.2,2.** Pan is presented on monuments as holding a curved stick. See further Gow on Theocr. 4.49, Borgeaud 83 with n. 64, 100 with n. 188, LICM VII (Suppl.) 627 figg. 201-2 and 204-5, 633 fig. 266, 634 fig. 274-5; cf. anon. A Pi 258,3 where the bronze statue of the god is holding διπλοῦν Te λαγωβόλον. Staffs are often dedicated to the god in epigrams of the Anthology (cf. H. White 1985, 11): φήγινον ὄζον (anon. 6,37=77,) FGE), λαγωβόλον (Theocr.

*4 The modern Greek pastoral stick is termed y«Airoa, derived from ἀγκυλ-ίτσα, diminutive of the adjective ἀγκύλη, a crooked stick; see Andriotes s.v.

AP 6.232= 42

6.177=6,3, Leon. 6.188=4,1 HE), ῥαιβόκρανον ἐυστόρθυγγα

429

κορύναν (Leon.

6.35=47,3 HE; the poem is imitated by Zonas 6.106=3 GP, where the staff is καλαύρωψ, |. 3), κορύναν (Mac. Cons. 6.73,3, Eratosth. Scho). 6.78,1, imitation of

Theocr. 6.177; see Gow on Theocr. ep. 2, intr. note). εὐστόρθυγγι: the epithet recurs only at Leon. AP 6.35=47,3 HE, to describe the staff dedicated to Pan (see above on φιλοσκίπωνι); Priapus is described as

μονοστόρθυγξ in Zonas 6.22=1,5 GP, where the scholiast comments in marg.: ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ποδὶ ἱστάμενος" στόρθυγξ σημαίνει πᾶν τὸ εἰς ὀξὺ καταλῆγον' onualveı δὲ καὶ ἀκρωτήριον καὶ τὸν ὀδόντα καὶ τὸν πόδα, ὡς ἐνταῦθα μονοστόρθυγγα τὸν μονόπουν' οὕτως γὰρ κατεσκεύαζον τὸν Ilpinmov. Στόρθυγξ is ἃ boar’s tusk at

Lyc. 492, a tongue of land (cf. the scholiast’s ἀκρωτήριον) at Lyc. 761, 865, 1406. As Gow- Page observe, here the word cannot have been used of the god’s horns (Hecker 1852, 245, followed by Dübner and Paton; cf. Antip. Sid. 6.111=46,5 δικέραιον.... στόρθυγγα μετώπων). Waltz’s rendering ‘sculpté dans un beau tronc d’arbre’ might be close to the meaning of the word (cf. the statuette of Priapus in anon. AP! 86,3 which is made of fig-wood, σύκινος); one can infer

that εὐστόρθυγξ denotes the spear-like base of many of the god's statuettes (cf. figures IV H 45 and 53 in Herter (after p. 96), LIMC VIII (Suppl.) 681 fig.

28, 683 fig. 55, 687 fig. 92), a feature to which the scholium on Zonas refers and for which Archias’ ἄπους (10.8=28,3 GP) is also apt; Hermae too were statues without (arms and) legs. Cf. Xenocritus AP! 186=2 FGE, Paus. 9.40,3; see

Herter 171. An obscene allusion, already suggested by Brunck, is of course also likely to be intended by the poet in a playful double entendre. Adjectives with ev- suit rustic gods. Cf. εὐθήρῳ Mavi (Zosimus 6.185=4,4 FGE), εὐαστῆρι Avatw (Leon. 6.154=97,1 HE), εὐσκάρθμῳ.... [avi (Agath. 6.32,2f); see above,

on εὐσχίστοιο. Πριάπῳ;: there is no need to change the form to Πριήπῳ (Ap. L., Ap. G., Ap. B., Ap. R., Brunck, Jacobs, Holtze, Geist, Dübner, Paton); although the Ionic form

is more frequent in poetry, the Attic form -az- is not only also attested (cf. Hedylus 6.292=1,5 HE, same sedes, ITpudmw, which Planudes has altered to Πριήπῳ: see Gow-Page ad loc.), but the two forms were indeed freely used in literature. Cf. Eust. 691,42f. (on Il. 7.459) ὁ Πρίηπος οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ ἡ λέγεται ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τοῦ a Πρίαπος καὶ διὰ τοῦ ε δὲ Πρίεπος, «rA.; also Eust. 32,15

(IL. 1.35). See also Herter 43f. See also Intr., Language and Style, Dialect. ἀντίθεται: for the form, cf. Flaccus AP 6.196=2,5 GP ἀντίθησι (dedication to Pan), Mac. Cons. 6.70,2 dvrideuaı, Eratosth. Schol, 6.78,2 ἄνθεσο, Alpheus

6.187=5,2 GP ἄνθετ᾽ (all three at the beginning of the pentameter, the two latter offerings to Pan); the form ἄνθετο also occurs very often at verse-opening: anon. 6.51=42,4, anon. 280=41,4 HE, Jul. Aeg. 6.18,4, 20,4, 25,2, 29,2, Paul. Sil.

57,3 (to Pan), 81,5, anon. 87,1, Agath. 167,7. For a collection of passages with ἀντίθεται, ἄνθετο, etc., see further H. Kühn 27-9.

430

AP 6.232 = 42

λιτήν: as Gow-Page observe, there is no contradiction between this adjective and the preceding δαψιλῆ (1. 6), as the offerings are indeed abundant, but commonplace enough’ to justify the conventional modesty on the part of the one making the offering, for which see on Crin. 4,5 on βαιόν. For similar modesty

on the part of the dedicator of a series of offerings, cf. Gaetul. AP 6.190=2,2 FGE λιτὰ τάδ᾽ ἐκ λιτοῦ δῶρα Λεωνίδεω; see Page ad loc. A 'λιτὸν γέρας is the

trumpet shell which a fisherman offers Apollo at Quintus 6.230=1,5 GP; cf. also the hat that Antiphilus dedicates to Artemis in 6.199=16 GP (1.4 οὐ πολλὴ δ᾽ ἡ χάρις) and the mask that Simus offers the Muses who gave him ἀντ᾽ ὀλίγου μέγα

δῶρον, Call. 6.310=26,3. HE. For ‘small gifts, suitable to the offerer's modest status, cf. also Agis 6.152=1 HE, Apollonides 6.238=2 GP, Jul. Aeg, 6.25, Agathias API 36. It is interesting to notice that Priapus asks for a small portion of a rich catch of fish in anon. AP 10.9=21,6 FGE rier, ἀπ᾿ οὐκ ὀλίγων βαιὸν ἀπαρχόμενοι,

on which see Herter 269. δαῖτα: again at Crin. 4,4. Philip at AP 6.251=7,3 GP describes his offering of a barley cake to Apollo as dais: δέξαι πλωτήρων μάζης χεριφυρέα δαῖτα.

Φιλοξενίδης: the name occurs at Philip 6.99=15,2 GP (see intr. note), Call, 6.149=25,4 HE. Among the islands of the Aegean Sea, the name occurs in Euboea in IV-III Bc (see LGPN I s.v.), but it is also found in other areas of

Greece as well; see LGPN all volumes s.v. Note that the dedicator’s name recalls

the adjective given to the god, φιλοσκίπωνι.

AP 6.253 = 43

Σπήλυγγες Νυμφῶν εὐπίδακες ai τόσον ὕδωρ εἴβουσαι σκολιοῦ τοῦδε κατὰ πρέονος, Πανός τ᾽ ἠχήεσσα πιτυστέπτοιο Kadın, τὴν ὑπὸ Buaauins ποσσὶ λέλογχε πέτρης, ἱερά τ᾽ ἀγρευταῖσι γερανδρύον ἀρκεύθοιο πρέμνα, λιθηλογέες θ᾽ Ἑ μέω ἱδρύσιες, αὐταί θ᾽ ἱλήκοιτε καὶ εὐθήροιο δέχοισθε Σ᾽ ωὡσάνδρου ταχινῆς σκῦλ᾽ ἐλαφοσσοΐης. \

5

3

t

[4

4

3κΚ

4

[4

%

4

2

,

f

é

4

—

AP6.253 Κριναγόρου Suda s.vv. εἴβεσθαι (1-2), καλιᾷ (3), πίτυς (3), πρεῶν (1 ai-2), πρῶνες (eadem), σπήλυγγες (1-2 εἴβουσαι) caret Pl

2 mpedvos PSuda (πρεών, 1 af Suda (εἴβεσθαι, πρεών, mpwves): at PSuda (σπήλυγγες) paves): φρέατος Suda (εΐβεθαι) 3 ἠχήεσσα PSuda (καλιά): τειχήεσσα Suda (πίτυς) 4 Βασσαίης Hecker: κασσαίης P 6 λιθηλογέες apogtr.: λιθολ- ΡΟ 7 δέχοισθε P: -eade C Reiske n. 494, Brunck n. 7, Rubensohn n. 9

Well-fountained caves of the Nymphs, pouring so much water down this winding headland, echoing shrine of pine-crowned Pan, which is his home under the feet of Bassae’s crags, stumps of aged juniper, sacred for the hunters, stone-heaped seats of Hermes, be gracious and accept the spoils of successful Sosander'’s swift hunt of the stag. A rustic dedication by Sosander. In his other epigrams accompanying a dedication or a present (3, 4, 5, 8), the poem opens with the object offered, while the verb, together with the subject, comes in the final couplet, when the poem consists of six lines, and in the last line, when it consists of four, as happens usually in one-sentence dedicatory epigrams; see also on Crin. 5, intr. note. The presentation of lists of objects is

a common feature of dedicatory epigrams, but other types of poem possess

lists of terms. Cf. Crin. 47 (list of attributes qualifying one object); see further Siedschlag 40 with n. 2. The present poem can be seen as forming a pair with 42 (cf. the pair 3 and 4). 43 imitates in reverse fashion the structure and content of 42,

422

AP 6.253 = 43

which is equal in length: here the first six lines are a list of places, belonging to deities, to which the objects (σκῦλ᾽ ἐλαφοσσοΐης, last couplet) are offered, while

in 42, by contrast, the first six lines consist of a list of objects offered to two deities appearing in the last couplet. These observations are, needless to say, valid only if we accept that 42 is complete in the form we have it; see ad loc.,

intr. note. The accumulation of dedicated objects is, of course, the usual practice in dedicatory epigrams (see on 42, intr. note), and Crinagoras here plays with this tradition by making creative use of Leonidas’ 3 HE (which has both objects and gods as recipients of the offer), and so dedicates objects to places which are in fact objects associated with deities: caves, hut, tree stumps, heaps of stones, The rhythm is smoothly accelerated in the course of the poem, as

the first two objects (Nymphs’ caves and Pan's hut) occupy a couplet each, while the final two (juniper stumps and Hermes’ heaps of stones) occupy a couplet together, culminating in the last couplet which presents to the reader the offerer and the offering. The present epigram is the longest example among Crinagoras extant epigrams of a poem consisting of a single sentence. This feature is common in dedicatory epigrams, the longest being of ten lines: Ariston 6.306=1 HE (to Hermes), Antip. Thess. 6.109=54 GP (to Pan), anon. 6.21=18 FGE (to Priapus). For eight lines, cf. Leon, 6.4=52 and 6.289=42, Phanias 6.295=3 and 6.297=4, Antip. Sid. 6.160=4 HE, Philip 6.38=10, 6.102-104=17-19, and 6.247=22, Myrinus 6.254=2

GP, Flaccus=[Phalaecus] 6.165=1 FGE, Agath. 6.167, anon. 6.23; six and four occur very frequently. Other epigrams by Crinagoras consisting of a single sentence are 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 47. For single-sentence poems opening with an address to deities, cf. Leon. AP 6.334=3 (see above), Moero 6.189=2 (see below on omndvyyes...ai), Dionysius 6.3=5, Maccius 6.33=6 HE, anon, 6.23=17 FGE.

The epigram is probably inspired by Leonidas 6.334=Geffcken 53=3 HE: Abaca καὶ Νυμφέων ἱερὸς πάγος, at θ᾽ ὑπὸ πέτρῃ πίδακες, ἢ θ᾽ ὕδασιν γειτονέουσα πίτυς, καὶ σὺ τετράνλωχιν, μηλοσσόε, αιάδος Ἑρμᾷᾶ, ὅς τε τὸν αἰγιβότην, Πάν, κατέχεις σκόπελον, u 4 A 7 ᾽ὔ μὴ v (Aaat τὰ ψαιστὰ τό τε σκύφος ἔμπλεον οἴνης u

\

3

’

/

!

/

δέξασθ᾽, Αἰακίδεω δῶρα Νεοπτολέμου.

Geffcken compares it to Kaibel 827,1}, (Roman era) ΠΠανίτε καὶ Νύμφαις Μαίης γόνον Ev’ ἀνέθηκεν | Ἑρμείαν, Διὸς υἱόν, κτλ. See also Elliger 387-8. Other

dedications to Pan and the nymphs in the Anthology are Anyte API 291=3 HE, Leon. 51 HE=P.Ox. 662; nymphs, Pan, and Dionysus in Leon. AP 6.154=97 HE, imitated by Sabinus 6.158. For the common veneration of the nymphs and Pan, cf. Eur. Ba. 951f,, Paus. 1.34,3. Cf. h. Pan 2f. See also Rogers on Aristoph. Th. 977, Farnell V 425ff., Gomme-Sandbach 134f£.,' Borgeaud 232-3. For the nymphs’ ! A.W. Gomme, F H. Sandbach, Menander:

A Commentary (Oxford 1973).

AP 6.253 = 43

433

shrines in the countryside, cf. Nilsson (1940) 17f. Their cult, often attested in Attica, is rarely attested in Arcadia; see Jost (1985) 476. Hermes is said to be

Pan's father in h, Pan. 1, for which see Allen-Halliday-Sikes ad loc., Borgeaud 141, Jost (1985) 462. For the association of Hermes with Arcadia and his cult

there, see Jost (1985), 439-56. For Hermes and the nymphs, cf. Od. 14.435f.,

where Eumaeus devotes to them a portion of the pig he had killed, ‘a passage which L. may remember for his rustic dedication’ (Gow-Page on Leon. 3,3 HE);

see further Hoekstra on Od. 14.435. All three deities, Hermes, Pan, and the Nymphs, are invoked in the prayer in Aristoph. Th. 977. For their association, see further Farnell V 425, Rouse 45, LIMC Suppl. s.v. Pan V H.; in Arcadia specifically, Jost (1985) 439-77. Gow-Page assume that the poem is a real dedication, citing Paus. 8.41,7-10 for attestation of springs of water on Mt. Cotilon, where Bassae is located (on 1.4). Even if Crinagoras does have in mind some particular region of Arcadia (see

below on Baooains... πέτρης), the poem's ‘word-coining and phrase-making’ (Gow-Page, intr. note) may mean that the epigram is perhaps a literary exercise; note furthermore the probable reference to Leonidas’ epigram and the general Leonidean style of the poem, which may echo the Tarantine poet's preference for rare or unique words (cf. Intr., Language and Style, Ava€ λεγόμενα). See also below, on σκολιοῦ... πρεόνος. Although nothing is known of any visit by the poet to Arcadia, we of course cannot write off such a possibility. Sosander of the present poem offers his dedication to the ‘well-fountained’ caves of the Nymphs, Pan's shrine, ‘sacred trunks of juniper. Many places of cult in Arcadia are indeed associated with sources and sacred thickets.* Cooper (1978, 62~5) associates the poem's nymphs with Sinoé, who nursed baby Pan with her companion nymphs (Paus. 8.30,3), and, in an attempt to locate the epigrams setting

in the area of Bassae, says that ‘we may reconstruct the wooden house καλιή of Pan as fitting very nicely by the ancient sacred spring still to be seen at the foot of the steep slope which drops from the Apollo and Kotilon temples’ (63-4); cf. also Cooper (1996) I 61, n. 158, and 65, Cooper further mentions Paus. 8.41,4

and 8.42,12, which mention streams flowing in a grove of cypresses and one of oaks respectively in the area of Phigaleia. For junipers, see below on ὑπὸ Βασσαίης... πέτρης and on ἀρκεύθοιο. Another passage of Pausanias, however, depicts a spot closely resembling Crinagoras’ setting: 8.38,3 and 5: ταῖς Νύμφαις δὲ ὀνόματα, ὑφ᾽ὧν τὸν Δία τραφῆναι λέγουσι, τίθενται Θεισόαν καὶ Νέδαν καὶ Ἁγνώ"... τῆς de Ἀγνοῦς, ἢ ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ Λυκαίῳ πηγή, κτλ. (...) ἔστι δὲ ἐν τῷ Δυκαίῳ Πανός τε ἱερὸν καὶ περὶ αὐτὸ ἄλσος δένδρων, κτλ." Although here

2 M. Jost, ‘Sanctuaires ruraux et sanctuaires urbains en Arcadie, in A, Schachter (ed.), Le

sanctucire grec, Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur [Antiquité Classique 37 (Geneva 1992), 209.

> Comparable to this is the description of the landscape where the temple of Pan Lycaeus was located, near Pallantium, the town founded by Arcadian immigrants, according to Dion. Hal. AR 1, 1.31-2. At 1.32,4 the author reports rumours regarding the situation in ancient times of the area which was, in his time, united with the city: ἦν δὲ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ὡς λέγεται σπήλαιον ὑπὸ τῷ λόφῳ

434

AP 6.253=43

the reference is to Mt Lycaeon, rather than to Bassae, Baovatn πέτρη can be

taken to mean the general area of Mt Lycaeon, as the two are in fact very close, Cf. the reference to the location of the Ὀρέσθειον τῆς Μαιναλίας (Thuc. 5.64,3) in Eur. El. 12738. oe δ᾽ Ἀρκάδων χρὴ πόλιν ἐπ᾿ Ἀλφειοῦ ῥοαῖς / οἰκεῖν Δυκαίου πλησίον σηκώματος. Yet even if the poet has in mind ἃ specific area (either from

personal experience or from knowledge obtained through reading and general geographical curiosity; cf. also Crinagoras’ friendship with the geographer Menippus, ep. 32), it is unlikely that we are dealing with a genuine dedication here, all the more so, given how evident the influence of Leonidas is, and the strong likelihood that Leonidas’ poems are themselves fictional. Cf. the discussion by Gow-Page of Leon. 3, as well as 4, 5, 6, intr. notes; cf. also below on σκολιοῦ... πρεόνος.

If. Σπήλυγγες . αἷ: Crinagoras’ opening is perhaps a variation on Moero AP 6.189=2,1f. HE Νύμφαι Auadpuddes, ποταμοῦ κόραι, at τάδε βένθη / ἀμβρόσιαι

ῥοδέοις στείβετε ποσσὶν ἀεί. The opening sentence also recalls Theocr. 7.136f. τὸ δ᾽ ἐγγύθεν ἱερὸν ὕδωρ / Νυμφᾶν ἐξ ἄντροιο κατειβόμενον keAdpute. For the

nymphs’ connection with caves, cf. Od. 13.103f., Orph. Η. 51.5, Theodoridas AP 6.224=5,3 HE; see Geoghegan on Anyte 3,1=AP/ 291=3 HE. Cf. also Leon. AP 6.334=3,1 HE with Gow-Page ad loc., Postgate 38ff. Cf. Dionys. Trag. fr. 1 TrGrF Νυμφῶν ὑπὸ σπήλυγγα trov αὐτόστεγον, where σπῆλυγξ first appears, See Gow on Theocr. 16.53 σπήλυγγα... Κύκλωπος. For the nymphs association with springs, cf. Od. 17.240 with Steiner ad loc., Theocr. 13.43-5, Nicarchus AP 9.330=1,1-2 HE, Apollonides 9.257=17, Antiphanes

9.258=5 GP. See also next note.? εὐπίδακες: here only. Adjectives with ed- occasionally appear in connection with water. Cf. Leon. API 230=86,5 eux pivov διὰ πέτρης, Nicarchus AP 9.330=1,1 HE κράνας edößpov, Antiphanes 9.258=5,1 GP εὐύδροισι... προχοαῖσι; for compounds with εὐ- in Hellenistic poetry, in general, see on Crin. 3,3. For πίδακες in association with the nymphs, cf. Sabinus

AP6.158,3-4 abfere.../... Νύμφαι

πίδακα, Hermocreon 9.327=2,1-2 HE Νύμφαι ἐφυδριάδες, ταῖς Ἑρμοκρέων

τάδε δῶρα / εἴσατο, καλλινάου πίδακος ἀντιτυχών. τόσον ὕδωρ: suggestions like τορόν (Sitzler 115), or ἀγλαόν or ποτόν (Stadtmüller), are not necessary; cf. Antiphilus AP 9.549=44,1 GP Κρηναῖαι λιβάδες, ri πεφεύγατε; ποῦ τόσον ὕδωρ; (same sedes).

4 ὃ (ὃ [4 x , > 46 n μέγα, δρυμῷ-" λ λασίῳ7 karnpebes,[4 καὶ \ kpnvides ὑπὸ ταῖςἴω πέτραις ἐμβύθιοι, ἦ TE προσεχὴς1 TH~ κρημνῷ ~ νάπη πυκνοῖς καὶ μεγάλοις δένδρεσιν ἐπίσκιος.

* For the names of different kinds of nymphs (Apadpudées, Ναϊάδες, Ἐφυδριάδες, etc.), see Postgate passim.

AP 6.253 = 43

435

εἴβουσαι: in Homer (for instance Od. 4.153, 8.531, 16.219, al.), always in the

phrase δάκρυον efBecv. In a similar context to that of the present poem, cf. λείβομαι at Theocr. 5.33 ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ rourel καταλείβεται.

oxoAtod...mpeövos: cf. Crin. 44,2, in the same metrical position and construction, ποιηρὸν τοῦτ᾽ ἀνὰ λευκόλοφον. Gow-Page argue that τοῦδε is an indication that the poet is referring to some specified area; the demonstrative pronouns in

this context, however, should be seen within the conventions of the dedicatory genre and not taken literally; see on 44,2, τοῦτ. Σκολιός is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 16.387), occurring several times in Hesiod. In the sense ‘winding’ cf. Pind. P 2.85 ὁδοῖς σκολιαῖς; see Mineur

on Call. Η, 4.311. The epithet describes a πορθμός at Theodoridas AP 6.224=5,5, βάτος at Zenodotus 7.315=3,2 HE, γαῖαν at Secundus 9.301=3,6 GP (with

Gow-Page ad loc.), πάγαις at Tiber. Hus 9.372=4,2 FGE. The form mpedvos here only; in Homer we have ὥς re πρὼν ἰσχάνει ὕδωρ

ὑλήεις

(Il. 17.747); also, πρώονες (-as) ἄκροι (-ovs) (Il. 12.282, 16.299; also h. Ap. 22 and

144). See Bechtel (1914) 286f. In the Anthology, cf. Dionys. 6.3=5,2 βαθὺν... πρῶνα,

the form, in the singular or plural, also at Alc. Mess. 6.218=21,2 HE and Archias 7.696=17,4 GP. Also, cf. the form mpyedy (Adaeus 9.300=7,3 GP, Leon. 9.318=80,1

HE with Gow-Page ad loc.). Cf. also Call. H. 3.52 πρηόσιν Ὀσσαίοισιν. 3f: cf. Eur. Ion 492-4 ὦ Πανὸς θακήματα καὶ / θακήματα πέτρα / μυχώδεσσι Maxpais, κτλ. Πανός... πιτυστέπτοιο: πιτύστεπτος here only; compounds with mirv- are very rare and begin with aurvo-; cf. Alc. Mess. API 8=18,1 HE Φρυγίην πιτυοτρόφον.

Pan's association with the pine arises from the legend according to which he pursues the nymph Pitys, who is turned into a pine; see LIMC Suppl. s.v. Pan Ὁ. In the Anthology, cf., for instance, Paul. Sil. AP 6.57,3 ἄνθετο δέρμα λέοντος ὑπὲρ πίτυν, αἰγιπόδη Πάν. His pine wreath is mentioned also in Lucy, 4.586-9, Ov. Met. 1.699, Sil. It. 13.331; see further Roscher s.v. Pan, 1395, Bömer on

Ov. loc. cit. Πίτυς is further typically associated with the rustic setting and appears in comparable contexts. Cf. Moero 6.189=2,4, Leon. AP 6.262=48,4 and AP] 230=86,4 HE, anon. AP! 12=78,1, anon. AP] 227=74,3 FGE. See

Giangrande 1967, 19. ἠχήεσσα.... καλιή: the epithet often qualifies the wind, the sea, rivers, waves, mountains, sounds, in literature. Halls are described as ‘echoing’ at Od. 4.72, h. Cer. 104, Hes. Th. 767 (with West ad loc.). Cf. Eustathius on Od. loc. cit. (1483) ἠχήεντα δὲ δώματα τὰ μεγάλα. Tots yap μικροῖς οὐκ ἔστι προσαρμύσαι τὸ

ἐπίθετον, ψεύσεται γὰρ ἐπιλεχθέν. Note the playful tone in Crinagoras’ use of the word, as here it describes a tiny wooden shed, in sharp contrast to the epic precedent of vast halls. In Qu. Sm. 14.475f. it qualifies caves, dvrpa.../ κοῖλα καὶ ἠχήεντα.

436

AP 6.253=43

Καλιή is Hecales hut at Crin. 11,3, also closing the hexameter. Al Hes. Op. 503 it indicates a hut, but at 301, 307, 374 a barn or granary, as at Ap. Rh. 1.170,

4.1095. At Call. H. 3.96 it is the lair of the porcupine; see further Bornmann ad loc. and Hollis 265. In the sense of a god’s shrine, cf. 1G 12.2.484,15 (Mytilene),

Apollonides AP! 239=30,3 GP. Cf. Hesych. s.v. καλιαί- νοσσιαὶ ἐκ ξύλων" καὶ ξύλινά τινα περιέχοντα ἀγάλματα εἰδώλων. At Theocr. 29.12 the word has %,

which otherwise it rarely does; see Gow ad loc. ὑπὸ Βασσαίης... πέτρης: critics have suggested various emendations. Ap. G., Ap. B., and Ap. R. have Kaozins (appearing in Kuster’s quotations of the epigram in 2.18 (comment on Crinagoras’ entry at Suda’s εἴβεσθαι), 3.121 (at Suda’s πίτυς), and 3.363 (at Suda’s σπήλυγγες)); Reiske (1754, 42 and 1766, 35) printed Kpiocains, and in a marginal note in Ap. G., Ap. B., and Ap. R. there is the suggestion Κασταλίης (attributed to Salmasius), printed by Brunck and

Jacobs’; these conjectures are not to be considered seriously. Gow-Page remark that P’s reading is very likely to be Bacoaiys, rather than κασσαίης, as editors maintain, on the grounds that β and « are indistinguishable in the codex. P’s reading is probably, but not certainly, κασσαίης, as the scribe tends to raise the left vertical stroke of « higher (so here) which he does not do with

that of ß. Adjectives of the same formation, denoting place names or not, occasionally qualify πέτρη. Cf. Od. 4.507 Γυραίην πέτρην (echoed in Qu. Sm.

14.569f. πέτρης / Γυραίης); at the end of the hexameter, cf. Call. Hec. fr. 9 Hollis κολουραίῃ ὑπὸ πέτρῃ with Hollis ad loc., Opp. Hal. 5.224 drains ἀπὸ πέτρης, Nonnus D, 9.284 öudalm παρὰ πέτρῃ, Par. 6.132 ἐρημαίη παρὰ πέτρῃ.

The correction to Βασσαίης (Hecker 1843, 142) can be supported by the Homeric passage, where the epithet denotes a particular place (see above, intr. note). Jacobs’ proposes βησσαίης, a suggestion approved by Rubensohn and Paton (‘at the foot of the woodland rock, Paton's translation; for the for-

mation of the epithet, cf. Βησσαῖος from βῆσσα, Steph. Byz. s.v.: Βῆσσα, πόλις “Λοκρῶν... ὠνομάσθη δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ τόπου φύσεως ναπώδους ovens. To ἐθνικὸν Βησσαῖος. Jacobs? also mentions

ὕλη

ὑλήεις and ὑλαῖος, ὄρφνη"

ὀρφνήεις and ὀρφναῖος). Gow-Page reject it, but cf. Hesych. s.v. Πανίας βήσσας: ws ἀπὸ τοῦ Πανός (Aesch. fr. 98 TrGrF). Βασσαίης may be the Doric form of βησσαίης (although Gow-Page remark that the change from βη- to Ba- ‘is the reverse of what is probable’). Cf. Soph. Aj. 197 εὐανέμοις Baooass, OC 673 xAwpais ὑπὸ βάσσαις; for an occurrence of a Doric form in a context otherwise Ionic, cf. Crin. 44,3 ἁγητῆρσι, justified by the rustic setting. See Intr., Language and Style, Dialect. A view reconciling, to a certain extent, Baooains and Baooains, is that Bacoa, the Doric variant of Βῆσσα, means ‘wooded glen (II. 3.34, 14.397, 16.634 al. οὔρεος ἐν βήσσῃς); see Cooper 1996 I

61. Cooper assumes that the epigram’s description of the landscape displaying ‘stumps of aged juniper, which recall Pan at Bassai, supports the explanation

AP 6.253 = 43

437

of the toponym ‘Bassai; current in antiquity, Bassai probably at the time pos-

sessing ‘a stand of junipers, and juniper being indigenous to Arcadia; see also

below, on ἀρκεύθοιο.

mocot: for the ‘feet’ of a rock, cf. Il. 2.824 ὑπαὶ πόδα νείατον Ἴδης, 20.59, Pind. N. 4.54 Παλίου δὲ πὰρ ποδί, P 11.36 Παρνασσοῦ πόδα. For the description of mountain parts with terms denoting parts ofthe human body in Greek poetry, see further Ἰακώβ on Pind. P 1.30 (β). λέλογχε: cf. Leon. AP 9.318=80,1f. εὐμάραθον πρηῶνα καὶ εὐσκάνδικα λελογχώς, / Ἑρμῆ, Nicias API 188=7,1-3 ΗΕ εἰνοσίφυλλον ὄρος KvAAyvıor αἰπὺ λελογχώς, ἰ.... Ἑρμῆς, Philip AP 6.240=3,2 Ἄρτεμις, ἣ θαλάμους τοὺς ὀρέων ἔλαχες, Diod. 6.243=3,1 GP ἣ λάχες Ἴμβρασον "Hpn.

5 ἱερά τ᾽ for sacred thickets in Arcadia, see above, intr. note. Gow- Page remark that tree stumps are holy to hunters because they were in the habit of hanging trophies of the hunting on branches as a dedication to Pan, and cite Leon. AP 6.35=47,1-2 HE, Zonas 6.106=3,1-2 GP, Paul. Sil. 6.168,7f. For trees that acquire

sanctity because of their proximity to temples, altars, etc. or because of their association with deities, see De Visser 117-56. Cf. Zeus’ ‘sacred oaks’; see on Crin. 27,5 iepar... δρύες,

Ap. L., Ap. B., Ap. G., and Ap. R. have ἱερὰ δ᾽. ἀγρευταῖσι: ‘hunters, as a noun cf. Call. AP 12.102=1,1, Antip. Sid. 6.118=49,4, Mel. 12,125=117,6 HE, Antip. Thess. 6.109=54,6 GP.

Ap. L., Ap. B., Ap. G., and Ap. R. have ἀγρευτῇσι. yepavdpvou: a rare word. At Ap. Rh. 1.1117f., στύπος ἀμπέλου... πρόχνυ

γεράνδρνον, the word is scanned -dpu-. At Erycius AP 9.233=9,1 GP it is used as a substantive and is scanned -dpi- as here. In Plut. Mor. 796b it is used as a substantive, in Theophrastus adjectivally but perhaps asa noun in HP3.13,4, 5.9,1. Hesych. s.v. has γεράνδρυες: af παλαιαὶ δρύες καὶ τὰ παλαιὰ δένδρα γεράνδρυα; cf. Schol. on Ap. Rh. loc. cit.: γεράνδρυον' ἀρχαῖον, ξηρόν, ἄχρηστον.

See further Gow-Page on Erycius AP 9,233=9,1 GP. ἀρκεύθοιο: juniper: cf. Theocr. 1.133, 5.97, anon. AP 10.12,1. At Nic. Th. 584 we have ἄρκευθος, corrected to ἀρκευθίς by Scaliger. For the occurrence of junipers in Arcadia, see Cooper (1978) 63. 6 πρέμνα: the word also occurs at Crin. 47,5. Hesych. has s.v. mpeuvov' στέλεχος, βλαστός. Πᾶν ῥίζωμα δένδρου τὸ γηράσκον, ἢ τὸ τῆς ἀμπέλου πρὸς τῇ γῇ πρέμνον. It first appears at h. Merc. 238; cf. also Aristoph. Lys. 267, Av. 321 (for its

metaphorical use as ‘base, see Kakridis and Dunbar ad loc.). It occurs fairly frequently in Hellenistic poets (for instance, Call. H. 3.239, 4.209f. and 322, fr.

438

AP 6.253 = 43

194,83, ['Theocr.] 20.22, [Moschus] 3.47, Nic. Th. 418). Elsewhere in the Anthology,

Cyllenius 9.4=1,2 and anon. 7.321=47,3 FGE, anon. API 127,3. λιθηλογέες: the correction to λιθηλογέες (appearing in Ap. G., Ap. B,, and

Ap. R.) is, needless to say, metrically necessary and generally accepted. GowPage comment that this ἅπαξ λεγόμενον stands for λιθολόγοι; the two words

cannot be taken as equivalent, however, as λιθολόγος denotes the person who builds with stones. Cf. Hesych. s.vv. λιθολόγημα᾽ ἐκ λίθων οἰκοδόμημα and λιθολόγοι: οἰκοδόμοι. Moeris says S.v. αἱμασιά Arrıroi λιθολογία ἢ τὸ ἐκ χαλίκων συγκείμενον Ἕλληνες, where Pierson (1759, 53) commented: λιθηλογέες

θ᾽ Ἑρμέω ἱδρύσιες. Ex lapidibus congesta Mercurii sacraria, quasi esset a λιθολογής. For the formation of the word with » instead of o for the requirements of dactylic verse, cf. Eust. on Il. 4.293f. (474,16) on the πολυβράχεα adjectives. Such adjectives are στεφανηφόρος, θανατηφόρος, στεφανηπλόκος,

ἐλαφηβόλος, etc.; in the Anthology, for instance, σκυληφόρος in Antip. Thess. 9.428=1,1 (cf. σκυλοφόρος at (τίη. 10,2), λειψανηλόγους at Philip 6.92=13,4, and

adpyAdyous at 6.101=16,5 GP. See also Schwyzer 1.438f., Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1440-3, Gow-Page on Philip AP 6.90=12,6 GP πυρητόκον. Eppew ἱδρύσιες: as Gow-Page comment, ἕδρυσις is here equivalent to ἵδρυμα, which can designate a god’s shrine. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 339, Ch. 1036, Eur. Ba. 951; see Garvie on Aesch. Pers. 811. [öpö- occurs at Call. fr. 75,73, for which see Pfeiffer’s apparatus and Harder ad loc. For the ending, see on Crin. 27,1 δύσιες. Heaps of stones were situated on roads in honour of Hermes; cf. Hesych. s.v. “Eppatos λόφος. The first reference to Ἕρμαιος λόφος already occurs in the Odyssey (16.471). Eustathius ad loc, states that the origin of the custom lay in the tradition that Hermes himself was the first to clear away stones from the roads, placing the stones by the side of the road: hence the accumulation of stones by a road for the purpose of clearing the way was regarded as an act to the god’s honour. A different justification is given by the Scholiast; see the discussion of Hoekstra on Od. 16.471. For a collection of passages referring to the custom, see De Visser 102-7; also Nilsson (1906) 388, Farnell V 7, 18, Jost (1985),

454. In the Anthology, cf. anon. API 254,1-2. For sacred stones in general, see Frazer 4,154-5.

The genitive ‘Epudw occurs only at h. Merc. 413, Ven. 148, [Theocr.} 25.4, at verse-opening. For other genitive forms, cf. Eppeiao (Od. 12.390, 15.319), Ἑρμείω (Il. 15.214). See Chryssafis on [Theocr.] loc. cit. 7f. αὐταί θ᾽ the pronoun does not refer to the nymphs (as Dübner held), but to all the objects addressed. All but one of these terms (πρέμνα) are feminine:

σπήλυγγες, καλιή, ἱδρύσιες. However, the gender of the first word (σπήλυγγες), which is feminine, determines the gender of αὐταί; for various examples, see K-GII (1) 80f,, 3.

AP 6.253 =43 ἰλήκοιτε: conventional in such contexts; cf., for instance, anon. AP 6.51=42,9 HE ἵλαος, ὦ δέσποινα, Philip AP 6.251=7,7 GP ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἱλήκοις. For ἵλαος as a

typical adjective of gods in prayers, see on Crin. 12,3. εὐθήροιο: applied to objects: Theaet. AP 6.27,1 εὐθήρου.... ἄγρης, Maccius

6.89=7,3f. εὐθήροισι.... ἐ.«. καλάμοις. For gods/persons, ‘lucky or successful in hunting; see LS] s.v., Zosimus AP 6.185,4, Eur. Ba. 1252f. Qualifying other objects or abstract ideas, [Opp.) Cyn. 1.46 εὐθήροισιν ἀοιδαῖς and 1.149 εὐθήροιο.... φόνοιο, Opp. Hal. 3.28 εὐθήροιο.... οἴμης and 3.413 εὔθηρον ἀμοιβήν. For compounds

with ev-, see on Crin. 3,3. δέχοισθε /...€Aahoacotns: for similar endings, cf. Theodorus AP 6.282=1,5f. HE ἀλλὰ σὺ δέξαι, / κωροφίλ᾽ εὐτάκτου δῶρον ἐφηβοσύνας, Myrinus AP 6.108=1,4 ΟΡ δεξάμενοι λαμπρῆς δῶρα θνηπολίης, Jul. Aeg. 6.19,4 δέχνυσο καὶ δώρου, πότνια, μαρτυρίην. Cf, Crin. 9,5 δαίμονες ἀλλὰ δέχοισθε.

C’s correction of P’s δέχοισθε to δέχεσθε (appearing in Ap. G., Ap. B., and Ap.

R. and adopted by Brunck, Jacobs’ and ?, Geist, Rubensohn, Dibner, Holtze, Paton, Waltz) is an unlikely reading in view of the preceding ἱλήκοιτε. Zwodvdpou: the name occurs also at Theodoridas AP 7.529=10,2 HE. Cf. also anon. AP! 271,2 (a pun on Hippocrates and Sosander, a veterinary surgeon). It is quite common all over Greece, with one occurrence from Mytilene (AD I);

see LGPN | s.v. Names with Zw- as their first compound often occur in dedicatory epigrams (cf. Leon, 6.293=54,2 Lwydpeos and 6.296=50,5 Σώσιππος, Antip. Sid. 6.118=49,2 HE Σώσιδος, Philip 6.36=9,2 GP Σωσικλέης), which implies a fictitious dedication; see further above, intr. note. Note also the alliteration of σ in the last line and the etymological play between Swodvdpou and ἐλαφοσσοΐης, as σόος can mean both ‘sound’ and ‘impetus’; see next note. Cf. Crin. 23 αἶγα... Αἰγιόχου; see ad loc. ταχινῆς ... ἐλαφοσσοΐης: echoed in Agath. AP 6.167,4 ταχινῆς ἔργα Aaywadayins,

λαγωσφαγίη being also a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, as Crinagoras’ ἐλαφοσσοΐη, ‘staghunting. For a similar phrasing and context, cf. Zosimus 6.183=2,2 FGE τριχθαδίης δῶρα κυναγεσίης, Jul. Aeg. API 173,2 δολιχῆς ἔργον ἑκηβολίης. For the expression, cf. also Diocles 6.186::2,6 GP δῶρα λινοστασίης. Such construc-

tion is common in dedicatory epigrams in the pentameter. Cf. Leon. 6.4=52,8 ἀρχαίας λείψανα rexvoovvas, Antip. Sid. 6.47=43,2 HE λιμηρῆς ἄρμενον épyaatys, Archias 6.16=4,2 ἐκ τρισσῆς θέντο λινοστασίης, Philip 6.38=10,8 GP, Myrinus 6.108=1,4 GP, Agath. 6.76,4.

Ap. G., Ap. B., and Ap, R. have ἐλαφηβολίης, printed also by Kuster in his quotations of the epigram (see above, on ὑπὸ Βασσαίης... πέτρης), by Brunck

and by Jacobs’; Dilthey (4, n. 2) suggested ἐλαφησοΐης; the changes are not necessary. Jacobs noted that ἐλαφοσσοΐη is derived from odos; cf. Hesych. s.v.: σῶος, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια. Καὶ ὁρμὴ πρὸς αὔξησιν. See also Chantraine (1968) s.v.

σεύομαι. Other compounds of this word are βοοσόος, qui chasse les boeufs’ (see also Hollis on Call. Hec. fr. 117 Bovooov), Aanaadas (see Janko on Il. 13,128), ἱπποσόας (Pind. P 2.65; also ἱπποσσόος, Nonnus D. 37.320). Nonnus has also

κεμαδοσσόος, D. 13.300. See Pfeiffer and Harder on Call. fr. 186,31; cf. also Hesych. s.v. μηλοσόη" ὁδός, δι᾽ ἧς πρόβατα ἐλαύνεται. ‘Pédcor. For the other meaning of the compound, cf. Zonas AP 9.226=6,6 GP μελισσοσόος Πὰν

ἐπικυψέλιος, ‘who saves the bees. Also at the end of the pentameter, Crinagoras probably has évao in 36,4, ‘prosperity’; see ad loc. Taxıvös is a Hellenistic word; cf. Ap. Rh. 2.1044, Call. H. 1,56, Theoer. 2.7, Mel. AP 5.179=7,10 HE, Laurea 7.17=1,4 GP, Leon. 6.205=8,2 HE=Geftcken 83.

See Geffcken ad loc., McLennan on Call. loc. cit. The adjective is happily combined with ἐλαφοσσοΐη which denotes not only a stag-chasing, but indeed an ὁρμητικόν, as it were (cf. Hesych.; see above), stag-hunting. For σκῦλα as spoils of war, cf. Soph. Ph. 1428 with Jebb ad loc. The word is also used in a wider sense to denote the dedicated offerings, sometimes in a metaphorical sense: cf. Leon. 6.293=54,2 and 6.298=55,6 σκῦλ᾽ ἀπὸ Lwydpeos, echoed in Mel. 12.23=99,4 HE σκῦλ᾽ ἀπὸ Σωφροσύνης. Cf. anon. 9.157=85,4

FGE σκῦλα μιαιφονίης, Paul. Sil. 6.714 σκῦλα... Avagaydpa. Crinagoras does not tell us what these spoils are, but they are probably the horns, the skin, or both, of the animal. Cf. Leon. AP 6.110=96, Antip. Sid. 6.111=46, Perses 6.112=1 HE. In the last two of these, the hunter dedicates the spoils to Artemis and

Apollo respectively. Jost (1985, 470) remarks ‘ours, le sanglier ou le cerf appartiennent a Artemis; de Pan reléve le petit gibier qui peuple les buissons du maquis arcadien et trouve sa place sur toutes les tables: ce sont le liévre, la perdix, que Ion prend avec des filets, et les petits oiseaux, grives, cailles, qui tombent dans les piéges de loiseleur, further citing Antip. Thess. AP 6.109=54 GP, a dedication of a hunter to Pan. The hunter in the present poem, nevertheless, dedicates the spoils of his raxıvy pursuit of the stag to no other divinities but Pan, Hermes, and the Nymphs, whose caves are εὐπίδακες (I. 1).

At Antip. Thess, 9.417=70,5f. GP, by contrast, the Nymphs (who protect wild animals: cf. Orph. H. 51.12 airoAıkat, νόμιαι, θηρσὶν φίλαι; see Gow-Page on Antip. Thess. Joc. cit.) are angry with the hound that has killed so many deer,

and do not allow water to gush from the earth to refresh the exhausted dog: πίδακος en τυφλῆς οὐκ ἐτάχυνεν ὕδωρ (1. 4). In the Odyssey, the nymphs accept offerings consisting of slaughtered pigs, lambs, and kids: 14.435f., 17.240-2 Cf. Theocr. 5.139f.; see also Borgeaud 240.

AP 7.636 =44

5.

Ποιμὴν ὦ μάκαρ, εἴθε Kat’ οὔρεος ἐπροβάτευον KYW ποιηρὸν τοῦτ᾽ ἀνὰ λευκόλοφον κριοῖς ἁγητῆρσι ποτὲ βληχημένα βάζων ἢ πικρῇ βάψαι νήοχα πηδάλια ἅλμῃ: τοιγὰρ ἔδυν ὑποβένθιος, ἀμφὶ δὲ ταύτην θῖνά με ῥοιβδήσας Εὖρος ἐφωρμίσατο.

——

AP 7.636 [C] Κριναγόρου [J] eis τινα ναυαγήσαντα καὶ μακαρίζοντα τοὺς ὀριπλάνους ποιμένας caret Pl 4 mph apogir.: me pixpn P

6 ἐφωρμίσατο Jacobs: ἐφημ- P

Reiske n. 734, Brunck n. 39, Rubensohn ἢ. 20

O happy shepherd, I wish that I were tending the sheep down the slope on this grassy white crest, too, to the rams that lead the flock, instead of dipping the ship’s rudders in the bitter brine; so I sank in the depths of the sea, and the whirling east wind brought me on this shore. A drowned seafarer, washed ashore by the wind, envies the pastoral life. The first halfof the poem transfers the reader to a typical pastoral environment. The vocabulary is accordingly influenced by Theocritus; see below, passim. The sad present situation is introduced at exactly the midpoint of the poem, which is thus divided into two equal parts, one conveying the desired, but unattainable, bliss of the rural world, the other conveying the image of the speaker's reality: his nautical life and the subsequent catastrophe. Each halfis elaborated with words heavily loaded with the colouring from each of the two worlds and their distinctive features, seen as merits (in the first world) and as dangers (in the second one): ποιμήν, προβατεύω, ποιηρός, κριός, and ἅλμη, πηδάλιον,

ἔδυν ὑποβένθιος, Bis, ἐφωρμίσατο. The maritime terms are defined by negative complements, so that the brine is ‘bitter’ and the east wind is dangerously ‘whirling; while the rustic terms are accompanied by positive complements, the shepherd being ‘happy’ and the crest being ‘grassy, hence picturesquely pleasant.

For the motif, cf. Theogn. 1375f., Call. fr. 178,32-4 τρισμάκαρ, ἡ παύρων ὄλβιός ἐσσι μέτα, / ναυτιλίης εἰ νῆιν ἔχεις βίον: ἀλλ᾽ ἐμὸς αἰών / κύμασιν αἰθυίης μᾶλλον

ἐσῳκίσατο, Phalaecus AP7.650=5 HE, Prop. 3.7,43--6 (this elegy combines sev-

eral elements of Greek sepulchral epitaphs for sailors; cf. Orlebeke' 418-21, 428, on the opening lines of the elegy). See further Harder on Call. fr. 178,32—4. The epigram is presumably a literary exercise that offers a variation on the motif of a drowned mans burial on a beach: Asclep. AP 7.284=30, Leon. 7.266=61,

Posid. 7.267=15, Call. 7.277=50, Theodoridas 7.282=19 HE, Antip. Thess. 7.287=58, Diocles 7.393=1, Philip 7.382=25, Zonas 7.404=5 GP, Peek 1334=186 Kaibel (Corcyra, AD II). For the common theme of death at sea in epitaphs, see further Lattimore 199ff., Skiadas (1967) 91, n. 2, Gutzwiller (1998) 102, 313-14, Galan Vioque (2001) 330-1.

The drowned sailor expresses the wish to tend his sheep on this grassy white crest (although the demonstrative pronoun can be conventional in such phrasings: see below, on roör’) and he then says that he lies on this shore. It seems that the sailor can see the hill, along with the shepherd, from the shore on which he is lying. Crinagoras is perhaps recalling Perses AP 7.501=4 HE Ebpov χειμέριαί σε καταιγίδες ἐξεκύλισαν, Φίλλι, πολυκλαύτῳ γυμνὸν ἐπ᾽ ἠϊόνι, οἰνηρῆς “έσβοιο παρὰ σφυρόν' αἰγίλιπος δέ πέτρου ἁλιβρέκτῳ κεῖσαι ὑπὸ πρόποδι.

The two poems share similar situations and display other common features as well: Εὖρος has driven Phillis, too, on the shore; cf. also the relevant word formations and imagery, οἰνηρῆς -ποιηρόν, alyiAımos mérpou (steep rock: see Gow-Page ad ἰος.)---λευκόλοφον. The setting of Perses’ poem on Lesbos further strengthens the possibility that it served as Crinagoras’ inspiration. The reference to rams pasturing on the slopes of the λενκόλοφον might be a playful reversal of Perses’ setting with the afy:Aus πέτρος, a steep rock, literally ‘goat-deserted. In the Anthology, another drowned man is lost in a sea near a

‘goat-pasturing’ place, atyıröuov... MurdAns (Erycius AP 7.397=8,4 GP). For the convention of the dead man as the speaker of the epigram, see on Crin. 15, intr. note. l ποιμὴν ὦ μάκαρ: the apostrophe with μάκαρ is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον,

Il, 3.182 ὦ μάκαρ Ἀτρεΐδη (note the contrast between the Homeric apostrophe to the principal Greek king and Crinagoras’ similar address to a shepherd). For similar apostrophes, cf. h. Ap. 14 χαῖρε μάκαιρ᾽ ὦ Λητοῖ, Eur. Ba.

* A. Orlebeke, ‘Propertius 3.7.1-12, CQ 46 (1996), 416-28.

565 μάκαρ ὦ [Tepia,? Orph. H. 3.12 μάκαιρ᾽ὦ νύξ," cf. the ironic use of the

expression at Aristoph. Nub. 1206 μάκαρ ὦ Στρεψίαδες. The adjective is trad-

itionally, although not exclusively, used of gods (cf. LSJ s.v.). For men it designates the happiness which draws mortals near to the gods; cf. Heubeck on Od. 11.482>-6. Its use by the dead sailor in his address to the living shepherd here further underlines the sailor's strong desire to be in the shepherd's place, as in Hades there are no μάκαρες. Cf. Odysseus’ ‘mistake’ in addressing Achilles in Hades as μάκαρ in Od. 11.483; see Heubeck on 11.488-503. If

Crinagoras has in mind Perses’ AP 7.501=4 HE, the adjective may then be hinting at ‘Makaria, the name of Lesbos taken from its legendary founder, Makar (see Richardson on Il. 24.543-6). Thus, from the dead sailor’s point of view, a shepherd tending his sheep in an idyllic environment of the upper world, which moreover belongs to a place actually called Makaria, is doubly μάκαρ.

For the position of ὦ, cf. further II. 4.189 φίλος ὦ Μενέλαε, Od. 8.408 πάτερ ὦ ξεῖνε, Hes. Sc. 78, Pind. O. 8.1, P. 8.1f. (with Giannini ad loc.), Soph. Aj. 395,

Call. H. 4.118 and 325, fr. 103, al.* For an apostrophe to shepherds, cf. Theocr. 1.7 and 15 ὦ ποιμήν; also the ‘rustique’ Leon. AP 7.657=19,1 HE (first word of the poem), Antip. Thess, 9.72=95,1 GP, Tiber. Ilus 9.373=5,1 FGE. εἴθε... ἐπροβάτευον: at 37,3f. the poet, in self-variation, prefers the rare construction eide + inf. See below, on 7. Προβάτευω is a very rare verb (explained by Phrynichus as πρόβατα τρέφειν) and mainly used in prose. For the variety of derivatives from πρόβατον, see LSJ s.v.

2 κατ᾽ οὔρεος: the phrase describes a downward movement; cf. Il. 11.196, 15.169, 15,237, 16.677 βῆ δὲ κατ᾽ Ἰδαίων ὀρέων, 22.187 βῆ δὲ κατ᾽ Οὐλύμποιο καρήνων. It appears at the same sedes in Ap. Rh. 4.444 κατ᾽ οὔρεος, Qu. Sm. 6.343, 8.230. ποιηρόν.... λευκόλοφον: ποιηρός is a rare adjective: Eur. Ba. 1048 ποιηρὸν ἵζομεν νάπος, Cycl. 45 moınpa Bordva and 61 ποιηροὺς λείπουσα νομούς, Nic. fr. 31,4 ποιηρὸν δάπεδον.

Ruhnken (77) objected to λευκόλοφον on the grounds that it is ἃ neuter substantive, and suggested τόνδ᾽ ἀνά (accepted in Jacobs 1793, 29f.); Brunck, who approved of Ruhnken’s correction without printing it, noted the paradox of a ‘glabrum apicem’ combined with ποιηρός and suggested τόνδε πρὸς ἀκρόλοφον. Hecker (1843, 60) suggested λευκολοφίον, comparing Adpodiards as last word of the line in Peek 1056=620,1 Kaibel (Rome,

An III). Reiske defends τὸ

λευκόλοφον, formed by analogy with Polyb. 3.53,5 περί τι λευκόπετρον ὀχυρόν

(Reiske 1754, notes, p. 233); cf. Polyb. 10.30,5, where the word occurs as a noun. ? For the form, see Dodds ad loc.

* See Allen-Halliday-Sikes and Richardson on h. Ap. 14. 4 See Pfeiffer on Call. fr. 103, Mineur on Call. H. 4.118, K-G I (2) 49.

444

AP 7.636 = 44

As for the gender of λευκόλοφον, Crinagoras’ expression is equivalent to Theocr. 1.13 and 5.101 τὸ κάταντες τοῦτο γεώλοφον (see Gow on Theocr.

1.13); the

scholiast on Theocr. 1.13 explains γεώλοφον" τόπος προέχων ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς μικρόν, τουτέστιν ὑψηλὸς τόπος, κολωνός. The hill seems to have a crest of white rock and grassy slopes. As an adjective, meaning 'white-crested), λευκόλοφος occurs

at Anacr. 88,2 PMG, Aristoph. Ran. 1016, al.; see further Spanoudakis on Philitas fr. 19. Besides γεώλοφον, another similar neuter formation is κυνόλοφον (a part

of the spine), occurring in the plural in Pollux 2.180,7. For the expression, cf. dv’ ὄρη (Leon. AP! 190=81,3 HE; also Crin. (?) 24,4, Theocr. 9.338=19,2 HE.).

Hecker’ (1852, 309) rejection of the demonstrative pronoun and his alteration of the line to ποιηρὸν πρήονα λευκόλοφον is unjustified; cf. next note.

τοῦτ᾽: the demonstrative pronoun may indicate a specific location, probably referring to the setting on Lesbos of Perses’ poem (see above, intr. note). The

pronoun occurs in dedicatory poems which accompany actual dedications; cf. Peek 2061=648,1 Kaibel (Rome, AD III-IV?) ἱερὸς οὗτος ὁ χῶρος. However,

in literary epigrams as well, which probably involve fictitious dedications, the poets keep the convention of the reference to the location. Cf. Anyte AP 9.144=15,1 HE and Geoghegan, with Geoghegan ad loc.; also Leon. API 230=86,3 HE ὑπὲρ δαμαλήβοτον ἄκραν / ταύταν, Zonas 6.98=2,6 GP ἐν λυπρῇ τῇδε γεωλοφίῃ. Cf. on Crin. 43,2 σκολιοῦ τοῦδε κατὰ mpedvos. On the tendency

of such ‘demonstrative’ epigrams, including fictive dedications, to set a scene, cf. Gutzwiller (1998) 316; see also Intr., Life and Work. 3 κριοῖς ἁγητῆρσι: Gow-Page rightly remark that the codex has κριοῖς and not kpeois as Stadtmüller read. The close parallels to the expression are Latin: Hecker (1843, 61-2; 1852, 310) compares Ov. Am. 3.13,17, Ars Am. 1.326, and Tib.

2.1,58 dux pecoris... hircus, on which Murgatroyd notes that the application of dux to the leader of a flock is poetic (Ovid Ε 4.715, Sen. Phaedr. 116) and may be based on Virg. Georg. 3.125. For a he-goat as the leader of the flock, cf. Virg. Ecl. 7.7 vir gregis ipse caper. In Greek literature the idea of a he-goat that leads the flock occurs at Theocritus 8.49 and, perhaps, at 3.2 as well.” A leading ram is

implied at Od. 9.447f., where Polyphemus addresses his favourite ram and remarks that in the past the animal was the first to go out to feed. Gow-Page observe that the plural in Crinagoras is surprising, as there should be only one ram. The existence of more than one ram, however, is already attested in the Odyssey as regards Polyphemus’ flock; 9.425 makes this clear: ἄρσενες oites ἦσαν Eürpedees δασύμαλλοι, κτλ. (which Odysseus ties together three by three). Cf. also Arat. 1106 ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἐξ ἀγέλης κριοί, ἄλλοι δὲ Kal ἀμνοί.

° For a discussion on Tityrus’ identity as a herdsman or ἃ he-goat, see Gow and Hunter (1999) ad loc.

For the ‘leader’ of the flock of sheep, cf. Aristot. HA 573b24 of ἠγεμόνες τῶν

προβάτων. Ἡγητήρ is also used by Oppian at Hal. 5.70 and 5.99, of which is a guide of the shoal of whales. Mair notes that the origin of the is Aelian NA 2.13 τὰ κήτη τὰ μεγάλα... δεῖται τοῦ ἡγεμόνος. Crinagoras uses the Ionic ἡγητῆρα at 32,3. The Homeric word is (11. 3.153, 4.393, 10.181, 12.376, al.). For the Doric form, cf. Pind, P. 1.69 ἀνήρ; see Intr., Language and Style, Dialect.

the fish passage ἡγήτωρ ἁγητὴρ

froré BAnxnueva Balwvt: P’s reading is obviously corrupt.’ Various emendations have been proposed, most of which result in a forced meaning and/or

move too far away from the text. Brunck suggested (though not printed) κριοῖς ἁγητῆρσι κατὰ βληχὴν ἀκολουθῶν. Jacobs (1793, 30) suggested κριοῖς dynripow® ἐμόν ποτε βρέγμ᾽ ἐναράσσων;" also (Jacobs’, although the suggestion is not printed in the text) κριοὺς ἀγητῆρας ἰδὼν βληχητὰ Bıßalew'” and (Jacobs’,

again not printing it) μέτα βλήχημα βαβάζων, rendering inter arietes gregem ducentes incedens et cum illis balando certans. G. Hermann (Jahrbiicher der Literatur, 104 (1843), 254) suggested ποτὶ βλήχημα πελάζων; wort could be indeed read in B instead of ποτέ. Reiske (1754, 149 and 1766, 125), Meineke (186), and Rubensohn accepted ποτ᾽ ἐβληχημένα βάζων, taking ποτ᾽ as equiva-

lent to wort; Meineke compared ἐβληχημένα προσβάζειν with Euphorion's (fr. 40 Powell=44 Van Groningen) πορφυρέη ὑάκινθε... γεγραμμένα κωκύουσα,

and rendered arietibus, ovium ducibus, balatus imitamina obgarriens; Hecker (1843, 61; 1852, 309) also compared Od. 4.206 πεπνυμένα βάζεις and Qu.

Sm.

13.8 κεκολουμένα βάζων. The assumption that the shepherd imitates the bleatings of his rams, however, is far-fetched: not only is προσβάζειν unattested, but also shepherds in Greek poetry, although they speak to their animals, as Le Maitre in the Bude edition noted (cf. Cyclops’ address to his ram in Od. 9.44760, Theocr. 5.145-8, al.), never, at least in extant literature, imitate their bleat-

ing.'' The suggestion of Jacobs (1826, 285) that the poet might be referring to a pastoral Iusus in which shepherds imitate the sheeps bleating cannot be excluded, but lacks any firm foundation. More recent editors accept wor’ ἐβληχημένα, but take ποτὶ with ἐβληχημένα, rendering arietibus ductoribus quandoque ad balatus obgarriens (Diibner), ‘answering the bleatings of the rams that lead the flock’ (Paton). Gow-Page observed that the perfect participle ° For the frequency of the terminations -ryp and -rwp in Doric dialect, see E. Fraenkel, Geschichte der griechischen Nomina agentis auf -rip, -twp, -τῆς (Strassburg 1910), vol. 1, 160. ” Ap. V. has βληχημένα; Ap. G. and Ap. B. have βληχήμενα in the text (printed also by Brunck, Jacobs’, Jacobs’, and 1826, 285, Geist), and Ap, B. has βληχώμενα in margine.

® The printed ἁγητῆρσεν

is obviously a slip.

* Comparing anon, AP 9.317=54,2 HE Bpéyp’ ὑπὸ τᾶν alyäv (Brunck’s emendation; modern editors accept ὀχνᾶν) αἰπόλε, τυπτόμενον. © Comparing ‘lheocr. 1.87 ᾧπόλος, ὄκκ᾽ ἐσορῇ τὰς μηκάδας οἷα βατεῦνται; for BAnynrd=sheep,

εἴ, Ael. NA 2.54.

j

'! Needless to say, comic instances, like Aristoph. Pl. 296f. ἡμεῖς δέ γ᾽ αὖ ζητήσομεν - Operravedo - τὸν Κύκλωπα / βληχώμενοι, do not count.

248

"AP 7.636=44

ἐβληχημένα for βεβληχημένα is problematic, and ori for πρός without metrical reason is rather unlikely; they tended to accept the least text-changing proposal

of F. Passow ( Vermischte Schriften (Leipzig 1843), 203) and Peerlkamp (in Bake et al. 54) vor! βληχήματα βάζων, rendering the phrase, in their commentary, as ‘talking to my rams in reply to their bleating’ (in accordance with Peerlkamp's translation), which avoids the participle ἐβληχημένα and justifies the usage of wort (for βάζειν in a construction with the dative, cf. Aesch. Ch. 881f. κωφοῖς

dura καὶ καθεύδουσιν uarnvlärpavra βάζω). However, the meaning would be

more natural if the idea of ‘speaking to the rams’ were avoided and a shepherd's habit or everyday task were being referred to instead. Better sense, but not natural phrasing, is offered by Lobeck’s κριοῖς ἀγητῆρσι ποτὶ βληχητὰ βιβάζων, explained as τὰς dts κριοῖς mpoaßıßalwv'” and Mackail’s’® κριοῖς ἁγητῆρσι Bora

βληχώμεν᾽ ὀπάζων, explained as ‘making the bleating flock move after the leader rams’ (ὀπάζειν being difficult to use in such a context). With a far-fetched

reading, Harberton (330) prints ποτιβληχήμεν᾽ ὅπαζον, having changed the last word of the first line to ὡς προβατεύων, and noting (548): Ἵ supply πρόβατα from προβατεύων as the subject of ποτιβληχήμενα.

The difficulty created by the transmitted βάζων is that βάζειν, which denotes human, articulated sound, requires a complement, either in the accusative (direct object) or in the dative, or an adverb (see LSJ s.v.), and logic prevents

any derivative of BAnydopa:/BAnyy from occupying the position of such a complement in the phrase. A logical sense is given to the line by a phrase meaning ‘to shoutat the leading rams, involving the verb κλάζεινor ἐπικλάζειν. For a herdsman giving orders to his animals by shouting at them, cf. Ps. Caesarius 146,185-7 (R. Riedinger, Pseudo-Kaisarios. Die Erotapokriseis, Berlin 1989) καλούντων yap τῶν ποιμένων ἐγγίζει τὰ πρόβατα, ἀπειλούντων δὲ αὖθις ὑποχωρεῖ. τοῦ αἰπόλου ἐπικλαγγάζοντος οἱ τράγοι τῶν καρπῶν ἀφάλλονται, κτλ. Thus, the line could be reconstructed as κριοῖς ἀγητῆρσι ποτὶ βληχὴν μὲν

κλάζων or ποτὶ βληχὴν ἐπικλάζων. If a pastoral activity is to be sought for, the line could be reconstructed, at a relatively higher cost, as κριοῖς ἁγητῆρσι ποτὶ βληχὴν μέλος ἀχῶν or μέλε᾽ ἀχῶν. In the cursive writing, inter alia, A could be

confused with v, e with a, and x with £.'* The apostrophe would have created a further difficulty to the scribe and an ‘a¢wy’ at some point could have been emended to βάζων. For the possibility of a similar elision, see on 34,4 πρηεῖς. The Doric ἀχῶν would be coupling ἀγητῆρσι. The disadvantage of the second and third reconstructions (as of all the suggestions with βάζειν, listed above) is that it is not natural that the shepherd plays his tune only for the leaders of the flock. 12 C. A. Lobeck, Pathologiae Graeci Sermonis Elementa, vol. 1 (Regimontii 1853), 157, n. 10, Obviously, as Dübner observed, Lobeck's ποτέ is a slip for ποτί (ποτὶ... βιβάζωνεπροσβιβάξων).

15. J. W. Mackail, Select Epigrams from the Greek Anthology (I.ondon 1906), 275. 14 E. M. Thompson, Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography (Oxford: 1912), 191-3.

AP 7,636 =44 4-6 ij: see on Crin. 37,3ff. eiße.../.../%. πικρῇ ...1 ἅλμῃ: the apographs’ (Ap. G. and Ap. B. in the text; Ap. V. in margine)

correction of P’s reading. Ap. B. has 7’rı μακρῇ in a marginal note; Ruhnken (77) changed P’s reading to ἢ πὲ πικρῇ, Reiske (1754, 149 and 1766, 125) to πρὲν mx«py, Emperius (307) to 7 με πικρῇ. Confusion between the same adjectives (μικρός and mxpds) and correction of the former to the latter occurs also at

Gaetul, AP 7.71=4,1 FGE, where P and Pl“ have μικρήν and C and PIP“ have

πικρήν (an early discussion of this passage is Finsler 53). Crinagoras reverses the situation and phrasing of Od. 5.322f. ὀψὲ δὲ δή ῥ᾽ ἀνέδυ, στόματος δ᾽ ἐξέπτυσεν ἅλμην πικρήν, ἥ οἱ πολλὴ ἀπὸ κρατὸς κελάρυξεν.

The ‘bitter brine’ appears in Homer, too, in an enjambment. Here ἅλμῃ instead of πικρῇ is at the beginning of the line and it is also followed by a pause

(for this enjambment, see further Intr., Language and Style, Enjambments).'* Odysseus ἀνέδυ from the sea and was saved, while Crinagoras’ speaker ἔδυ and was drowned. For the bitterness of the sea (especially when responsible for deaths), see on Crin. 46,4 πικροῦ... θανάτου. Cf. the dead sailor's description of the sea at Prop. 3.7,56 as ‘black’ (niger... liquor). βάψαι: the verb is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Od. 9.392, of the dipping of an

axe in cold water); for the sense of ‘dipping into the sea, cf. e.g. Eur. Or. 706f. vats.../ ἔβαψεν (‘sank here we have the first intransitive use of the verb, on which Willink comments that it is ‘apt...to the personification of the “ship”’), Ap. Rh, 1.183, Arat. 651, Nonnus D. 15.8. For a boat dipped into ἅλμη, cf. Nic.

Th. 268f. In making his speaker say that he plunged the rudders of the ship into the sea, Crinagoras underlines the importance of the sailor's acts and thus emphasizes his responsibility for his own fate. vnoxa πηδάλια: νήοχος is an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. Hesych. has νηοῦχος- φύλαξ

πλοίου. For a similar formation, cf. the also ἅπαξ λεγόμενον Ap. Rh. 2.965 λιμενήοχον ἄκρην, ‘enclosing a harbour’. In the Anthology, cf. Barbucallus. 9.426,1 πολιήοχος, which also occurs at Ap. Rh. 1.312. Πηδάλιον (first in the Odyssey, 3.281, 5.255, 5.270, 5.315, 8.558) also at pentameter end in the Anthology in Mel. 12.157=119,2 HE. Crinagoras uses in synecdoche the part for the whole, πηδάλια for ‘ship.

15 ἄλμῃ always but once (Philip 6.38=10,2 GP) appears at verse-end in the Anthology: anon. 6.23=17,3 FGE, Archias 7.214=22,1, Antiphanes 9.84=2,3, Philip 9.88=40,1, Bianor 9.227=8,1 GP.

τοιγάρ: the particle is chiefly poetic, in Homer always at verse-opening. For its ‘strong logical force, see Denniston 565. ἔδυν ὑποβένθιος: ὑποβένθιος is an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; for βένθος (already in Homer, N. 1.358, 13.21, 18.38, al.) in a similar context of a deadly storm at sea, cf. Marc.

Arg. AP7.395=20,4 GP. In a marine context, the subject of δύνωδύομαι is occa-

sionally accompanied by a predicative complement (e.g. Ap. Rh. 4.865 ἀΐδηλος ἐδύσατο βένθεα πόντου, 4.966f., Nonnus D. 33.347); here this function is taken up by ὑποβένθιος. Cf. ὑποβρύχιος in the same construction with δύομαι: Aristo AP 7,457=2,6 HE ὑποβρύχιος ζωρὸν ἔδυ πέλαγος, Qu. Sm. 14.597 ἐς μέγα βένθος ὑποβρύχιαι κατέδυσαν. €

’

i

audi.../ θῖνα: the traditional Homeric expression is παρὰ θῖν (ἁλός, θαλάσσης), ‘by the shore’ (Il. 1.316, 1.327, 9.182, Od. 6.94, al.). A phrasing and image similar to that of the present poem occurs at Soph. Aj. 1064 audi χλωρὰν ψάμαθον ἐκβεβλημένος, of the dead body of Ajax, ‘somewhere on the sand. Jebb notes that ‘the phrase implies scornful indifference as for the precise place’ and compares with Eur, Andr. 215 audi Θρήκην and Il. 11.706 ἀμφί re ἄστυ. Cf. Stanford ad loc.: ‘the preposition is contemptuously vague. Also see Finglass on Aj. 1064-5. In the present poem, the pronoun ταύτην and the fact that the speaker is the dead man himself indicates that the location is specific; ἀμφί + acc., therefore, has simply the sense of ‘on, as in Apollon. AP 9.264=18,1 GP ἄκρους ἀμφὶ κλῶνας ἥμενος, and is equivalent to Perses’ 7.501=4,2 HE én’ ἠιόνι (see above, intr. note).

For the dead lying ‘on the seashore; see on Crin. 16,6 kerraı... ἐπ᾿ αἰγιαλῶν. ῥοιβδήσας Εὖρος: ‘whistling. The verb is chiefly poetic. Cf. the ‘noisy flapping’ at Aesch. Eum. 404 πτερῶν ἄτερ ῥοιβδοῦσα κόλπον aiyidos. At Od. 12.106

the verb renders Charybdis’ terrible and noisy sucking down of the ‘black water’. Herodian (Part. Boissonade 121,10) says ῥοιβδῶ, τὸ ἠχῶ, and Hesych. says S.v. ῥοιβδεῖ" ῥοιζεῖ. Διώκει. Ῥοφεῖ and s.v. ῥοῖβδος- ῥόγχος. Vddos ποιός.

For more examples and for the association of the verb with ῥοῖζος, see Schmidt 3.343. Εὖρος, the east wind (always together with Νότος or Ζέφυρος in Homer: Il. 2.145, 16.765, Od. 5,295, 5,332, al.; see further Gow, Hatzikosta, and Hunter on Theocr. 7.58), conventionally causes shipwrecks in the Anthology: Leon. 7.273=62,1, Asclep. 7.500=31,3 HE, Sec. 9.36=1,3 GP. See also Guichard 370. For the placement of the dead body of a shipwrecked man on the shore by the natural elements, cf, for instance, Leon. AP 7.665=14,7f. ἐπεὶ τρηχεῖα θάλασσα / νεκρὸν πεπταμένους θῆκεν ἐπ’ αἰγιαλούς, Archias 7.278=12,1f. GP ἐπὶ χθόνα Θῆρις ἐλασθείς / κύμασιν. ἐφωρμίσατο: the emendation of Jacobs? (printed also in Jacobs 1826, 285),

accepted by modern editors. Salmasius’ ἀπημέσατο (in Ap. B. in margine), accepted by Brunck, Jacobs’, and Rubensohn, is unnecessary. Gow-Page observe

that it would be more appropriate for the sea rather than the wind; cf. Leon. AP 7.283=63,1f. HE rerpnxvta θάλασσα, ri μ᾽ οὐκ... ἔπτυσας. Other suggestions

which do not offer a satisfactory meaning either are Ruhnken’s (77) eAnioaro and Reiske's (1754, 149 and 1766, 125) ἐφωπλίσατο; Ap. V. has ἐφημέσατο. For ὁρμίζειν as ‘bring ashore’ cf. anon. AP 9.115,4

Note the alliteration of ῥ and σ in the last line, imitating the whistling of the tempest.

AP 7.638 =45

Παίδων ἀλλαχθέντι μόρῳ ἔπι τοῦτ᾽ ἐλεεινή
3 μήτηρ ἀμφοτέρους εἶπε περισχομένη: καὶ νέκυν οὐ σέο, τέκνον, ἐπ᾿ ἤματι τῷδε γοήσειν -

ἤλπισα, καὶ ζωοῖς οὐ σὲ μετεσσόμενον ὄψεσθαι. Νῦν δ᾽ oi μὲν és ὑμέας ἠμείφθησαν δαίμονες, ἄψευστον δ᾽ ἵκετο πένθος enol . A

,ὕ

3

”

3¢

/

3

7»

AP 7.638 [C] Κριναγόρου [J] εἰς γυναῖκα δύο τέκνα ἔχουσαν ὧν τὸ μὲν ἠσθένει τὸ δ᾽

ἕτερον ὑγιὲς ἦν' τοῦ μὲν οὖν ἀσθενοῦντος ἐγερθέντος ὁ ὑγιὴς τέθνηκεν caret Pl Reiske n. 735, Brunck n. 40, Rubensohn n. 21

Thus spoke the wretched mother over her sons’ reversed destinies, embracing both of them: ‘Neither your dead body, my child, did I expect to mourn this day, nor to see you among the living. Yet now your fates have been exchanged, but it is unfeigned sorrow that has come to me! A mother realizes that the fates of her two children have been interchanged and the one who was to die will live and the other will die. The idea of death/mourning recurs in the poem in the words μόρῳ, νέκυν, γοήσειν, πένθος. The opening ἀλλαχθέντι μόρῳ is repeated in the final ἠμείφθησαν / δαίμονες which is directly connected with the mother’s sorrow

through μέν and δέ; these adversative particles highlight the opposition between the changeability of fate (ἠμείφθησαν) and the certainty of the mother’s grief (ἄψευστον). The poem opens with the children’s μόρος and closes with the

mother’s πένθος, the latter being the inevitable consequence of the former (which is echoed in the δαίμονες of the last couplet). The verbs of movement, which signify the misfortune and its result (ἀλλαχθέντι, ἠμείφθησαν, ἵκετο),

moreover imply the volatility of fortune and the speed of the onset of disaster. This effect is further achieved through the enjambment occurring in each line of the mother’s words. The epigram opens with the word παίδων and closes

with the mother’s reference to herself, ἐμοί: the poem thus begins and ends with

the protagonists of the episode, the final image for the reader being that of the

lonely, tragic state of the mother. Epigrams which convey a person’s words on a death or on another disaster are for instance, Antip. Sid. AP 7.467=54,3f., Diosc. 9.568=34, Menecrates

9.390=1 HE, Apollonides 9.243=15, Flaccus 7.542=4 GP. For Greek epigrams reporting a person’s words on an incident, see further Siedschlag 106-8. For

epigrams on unexpected events and deaths, frequent in the Garland of Philip, see Intr., Life and Work. G. Bowersock suggested that the mother who speaks here is the wife of Adiatorix, the man responsible for the massacre of the Roman colony at Heraclea Pontica on the eve of the battle of Actium (Strabo 12.3,6).” According to Strabo’s account in 12.3,35, Adiatorix, his wife, and his children walked in Octavian’s triumphal procession at Rome and Adiatorix and his eldest son, Dyteutus, were condemned to death by Octavian. A younger brother, however, volunteered to die in Dyteutus’ place, so that the elder brother might look after his mother and another brother. The younger brother was indeed executed with his father. Strabo assumes that the incident made a strong impression on Octavian, who became aware of the exchange after the execution and who, for this reason, appointed the surviving son to the priesthood of Pontic Comana: τὴν ἱερωσύνην... Δύτευτος viv ἔχει vids Ἠδιατόριγος, ὃς δοκεῖ ταύτης τυγχάνειν τῆς τιμῆς παρὰ Καίσαρος τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ δι᾿ ἀρετήν. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ Καῖσαρ θριαμβεύσας

τὸν Ἀδιατόριγα μετὰ παίδων καὶ γυναικὸς ἔγνω ἀναιρεῖν μετὰ τοῦ πρεσβυτάτου τῶν παίδων (ἦν δὲ πρεσβύτατος οὗτος), τοῦ δὲ δευτέρου τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ φήσαντος εἶναι πρεσβυτάτου πρὸς τοὺς ἀπάγοντας στρατιώτας, ἔρις ἦν ἀμφοτέροις πολὺν χρόνον ἕως of γονεῖς ἔπεισαν τὸν δύτευτον παραχωρῆσαι τῷ νεωτέρῳ τῆς νίκης" αὐτὸν γὰρ ἐν ἡλικίᾳ μᾶλλον ὄντα ἐπιτηδειότερον κηδεμόνα τῇ μητρὶ ἔσεσθαι καὶ τῷ λειπομένῳ ἀδελφῷ οὕτω δὲ τὸν μὲν συναποθανεῖν τῷ πατρί,

τοῦτον δὲ σωθῆναι καὶ τυχεῖν τῆς τιμῆς ταύτης. Αἰσθόμενος γάρ, ὡς ἔοικε, Katcap ἤδη τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀνῃρημένων ἠχθέσθη, καὶ τούς γε σωζομένους εὐεργεσίας καὶ ἐπιμελείας ἀξίους ὑπέλαβε, δοὺς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν τιμήν.

Gow- Page suggest

that the poet heard the story when he was in Rome, probably during his Third Embassy, 26-25 sc, and that this is a ‘likely enough date’ for the execution of Adiatorix and his son. When Strabo says, however, that θριαμβευθεὶς δὲ μετὰ τὴν ev τῷ Ἀκτίῳ νίκην ἐσφάγη μεθ᾽ υἱοῦ (12.3,6), he probably refers to an

execution which took place shortly after the battle, and a delay of four years seems unlikely. Cf. the fall of Nicias of Cos, which probably took place soon after Actium; see on 22, intr. note. If a date of ¢.30 ΒΟ is correct for Adiatorix’ execution, the poem may well have been written in Lesbos and the story of ! ‘There is no possibility that the poem is inscriptional, as Weisshäup| (80) thought, placing it

together with other epigrams from Book 7, in which the name of the dead does not appear, and suggesting that in these poems the name appears on the other side of the sepulchral stele.

? See Bowersock (1964) 255f.; cf. (1965) 44.

Adiatorix was probably well known beyond Rome itself. It is not unlikely that

Crinagoras knew the event, since he was an active participant in his homeland’s affairs and diplomacy; however, the composition of the poem in Rome would be more plausible. Strabo’s account and the situation presented in Crinagoras’ poem are not entirely compatible, since the mother's surprise in our epigram is dissimilar to her behaviour in Strabo. It is interesting that Strabo's information on Octavian’s reaction to the event is given as an assumption (ὡς ἔοικε). AS a

matter of fact, Octavian’ (alleged) attitude in this case contrasts with the cruelty he is reported to have shown in similar cases. Suetonius (Aug. 13) reports an incident after Philippi, in which a father and a son pleaded for their lives, Octavian, ‘with a characteristically Caesarian reference to gambling, as Powell puts it, bid them cast lots to decide who would live and who would die and watched them both dying, since the father chose to be executed in his son's place and the son killed himself.” The mother’s reaction in Crinagoras, which does not seem to be in accord with that of the wife of Adiatorix, and the probable date of the event can perhaps be counter-arguments regarding Bowersock’s

identification. If Crinagoras has indeed in mind the fate of Adiatorix and his sons, he treated his theme with poetic licence.

1f.: for similar openings of poems which present a parent's reaction to the death of a child, cf. Flaccus AP 9.117=6, Philip 7.554=27 GP. ἀλλαχθέντι μόρῳ: cf. Apollon. AP 7.180=4,] ἠλλάχθη θανάτοιο τεὸς μόρος.

At

Pol. Sard. 9.1Ξ1,5 GP ἄδην δ᾽ ἠλλάξαντο two persons have ‘exchanged

deaths’ in the sense that ‘death was transferred from mother to child’ (Paton).

The notion of μόρος, ‘fate, especially with reference to death, is Homeric (II. 18.465, 21.133, Od. 1.166, 9.61, 16.421, al.). In poetry and particularly in tragedy, it often has the sense of death’ (Aesch. Eum. 739, Soph. Aj. 848, Ant. 56, 769, OC 1510, Eur. Andr. 414, Ph. 595, Ba. 337, al.). At Call. AP 7.80=34,1 HE, Diod. 7.627=6,5 GP, Jul. Aeg. 7.577,4, 7.590,4, Peek 226=443,3 Kaibel (Av II),

Peek 1350=334,4 Kaibel (Ap I-II), the word is also used as ‘the fate of death’ or

simply ‘death. At 22,3, Crinagoras uses it as ‘fate, again in a context of death. Here Crinagoras balances between ‘fate’ and ‘death, exactly as he does in 1. 6 with δαίμονες; see below, on ἠμείφθησαν / δαίμονες.

μόρῳ ἔπι: Jacobs (1812, 281) placed the present anastrophe of éz/ in parallel with anon. AP 6.37=77,3 FGE Πανὶ de μιν ξέσσαντες ὁδῷ ἔπι καλὸν ἄθυρμα

/

κάτθεσαν and Paul. Sil. 6.75,1f. κέρας ᾧ ἔπι πουλύν / θῆρα βαλών. Cf. also Antip. Sid. 7.241=25,1f. μυρία σοι, Πτολεμαῖε, πατὴρ ἔπι, μυρία μάτηρ Ι... ἠκίσατο

* For Augustus’ mercilessness in the Civil Wars, see also Syme (1939) 480. For other instances

of love and self-sacrifice by father and son or brothers during the triumvirs’ proscriptions, cf. Appian BC 4.20, 4.21, 4.22. See A. Powell, ‘The Aeneid and the Embarrassments of Augustus, in A. Powell (ed.), Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus (Bristol 1992), 147.

πλοκάμους. For ἐπί in a similar context, cf. Antip. Sid. 7.353=27,3f. οὐκ ἐπὶ τέκνοις / μύρεται, Diosc. 7.434=32,3 HE δάκρυα δ᾽ οὐκ ἔρρηξ᾽ ἐπὶ πένθεσιν. For

ἐπί in ἃ causal sense, cf. Il. 9.492 ἐπὶ σοὶ μάλα πόλλ᾽ ἔπαθον. See further Galan Vioque on Diosc. 28,3-4. ἐλεεινή: the adjective is Homeric (Il. 21.273, 23.110, Od. 8.531, al.). It often

describes the misery either ofthe deceased or ofthose left behind, in sepulchral epigrams: Antip. Thess. 7.286=14,5 (same sedes), Bianor 7.396=6,5 GP; Perses 7.487=6,3 HE ἐλεεινὰ καταδρύψασα παρειάς, Peek 843=251,3 Kaibel (II-I Bc)

ἐλεεινὸν ἐπιστενάχησε θανόντι, Peek 851,5 (AD I-II) δόμους.... ἐλεεινούς. Crinagoras again uses the form at the end of the first line in 37 (lament for Corinth).

μήτηρ... εἶπε: usually it is the dying persons who address their last words to relatives. Cf. Anyte 7.646=7 HE, Simias 7.647=7, Leon. 7.648=10 HE, Antip. Thess. 9.23=71, 9.96=21 GP. Here, as the death occurs under particularly unnatural circumstances, the scene becomes even more intense when the mother herself articulates the tragedy occurring the moment before her son is executed. Cf. parents’ addresses to already dead children: Leon. AP 7.466=71, Diosc. 7.229=30,5f. HE, Flaccus 7.542=4,7f. GP. For epigrams closing with a person's words, see on 26,5 εἶπε 8. περισχομένη: περίσχομαι appears twice in Homer (Il. 1.393, Od. 9.199), in the sense ‘protect. In the Anthology only at Perses 7.539=9,6 HE and 14.54,4. In the sense ‘embrace, cf. Plut. Ant. 79.4 περισχὼν αὐτὴν ταῖς χερσὶν ἀμφοτέραις. Cf. the

scene of a parent embracing a dying child at ‘Simon! 7.513=74,1 FGE πατρὸς περὶ χεῖρας ἔχοντος. At Anyte 7.646=7,1 HE it is the dying daughter who

embraces the father. Scenes of embracing in Greek literature are occasionally associated with death or misfortune: in Od, 11.210 Odysseus is trying in vain to clasp his mother’s shadow in the underworld (Anyte is reminiscent of this scene; see Geoghegan

on Anyte 7.1f.). Cf also Aesch. Ag. 1555-9 (Clytaemnestra’s imaginary account of Agamemnon’ encounter with his daughter in Hades), Call. H. 5.93f. (Chariclos reaction to her son’s blinding).

3 νέκυν... σέο: Crinagoras uses νέκυν at 15,2, at the same sedes, in the sense

‘dead. For the word as ‘corpse, cf. Alc. Mess. AP 7.55=12,1 νέκυν Ἡσιόδοιο, Mel. 7.207=65,7 HE, Bassus 7.372=3,1f. GP, al. At Soph. Ant. 26, the heroine

speaks of the body of Polyneices as Πολυνείκους νέκυν, while she refers to

Eteocles by name (23). Brown“ notes ad loc. that ‘one brother has been treated as a person, the other as an object. The mother in Crinagoras likewise sees her one son as a dead body, which underlines the antithesis between him and the one who is to live; moreover, it is clear that she does not retain any hope and regards her son as already lost. * A, Brown, Sophocles, Antigone (Warminster 1987).

752

AB? 638 =45

τέκνον: cf. the parents’ addresses to dead children (see above on μήτηρ... εἶπε): Diosc. AP 7.229=30,5 and Leon. 7.466=71,3 τέκνον, Flaccus 7.542=4,7 GP τέκος.

For this address in poetry more generally, cf. Galan Vioque on Diosc. 26,5.

ἐπ᾿ ἤματι τῷδε: the expression occurs at Il, 13.234 and 19.110; cf. Il. 15.2516 ἐφάμην νέκυας καὶ δῶμ᾽ Ἀίδαο 7 ἤματι τῷδε ὄψεσθαι (varia lectio ἵξεσθαι).

Also, cf. Aratus 868 ἐπ᾽ ἤματι κείνῳ. Hecker (1852, 350) compares Leon. AP 6.200=38,3 HE δεκάτῳ ἐπὶ μηνί.

The idea of ‘this day’ suggests the tragic quality of the moment, as it recalls the tragic day, especially that of Sophocles: OT 438, Aj. 756, Tr. 740. Cf. also Athena’ words in Aj. 131f. ὡς ἡμέρα κλίνει τε κἀνάγει πάλιν! ἅπαντα τἀνθρώπεια,

and Eur. Hec. 285 τὸν πάντα δ᾽ ὄλβον ἦμαρ ἕν μ᾽ ἀφείλετο. γοήσειν: the verb is used conventionally in descriptions of mourning, especially of mourning by parents; in a construction with the accusative. Cf. Il. 21.123f. and 22.352f. σέ (...) μήτηρ / ἐνθεμένη λεχέεσσι γοήσεται, 24.664 ἐννῆμαρ μέν κ᾿ αὐτὸν Evi μεγάροις γοάοιμεν, Nonnus D. 29.119, 35.382, 46.271, al. 4 ἤλπισα: ἐλπίζω is constructed with future infinitive (cf. LSJ s.v. 1), as in Ἴδας,

1.107,4, Eur. Jon 1087f., and has the sense of ‘hope’ or ‘expect, depending on the forthcoming prospect (positive or negative). Here, of course, it means ‘expect’; ‘I did not expect to see’ occurs in contexts of lament. Cf. Antip. Thess. AP 9.550=94,5f. GP νῦν δὲ σὺ μὲν ζώεις, ἡ δ᾽ οὐκέτι. τίς κεν ἐώλπει / ὄψεσθαι Tyvov

Δῆλον ἐρημοτέρην;. Also cf. Romanos’ Kontakion 19,11 P. Maas, C. A. Trypanis, Sancti Romani Melodi Cantica, 2 vols. (Oxford 1963-70) (Mary at the Cross) ᾽ te ͵ 3 ? 3 “6 οὐκ ἤλπιζον, τέκνον, ἐν τούτοις ἰδεῖν σε. ζωοῖς οὐ σὲ μετεσσόμενον: there is no reason to accept Reiske's correction (1754, 149 and 1766, 126) μετεσσυμένον, ‘rushing back’ (see LSJ s.v. μετασεύομαι): the

expression ‘be among the living’ is well attested. Cf. Od. 14.487 οὔ τοι ἔτι ζωοῖσι μετέσσομαι; Cf. also Il. 18.90f. οὐδ᾽ ἐμὲ θυμὸς ἄνωγε / ζώειν οὐδ᾽ ἄνδρεσσι μετέμμεναι, 22.387f., Od. 10.52. Also Theocr. 7.86 ζωοῖς ἐναρίθμιος ὥφελες ἦμεν.

Crinagoras uses the dative of ζωός again in 22,2 and 35,5, again to stress the contrast between living and dead. See ad locc. 5f. ὄψεσθαι: for ‘seeing (one’s children) alive, cf. Eur. Med. 803f. οὔτ᾽ἐξ ἐμοῦ yap

παῖδας ὄψεταί ποτε 7 ζῶντας, Hec. 1046 οὐ παῖδας ὄψῃ ζῶντας, For ‘seeing’ a death, in the sense of experiencing it, cf. also anon. AP 7.224,2, Antip. Thess. 7.743=67,2 GP, Diot. 7.261=4,2 HE.

° See further Kamerbeek and Finglass on Soph. Aj. 131 and Matthiessen on Eur. Hee, 285, For a further discussion of the conception of man’s fragility in the archaic and classical world, see H. Frankel, "Mans “Ephemeros” Nature According to Pindar and Others, TA PA 77 (1946), 131-45. ° Cf. the opposite statement: ‘I thought I would not see you, of a happy encounter, as in Od. 16.23f., 17.41{ ob σ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἐγώ ye / ὄψεσθαι ἐφάμην (Eumaeus and Penelope respectively on seeing

‘Felemachus back from Pylos).

For the ending of the sentence after ὄψεσθαι, see Intr., Language and Style,

Enjambments. viv δ᾽ οἱ μέν...... ἄψευστον δ᾽: cf. Andromache’s complaint in a comparable situation, Il. 22.482-4 νῦν δὲ σὺ μὲν Ἀίδαο δόμους ὑπὸ κεύθεσι γαίης ἔρχεαι, αὐτὰρ ἐμὲ στυγερῷ ἐνὶ πένθεϊ λείπεις χήρην ἐν μεγάροισι"

These lines also display a thematic and a morphological similarity to sepulchral formulas (cf. Griessmair 37 with n. 3): the motif of the wife left widow

in the house, the antithesis between past and present, expressed with νῦν δέ. For this contrast, see Alexiou 165ff. In both the Homeric passage and Crinagoras, there is one more contrast: that between mourner and deceased, which, as Alexiou observes (177), is inseparable from the contrast between past and

present in laments throughout Greek tradition.’ és ὑμέας: the phrase occurs once more in the Anthology, at the same sedes, Bianor 9.548=17,3; elsewhere in poetry often in Nonnus’ Paraphrasis (for instance 7.107, 15.89, 15.107) and Paul. Sil. Descr. 353, The preposition here expresses relation, ‘for you’ (Smyth 376, $ 1686, I d).

ἠμείφθησαν / δαίμονες: for an ‘exchange’ of deaths, cf. AntiphilusA P9.222=37,5 GP daipova δ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἠμείψαμεν (the man drowned in the sea and the dolphin that carried him dying on land).

Δαίμων meaning ‘fate’ appears in Hesiod (Op. 314, with West ad loc.). Tragedy par excellence has exploited the word in this sense; cf. e.g. Aesch. Pers. 601, 825, Ag. 1342, 1663, Soph. EI. 999, 1306. For the equivalence of the word to τύχη in fifth-century poetry and for relevant bibliography see Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1341f. and Garvie on Pers. 158; for later poetry, cf. Gow-Page on Call. AP 12.71=12,3f. HE. In the Anthology, for instance, Marc. Arg. 7.374=19,3, Philip 9.85=39,1, Honestus 9.216=3,6 GP, Germanicus 9.17=1,5 FGE. date as ‘destiny’ often comes to mean ‘death in epigrams; cf. Diosc. 7.167=40 HE=34,3f. Galan Vioque (with Gow-Page and Galan Vioque ad loc.) παῖδα δὲ δαίμων / ἔφθασεν οὐδ᾽ αὐτῶν εἴκοσιν ἠελίων, Agath. 7.568,1, Palladas7.610,1, Peek 2038=208,2

Kaibel (100 sc). For ἀμείβομαι in the sense ‘exchange; cf., for instance, Parm. AP 9.304=10,1 GP γαίης καὶ πόντου ἀμειφθείσαισι κελεύθοις, anon. AP! 374,2f. ἤμειψε μὲν

ἵππους / ἀντιπάλοις. Crinagoras uses the verb again at 17,4. See ad loc. Note the rhythmical alliteration of μ in |. 5 and the beginning of 1. 6.

” Cf. Lattimore’s ‘contrast theme, the ‘expression which dwells on the tragic changes brought about by death’ See Lattimore 172ff.

ἄψευστον: the word, later form of ἀψευδής, is rare before Christian times: Plut. Art. 28.2, Nonnus D. 29.65, Orph. Lith. 715, Or. Sib. 3.701, 8.499, al. Gow- Page comment that ἄψευστον marks the contrast of the mother’s real, present sorrow

‘with the misunderstanding caused by her sons’ reversal of destiny’ A father is likewise ‘cheated’ (ἐψεύσθην) in regard to his baby son, who unexpectedly died following his mother, at Bianor 7.387=2,4 GP. Giving this rare epithet to πένθος, Crinagoras is perhaps producing a variation on its more usual adjective, ἄλαστον,

frequently describing relatives’ grief for the loss of loved ones: Il. 24.105, Hes. Th. 467, Eur. Hel. 1337, Qu. Sm. 5.534, 7.64, anon. AP 7.343,9, Peek 2040,24=243,21 Kaibel (AD I-II).

ixero πένθος: the expression is Homeric, but always constructed with the accusative in Homer: Il. 1.362 and 18.73 τί δὲ σὲ φρένας ἵκετο πένθος;, 18.64 ὅττι μιν ἵκετο πένθος, 24.708, Od. 23.224, Πένθος... ἱκάνει occurs at Il. 1.254, 7.124, Od. 6.169 (with Garvie ad loc.). For a construction with the dative, cf. Ap. Rh.

3.675 ri rat αἰνὸν ὑπὸ φρένας ἵκετο πένθος; also Qu. Sm, 2.261 πατρὶ περὶ φρένας

ἤλυθε πένθος, 5.534 τῶ μοι πένθος ἄλαστον ἐποίχεται, and 7.64. Frequently the dead ‘leaves’ πένθος to his relatives.® * For the commonplace of the deceased ‘leaving grief’ to his/her friends and relatives in sepulchral epigrams, see Lattimore 179f., Skiadas (1967) 72, 7. Mawet, 'Epigrammes, thrénes et dithyrambes’ in J. Bingen et al. (eds.), Le monde grec: pensée, litérature, histoire, documents. Hommage

a Claire Préaux (Brussels 1975), 35ff.

AP 9.276 = 46

5.

Admos ἀποκλύζουσα παρὰ κροκάλαισι θαλάσσης χερνῆτις διεροῦ τυτθὸν ὕπερθε πάγου χέρσον ἐπεκβαίνοντι κατασπασθεῖσα κλύδωνι δειλαίη πικροῦ Kip’ ἔπιεν θανάτου, πνεῦμα δ᾽ ὁμοῦ πενίῃ ἀπελύσατο: τίς κ᾽ ἐνὶ νηί θαρσήσαι πεζοῖς τὴν ἀφύλακτον ἅλα; 7

a

\

3

;

u

—

AP 9.276 [C] Kpıvayspov eis γραῦν πενιχρὰν ἐν τῷ ἀποπλύνειν τὰ ἑαυτῆς ῥάκη ἀποπνιγεῖσαν Pl 1535 (εἰς θάλασσαν), 1 Κριναγόρου 1 κροκάλαισι P: -λῃσι Pl 5 πενίῃ Pl: πενίη P Brunck n. 31, Rubensohn ἢ, 30

While she was washing a cloth by the pebbles of the shore, a little above a wet rock, a hire-woman, dragged down by a surge that flooded the shore, poor wretch, drank the wave of bitter death and gave up breath together with pov-

erty. Who ina ship might dare the sea, when it is not safe even for those on land? A poor woman is swept into the sea by a wave, while washing clothes on the

beach, and is drowned. The incident is described in the five first lines, which consist of a single unbroken sentence; this uninterrupted continuity represents the rapidity and inexorability of the sudden actions of nature. The only verbs in this sequence, which appear late, as is often the case in Crinagoras (see Intr., Language and Style, Structure) are ἔπιεν and ἀπελύσατο, both rendering the womans death, which is thus underlined as the poem’s main piece of information. The first couplet sets the scene for the event. This employs terms that describe the wet and rocky, and so isolated and latently unfriendly, environment (κροκάλαισι

θαλάσσης, διεροῦ.... πάγου), and vocabulary that conveys the difficulty of human toil in such an environment (λῶπος, ἀποκλύζουσα, χερνῆτις); the couplet is in

fact governed by the image of the woman and her work (Aöros and χερνῆτις at the opening of each line). The dissimilar elements that nevertheless coexist

458

AP 9.276 = 46

in the first couplet (human and natural) are placed in opposition in the second couplet, the natural element filling the third line (like the actual overflow of the sea) and being finally assimilated to fate and death itself in the fourth line, thus

becoming a ‘wave of death, which annihilates any human element. Note the repetitions of meaning by means of synonyms in terms of words or phrases throughout the poem: θαλάσσης (1.1)-dAa (1.6), κλύδωνι (1.3)-- κῦμα (1.4), κῦμ᾽ ἔπιεν θανάτου (].4)--πνεῦμα.... ἀπελύσατο (1.5). Thus the ideas of sea and death

are strongly underlined and much emphasis is given to the link between them, especially with ‘the wave of bitter death, in which the two are insolubly mingled together. Cichorius (1888, 49) suggested that Crinagoras is referring to a real event. The theme of someone swept into the sea by a wave while sitting on the beach recurs in Apollonides 7.693=9,1-3 GP (this incident is also taken to be real, Peek 772): Γλῆνιν παρῃονῖτις ἀμφέχω xepuas / πικρῇ κατασπασθέντα κύματος δίνῃ | ὅτ᾽ ἰχθυάζετ᾽ἐξ ἄκρης ἀπορρῶγος. The similarity of the circumstances

of the fisherman’s death and the similarity of phrasing of ll. 2-3 (cf. below on πικροῦ... θανάτου and κατασπασθεῖσα) with those of the present poem suggests that Crinagoras influenced Apollonides (probably a younger contemporary of his, as Apollonides presumably lived under Tiberius; see Gow-Page GP 2.148), since it is probable that the former is referring to an event which happened in Lesbos, and so wrote the poem in all likelihood before 26-25 Bc." Another old woman dies while performing a manual task (gathering the heads of corn) in Philip AP 9.89=41 GP. The paradox of someone drowned in shallow waters (in the harbour) occurs in Antip. Thess. 7.639=59 GP. Crinagoras poem

belongs to the common type of epigram that presents an event accompanied by a commentary, like Crin. 24. Cf. also Antiphanes 9.84=2, Antiphilus 9.14=30, 9.86=34, 9.310=41, Alpheus 9,95=7, Philip 9.56=37, 9.240=43 GP. See further

Siedschlag 100ff. The woman is washing clothes at the sea-shore, perhaps in some stream which pours out into the sea. Likewise, Homeric Nausicaa and her maids wash the clothes in a river which flows into the sea and then spread them on the pebbles of the shore (Od. 6.85-95). 1: the first line of the poem resounds with A, «, 7 and the sibilants o and ζ, thus offering a penetrating imitation of the sound of the sea. Aamos: λώπη is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, Od. 13.224 (the cloak of Athena, who is disguised as a man). Cf. Apollon. Lex. Hom. s.v. Awan τὸ ἱμάτιον. θηλυκῶς δὲ εἶπεν ἀντὶ τοῦ ADmos. Ὅθεν καὶ λωποδύτης 6 κλέπτης λέγεται.

“Δῶπος is ἃ rare and mainly poetic word; in the Anthology Leon. 7.472=77,10, ’ According to Cichorius (1888, 49f.), the poem was written in Mytilene, as such an incident is more likely to have attracted attention in a small community, such as the Mytilenean, rather than in a larger place, such as Rome.

AP 9.276 =46

459

API 307=90,2 HE, Strato 12.176=17,2 Floridi, Eugenes AP! 308=1,5 FGE (in the

three later poems the word is used of a man’s cloak, as it is also at Herondas 8.36 and Theocr. 14.66; at Hipponax fr. 2 [EG it designates a woman’s robe). See further Gow on Theocr. 14.65f. and Floridi on Strato 17,2.

ἀποκλύζουσα: the compound verb is rare and appears mainly in prose. For instance, Plut. Cic. 32.7, Mor. 650c, al. For the simple κλύζειν in the sense ‘wash

off’ one’s stains, cf. Eur. [T 1193. παρὰ κροκάλαισι θαλάσσης: Hesychius says s.v. κροκάλαι" ψῆφοι, ἀκταί, ἄμμος.

Cf. Phanias AP 6.299=5,8 HE παρὰ κροκάλαις, on the beach. Also Euphor. 7.651=2,4 HE περὶ κροκάλαις, Diocles 6.186=2,3 GP δικτυβόλει... map’ ἠϊόνων κροκάλαισιν, Eur. [A 210 αἰγιαλοῖσι παρά τε κροκάλαις. In the epigram the word is usually governed by a preposition; see Giangrande (1965) 282. 2 χερνῆτις: a labouring woman. Cf. Hesych. s.v. χερνῆτις" ἡ ἀπὸ χειρῶν ζῶσα, πενιχρά, χήρα. The word is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 12.433), and a rare word in poetry; Ap. Rh. 3.292 (verse-opening), Posid. 46,1 Austin-Bastianini, Nonnus D. 33.270; in the Anthology it occurs once more at 6.203=76,1 GP (Lacon or Philip; for the attribution of the poem to the latter, see Gow-Page on Philip 76, intr. note). See also Campbell on Ap. Rh. loc. cit. διεροῦ... πάγου: διερός occurs twice in Homer (Od. 6.201 διερὸς βροτός and 9.43 διερῷ ποδί, where it means ‘active; ‘lively’). Its meaning was already a point of controversy in antiquity, although the dominant view was that the sense ‘wet’ is post-Homeric.” Another ‘wet stone’ occurs at Call. H. 2.23, διερὸς λίθος,

where Niobe, turned into a stone, is wet by her tears.’ For a ‘wet’ place near the sea, cf. Theocr. 17.80 Νεῖλος ἀναβλύζων διερὰν ὅτε βώλακα θρύπτει, Nonnus D. 10.420 διερῇ μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἠόνι, in a hyperbaton. Cf. also D. 33.212 διερὸν παρὰ χεῦμα... ποταμοῖο, as in Crinagoras, IIayos occurs in Od, 5.405 and 411 and is used of rocks which are beaten

by the waves; Crinagoras uses the word in its Homeric setting. Likewise Apollonides’ fisherman is drawn into the sea at AP 7.693=9,3 GP ἐξ ἄκρης ἀπορρῶγος.

τυτθὸν ὕπερθε: τυτθόν is a poetic word, mostly occurring in epic and Hellenistic poets. See Geffcken on Leon. 56,3 (API 230=86,3 HE τυτθὸν ὑπὲρ δαμαλήβοτον

ἄκραν, in an expression similar to that of Crinagoras); for τυτθόν as an adverb, especially of space, cf. I]. 5.443, 7.334, Od. 9.540, The word, in a phrasing meaning ‘a little over, appears frequently in Quintus Smyrnaeus: 2.569 τυτθὸν ὑπὲρ 2 Beginning with Hes. Op. 460. Far a further discussion, see Garvie on Od. 6.201, McLennan on Call. H. 1.24, 11 Williams on Call. H. 2.23, Rossi and Hunter on Theocr. 17,80. > For the ambiguity of Callimachus’ usage and his playing with the senses of the word, ‘alive’ and ‘wet’ see Ε Williams ad loc.

* Where the ambiguity of the word is also exploited. See prev, notes.

460

AP 9.276 = 46

γαίης, 8.301 τυτθὸν ὑπὲρ βουβῶνα, 11.34 τυτθὸν ὑπὲρ λαπάρα, 11.381 τυτθὸν ὑπὲρ δαπέδοιο. As at 1,2, Crinagoras prefers the more poetic ὕπερθε to the more common and prosaic ὑπέρ.

3 χέρσον ἐπεκβαίνοντι: cf. the phrase, also of water invading the land, in Diocles AP 7.393=1,5 GP χέρσῳ ἐπεκβαίνειν... ὕδατι θυμός (same sedes); this is the

only other occurrence of the rare verb ἐπεκβαίνειν in the Anthology (for the reading see Gow-Page ad loc.). Cf. Thuc. 8.105 ἐς τὴν γῆν ἐπεξέβησαν. Cf. the image of a man coming out of the sea or being swept onto the land by the wave, Od. 7.278 ἔνθα κέ μ᾽ ἐκβαίνοντα βιήσατο Kip’ ἐπὶ χέρσου and 5.415f. μή πώς μ᾽ ἐκβαίνοντα βάλῃ λίθακι ποτὶ πέτρῃ ἰ κῦμα μέγ᾽ ἁρπάξαν. Reversing the

Homeric setting, Crinagoras emphatically tells us (placing the phrase at verseopening) that it is the wave, not the human being as one would expect, that came out of the sea on to the land; thus he stresses the unusualness of the conditions of the woman's death. Xepoos often describes in the Anthology the land on to which the wave urges someone/something: Anyte 7.215=12,5 HE, Antip. Thess. 7.216=17,1 GP, Secundus

9,36=1,3, Bianor 9.227=8,3 GP. Cf. the Homeric use of the word, always in a context ofland-sea contrast. See on Crin. 35,2 χερσαίας... ὁδούς.

κατασπασθεῖσα: the passive participle occurs again in the Anthology only at Apollon. 7.693=9,2 GP κατασπασθέντα κύματος δίνῃ. Κατασπάω, draw, is prosaic and seldom appears in poetry: once more in the Anthology at anon. 9.1153.

Cf. also Aristoph. Eq. 718, Lys. 725, Ran. 576, Opp. Hal. 2.406, Nonnus ἢ. 4.372, 23.112, and 37.301.

Note the delay of the announcement of the woman's death; this follows the description of a tableau which arouses the reader's sympathy for her fate. κλύδωνι: the word is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον: Od. 12.421. In a context similar

to that of Crinagoras, of a stranded dolphin, Antip. Thess. AP 7.216=17,1 GP κύματα Kal τρηχύς με κλύδων ἐπὶ χέρσον ἔσυρεν. In the Anthology κλύδων is

always associated with ill-fated voyagers and ships: Heges. 13.12=6,5 HE (same case and sedes), Apollon. 7.642=8,1 GP, Cyllen. 9.33=2,2 FGE. The word is common in tragedy (Aesch. Pr. 431, Soph.

OT 1527, Eur. Hec. 701, al.).

4 δειλαίη: cf. Crinagoras’ address to Prote, 14,1. See ad loc. πικροῦ κῦμ᾽... θανάτου: cf. Apollon. 7.693=9,2 GP πικρῇ κατασπασθέντα κύματος δίνῃ. ‘Bitter’ is a conventional epithet for death. Cf. the expression ‘bitterer than death’: Diosc. 7.162=28,4, Leon. 7.715=93,2 HE, Mac. Cons. AP 5.247,2. At Peek 1566=200,4 Kaibel (AD I?) πικροῦ...

θανάτου occurs at

the same sedes as here. For the bitterness of death/Hades, cf. Alc. Mess. AP 7.495=15,2, Antip. Sid. 7.303=26,6 HE, Cyrus 7.557,2, Peek 1833=256,4 Kaibel

(II Bc), Peek 567=467,4 Kaibel (AD II), AApp 4.100,2. The bitterness of the sea

(the seawater is ‘bitter, opposed to the drinkable water: see Galan Vioque on

AP 9.276 =46

251

Diosc, AP 7,76=30,5-6) is Homeric: Od. 4.406, 5.322f. Cf. Diosc. AP 7.76=33,5

HE πικρὴν ἅλα, Honestus 7.274=22,1 GP ἅλα πικρήν, anon. 9.362,8 ἄνθεα πικρὰ

θαλάσσης. The sea is naturally all the more bitter when responsible for a death: Crin. 44,4 (cf. adloc.). The rivers’ water, although not ‘bitter’ by nature, becomes bitter when it proves fatal: cf. Diosc. 9.568=34,8 HE, Flaccus 7.542=4,8 GP.

For the metaphorical use of a ‘bitter wave, cf. Mel. AP 5.190=64,1 HE κῦμα τὸ πικρὸν Ἔρωτος, Aesch. Eum. 832 koipa κελαινοῦ κύματος πικρὸν μένος. Cf. also Lucian AP 9.367,12 οὐλομένης πενίης κῦμα παλιρρόθιον. Here there is a balance

between the metaphorical and literal sense of ‘wave’ since the woman loses her life by a surge. émev: for the metaphorical use of the verb in regard to death, cf. Bianor AP 9.223=7,4 GP ἐν δὲ βέλος δισσῶν αἷμ᾽ ἔπιεν θανάτων, on a hunter killed by the

arrow with which he had just killed an eagle. Cf. the ‘literal’ sense at Tiber. Ilus 9.2=1,4 FGE τὸν κείνης e&emiev θάνατον, on a baby deer poisoned by its mother’s

milk, and Antip. Thess. 9.407=34,3 GP πλεῖον ἐπεὶ μαζῶν ἔπιεν ποτόν, on a baby drowned by drinking seawater. A close parallel to the present use is Apollon. AP7.631=7,4 GP (on a drowned man) Αἰγαίου κῦμα πιὼν πελάγευς. Common

is the metaphor of ‘drinking the love, usually through a kiss. Cf. Mel. AP 12.133=84 HE, anon. AP 5.305,2f., Virg. Aen. 1.749 longumque bibebat amorem, Bion Ad. 49 ἐκ δὲ πίω τὸν ἔρωτα, al,; see Reed ad loc. 5f. πνεῦμα δ᾽ ὁμοῦ πενίῃ: for the construction, cf. Aesch. Pers. 426f. οἰμωγὴ δ᾽ ὁμοῦ / κωκύμασι, Triphiod. 80 νῶτα δ᾽ ὁμοῦ λαγόνεσσιν, Call. fr. 75,62, Nonnus

D, 6.285. In the Anthology, cf. Heracleides 7.392=2,4 GP ἱστὸς ὁμοῦ döprw κἀμὲ κάλυψε βυθῷ.

πνεῦμα... ἀπελύσατο: cf. (with the verb in active voice) Peek 2005,40=547,7 Kaibel (Sardinia, AD I-II) ἥνικα πνεῦμα μελῶν ἀπέλυε Φίλιππος. For the middle/passive in the sense of ‘die, cf. Soph. Ant. 1314 ποίῳ δὲ κἀπελύσατ᾽ἐν φοναῖς τρόπῳ;, 1268 Ehaves, ἀπελύθης. For ἀπολύεσθαι and ἀπόλυσις referring to death

in later Greek prose, see Jebb on Ant. 1268. Cf. viv ἀπολύεις τὸν δοῦλόν σου, δέσποτα (Luke II 29). In Sept. Judith 14.6 ἐξελύθη τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ means ‘to

faint. Cf. Peek 1871=218,7f. Kaibel (AD IT) Ἐρεινύς /...voow τερπνὸν ἔλυσε βίον, Peek 2055=150,6 Kaibel (Ap II-III) θνητὸν ἔλυσα B[fov). Crinagoras condenses

his expression and puts in parallel πνεῦμα and πενίη as verb complements of ἀπελύσατο (even though zevin is a prepositional phrase, therefore not an object of the verb, it stands, however, in the same thematic relation to ἀπελύσατο as πνεῦμα, its proper object); thus he retains a skilful ambiguity in regard to the meanings of ἀπολύεσθαι, balancing between the senses ‘release’ and ‘render the spirit, implying in this way that life was a burden for the poor woman.” For > This could further suggest the womans old age, as the lemmatist assumes. Cf. the only other occurrence of xepvjris in the Anthology at Philip 6.203=76,1 ἡ ypjus ἡ χερνῆτις.

death as a deliverer from pains, cf. also Peek 1570=668,1f. Kaibel (AD II-III) ὅς με ἀπέλυσας / νούσων καὶ καμάτων (apostrophe to death). For periphrases designating death in Callimachus (ἀποπνεῖν, ἄπνουν εἶναι, eic.), see Lapp 31. The idea of a person being tortured by and/or released from two evils, one

among which is poverty, appears often in the Anthology, mainly in dedicatory epigrams: Leon. 6.300=36,7f. HE, Philip 6.231=21,8 GP, Gaetul. 6.190=2,9f., Cornel. Long. 6.191=1,6, anon. 7.336=49,1 FGE, Agath. 9.644,2. The concept of death as a deliverer who puts an end to the misfortunes of life is common in

tragedy. Cf., for instance, Aesch. Supp. 802f., Soph. Ph. 797f., OC 1220f. This idea was also common in epitaphs; cf. Peek 1765=312,2 Kaibel (ap 1-II), Peek 1812,4 (imperial period; see Skiadas 1967, 41, n. 1.). ris...3: the rhetorical, generalizing question occasionally concludes sepulchral epigrams. Cf. Laurea 7.294=2,5f. τίς od... εἴποι;, Antiphilus 7.176=25,5f, GP. Cf.

Jul. Aeg. 7.599,5f. ris λίθος οὐκ ἐγόησεν;. For ri- questions in a lamenting context, see Crin. 16,1f. and 19,3f. (cf. ad locc., intr. note and on 3f. respectively). Cf. the similar realization of the unreliability of sea after an equally unexpected event: cf. Antip. Thess. 7.216=17,5f. GP τίς παρὰ πόντῳ / πίστις, ὃς οὐδ᾽ ἰδίης φείσατο auvrpodins; For ris xe(v) + opt., cf. Od. 22.12 ris κ᾽ οἴοιτο, Ap, Rh. 4.1388 τίς x’ ἐνέποι, Agath. AP 5.302,6 ris κεν ὑποτλαίη.

ἐνὶ νηΐ the phrase is Homeric and it occurs three times at the same sedes (verse-end) in Homer (Od. 10.53, 12.411, 15.206) and always in Apollonius

(2.397, 2.960, 3.525). ἐνὶ νηΐ!... πεζοῖς: the distinction between traveller by land and traveller by ship is expressed with the same words in Homer: Il. 24.438 ἐν νηΐ θοῇ ἢ πεζὸς ὁμαρτέων, Od, 3.323f. ἴθι vor σὺν νηΐ re of.../ εἰ δ᾽ ἐθέλεις πεζός, 11.58. Cf.

Theocr. 17.99-101; also ‘Simon? AP 7.258=46,3 FGE. Cf. Philip 9.708=57,7f. GP. See below, on πεζοῖς... ἀφύλακτον ἅλα.

θαρσήσαι.... τήν... ἅλα: the verb and its cognates often occur in a nautical context in the Anthology and express the sailors’ confidence in their ship/the sea (or a warning against this confidence: Leon. 7.665=14,1 HE, Antip. Thess. 9.107=114,6, Antiphilus 10.17=11,6 GP, ‘Anacr’ 7.263=3,2 FGE), or designate their fearlessness (anon. 9.675,2, Satyrus. 10.6=1,5 FGE, Agath. 10.14,7, Paul. Sil. 10.74,6, here in a metaphor about the ‘sea’ of life). The construction of the verb with accusative first occurs at Homer, Od. 8.197 σὺ δὲ θάρσει τόνδε γ᾽ ἄεθλον; see Garvie ad loc. For later examples, see LSJ s.v. 12. The poetic @As is Homeric: Il. 1.141, 1.316, 20.229, al. See further Galan Vioque on Diosc. AP 7.76=30,5-6.

° For examples of the usage of πεζός in Callimachus, Theocritus et al., see Rossi on Theocr. 17,99.

πεζοῖς... ἀφύλακτον: against which there is no guarding’; Flaccus API 211=14,3f. GP ἀφύλακτον.... βέλος (of Eros), Peek 1871=218,7 Kaibel (AD II) ἀφύλακτος

‘Epecvus. In a construction with the dative: Maccius AP] 198=11,7 GP βροτοῖς ἀφύλακτος (of Eros), Dion. Hal. AR 9.25,3 τήν... ἀφύλακτον ἀνθρώποις τύχην. The antithesis between secure land and insecure sea is occasionally used in variation or reversal in epigrams. At AP 9.708=57,7f. GP Philip describes the paradox of the ‘security’ of the sea (at the harbour mole at Puteoli): διοδευομένη

δ᾽ ὑπὸ ναύταις / ἄστατος, eis πεζοὺς ὡμολόγησε μένειν. Antipater of Thessalonica closes AP 7.289=26 GP with the oxymoron ὦ yains κύματα πιστότερα (on ἃ

shipwrecked man surviving the storm and killed by a wolf; see also Argentieri 2003, 114f.); similarly the ship destroyed by fire on shore in Antiphilus 9.34=32 GP wonders (Il. 4) ris ἐρεῖ πόντον ἀπιστότερον;. Dioscorides in 7.76=33 HE

recounts how Philocritus, having ‘escaped’ from the sea in his lifetime, is covered by the waves in his grave which is now overflooded by the Nile.

AP 9.439 =47

5.

Βρέγμα πάλαι Aaxvatov ἐρημαῖόν re κέλυφος ὄμματος ἀγλώσσου θ᾽ ἁρμονίη στόματος, ψυχῆς ἀσθενὲς ἕρκος, ἀτυμβεύτου θανάτοιο λείψανον, εἰνόδιον δάκρυ παρερχομένων, κεῖσο κατὰ πρέμνοιο παρ᾽ ἀτραπόν, ὄφρα «τις εἴπη» ἀθρήσας Ti πλέον φειδομένῳ βιότου; ba

7

c

4

2

é

7

>

AP 9.439 [C] Κριναγόρου εἰς κρανίον ἀνθρώπου κείμενον ἀτημέλητον Pl 15. 36 (εἰς θάνατον καὶ εἰς θανόντας), 13 Ἀντιφίλον 2 ἁρμονίη ΡΙ: -ην Ρ 5 κατὰ πρέμνοιο edd.: πέλας κατὰ πρέμνοιο ΡΡ] | παρ᾽ ἀτραπὸν P: παρὰ πρόπον Pl

5 τις εἴπῃ suppl. Griffiths: post ὄφρα deficit P

6 ἀθρήσας P: -σαις Pl

Brunck n. 35, Rubensohn n. 37

Skull which used to be hairy once, deserted shell of the eye, frame of a tongueless mouth, feeble fence of the soul, relic ofan unburied death, wayside tear for the passer-by, lie there near the tree trunk by the path, so that looking on you : ‘what profit is there in being too frugal of life?’ The spectacle of a deserted skull arouses thoughts on the vanity of life. The poet addresses the skull with juxtaposed vocatives first connected with

re (first couplet), then standing in asyndeton (second couplet). He starts by describing the skull part by part with elaborate terms/periphrases rendering its actual features (βρέγμα πάλαι λαχναῖον, κέλυφος ὄμματος, ἁρμονίη στόματος) in the first couplet; all these parts are presented in ἃ way that recalls an absent

element: hair (once being on the head), eye (once contained in the eye's shell), and tongue (once enclosed in the mouth). The poet proceeds by qualifying the skull as a whole with metaphorical phrases (ψυχῆς ἀσθενὲς ἕρκος, ἀτυμβεύτου θανάτοιο λείψανον, εἰνόδιον δάκρυ παρερχομένων) in the second couplet, before presenting his moral point in the final couplet. A similar structure with juxta-

posed terms describing the same person (group of persons)/item is found in certain poems of Philips Garland, in most of them the verb appearing, too, after a long series of descriptive vocatives: Philip AP 11.321=60 and Antiphanes

11.322=9 (satirical attacks to grammarians), Marc. Arg. 6.248=23 and 9.229=24

(address to a flagon), Antiphilus 9.73=5 (address to the Euboean Sea), Bianor 9.423=16 GP (address to destroyed Sardis). Philips and Antiphanes poems consist, too, in a single sentence. Often these poems’ tone is emotionally col-

oured, revealing aggression (cf. the poems on the grammarians), admiration (cf. the poem on the Euboean Sea), or mourning (cf. the poem on Sardis). Impressive epigrams with addresses denoting passion and uneasiness are

Philodemus’ 5.132=12 GP and Sider, with its long series of exclamations (though

not vocatives in the strict sense) describing, in erotic anxiety, parts of the

beloved body, and 10.21=15 GP=8 Sider, with its series of vocatives addressing Aphrodite who is called upon to grant the poet an erotic favour (the repetitive

addresses to the goddess here are intermingled with descriptions of the poet's own psychological state which increase the epigram’s emotional intensity). In dedicatory poems the descriptive vocatives refer, of course, to one or more

objects or deities receiving the offerings; see on Crin 43, intr. note. In the present epigram the main verb, «eigo, recalls ironically the context of votive epigrams. The use of the verb is anyway a ‘borrowing’ from sepulchral poetry; see Tueller 95, 100, 102. In dedications, cf. Marc. Arg. 6.248=23,1 κεῖσο, Adyuve;' also Moer06.119=L,1f. cetour.../ Borpu, Theocritus 6.336=5,1f. τὰ ρόδα....!.... κεῖται, Nicias 6.270=3,1f. HE, ‘Simon: 6,2=19,1f. FGE, Paul. Sil. 7.71,4. Also, cf. ἀγκεῖσθαι

at Call. 6.149=25,3 and 6.311=27,2 HE, and κεῖσθαι in AApp 1.131,2. The skull becomes thus a memorable token whose function imitates, in variation, the function of religious dedications: while these dedications are placed by people to a specific location associated with gods, usually in the countryside, to accompany prayers or thanksgivings for various issues related to human life and to be visible to passers-by, this lies also somewhere in the countryside (even if the imperative κεῖσο does not denote the skull’s placement there by the poet, it still expresses the poet's ‘approval’ of its placement) to remind viewers ofa truth and a moral deduced by the contemplation of life. Philip AP 7.383=32 GP, on a deserted corpse on the beach, seems to be mod-

elled on the present poem (for echoes of language, see below passim). Polemon 11.38=2,5-6 GP (πῖνε, λέγει τὸ γλύμμα, ‘Kai ἔσθιε καὶ περίκεισο / ἄνθεα' τοιοῦτοι

γινόμεθ᾽ ἐξαπίνης᾽) has been found engraved on a gem beneath the carving of a skull and a table laid with food (Kaibel 1129). Jacobs! (Paralipomena, n. 6)

noted the similarity of theme between the present poem and a relief from Smyrna (AD I-II, the epigram accompanying it being Kaibel 303=1364 Peek) representing an old man pointing a stick at a human skull. In the Anthology the wayside skull reappears in anon. 9.159=62 FGE, but without the moral about

the vanity of life. This moral is found in Leon. 7.472=77 HE, but with a different ‘ For the use of the imperative in dedicatory epigrams of the Anthology, see further Wachtler 26. ? A passer-by sees a skull by the road and throws at it a stone which bounds back and blinds him. The same incident is described in Ausonius, ep. 76 Green, which is probably an adaptation

466

AP 9.439=47

treatment. The realization of the vanity of life by Leonidas in this poem leads

him to a quite different conclusion, the advice for a simple life: εἴης ἐν λιτῇ κεκλιμένος βιοτῇ. Leon. 7.478=73 and 7.480=74 HE are about tombs broached by a road and leaving exposed the dead man’s bones (see Gow-Page on Leon.

73, intr. note), but, again, they do not deal with the vanity of life. Cf. also Crin. 22, on the disinterred corpse of Nicias.

Gow-Page remark that the poem is a variation on the common theme ‘be happy, as tomorrow you will die. For this motif, cf. Peek 1016=362 Kaibel (aD I-II), Jul. Aeg. AP 7,32 and 7,33, Asclep. 12.50=16 and 5.85=2 HE (see below

on φειδομένῳ βιότου), Marc. Arg. 11.28=30, Antiphanes 10.100=7 and 11.168=8 GP, Palladas 11.62; see also Geffcken (1916) 138, Schulte on Julian 7.32, intr. note (p. 50), Guichard 147, 269f., and Sens (2011) 103. Cf. the advice to enjoy oneself

in view of the ephemeral nature of human affairs in Theogn. 1047f. For exhort-

ations to drink and be merry in Theognis and skolia echoed in epigrams of Callimachus, Meleager, and Marcus Argentarius, see Giangrande (1968b) 104f.

The first occurrence of the idea of the ephemeral nature of man is of course the famous Homeric Il. 6.146-9, οἵη περ φύλλων γενεή, τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν, etc. (echoed in Mimn. 2,1-3 JEG), Simon. 20 JEG, Aristoph. Av. 685.

Stadtmüller explained the poem’s ascription to Antiphilus as an error, due to the fact that it was written in the Planudean codex (1:36, eis θάνατον kai

eis θανόντας) with Philod. AP ascribed to Antiphilus (8 GP), chapter, but in chapter 56, εἰς 1536, attributing it to the author

9.412, followed, in the Palatine codex, by 9.413, which Planudes preferred to include not in this νήσους; then Planudes continued with 9.439 in of 9.413. Rubensohn inclined towards Antiphilus

authorship, citing resemblances of expression like κέλυφος (Antiphil. 9.242=20,7 GP), ἀτυμβεύτου θανάτοιο (Antiphil. 9,86=34,6 GP αὐτόφονον τύμβον), τί πλέον (Antiphil. 9.222=37,3 GP ride πλέον), ἀγλώσσου στόματος (Antiphil. 7.641=17,2

GP). Similarities can be traced, however, among Crinagoras’ poems and in larger number: Stadtmiiller cites the similar ‘argumentum’ of Crin. 16 δείλαιοι, τί kevataw ἀλώμεθα θαρσήσαντες / ἐλπίσιν ἀτηροῦ ληθόμενοι θανάτου, KTA, ὄφρα in 1. 5 of the present poem with Crin. 35,3f. ὄφρ᾽... ἴδῃς (same sedes), |. 1 of this poem with Crin. 41,5 ἄτριχα καὶ κόρσην, |. 2 with Crin. 41,31. οὐκ εὔοδμον

ὀδόντων / πρίονα, λείψανον in 1. 4 with Crin. 41,6 (same sedes), ἀτυμβεύτου θανάτοιο in. |. 3 with Crin. 21,8 ἀήττητον... θάνατον, etc. Note also that the

Corrector of P erased a former ascription (other than Ἀντιφίλου), to write Κριναγόρου, which minimalizes the possibility of the ascription to Crinagoras

being a careless mistake; Gow-Page further argue that the occurrence of ri of the Greek poem; see Green ad loc. and F. Benedetti, La tecnica del ‘vertere’ negli epigrammi di Ausonio {Florence 1980), 28f, The latter observes that in anon. AP 9.159=62 FGE the ‘crude tones

of Crinagoras are totally absent and that the anonymous poet puts the weight on the moral of the story; he also remarks that the first distich of Ausonius’ poem bears a stronger resemblance to the first distich of Crinagoras than to that of the anonymous poet: abiecta in triviis inhumati glabra iacebat / testa hominis, nudum iam cute calvitium.

AP 9.439= 47

40/

πλέον, given the absence of the shape ~ -, from the end of the first half of the

pentameter in Crinagoras, should not be used as an argument for Antiphilus’ authorship (Rubensohn 31) as the phrase actually constitutes a common word group. lf. βρέγμα: the front part of the skull, in Homer βρεχμός (Il. 5.586; cf. Eust. ad loc.: Bpexuös διὰ τοῦ x τὸ ἄνω τοῦ μετώπον: λέγεται δὲ καὶ κοινῶς βρέγμα διὰ τοῦ y). See also Ebeling s.v., Leaf on Il. loc. cit., Harder on Call. frr. 37,3 and

186,1. The Homeric form occurs also at Call. fr. 186,1, Nic. Th. 219, Qu. Sm. 13,155, while in later Greek the word usually appears as βρεγμός, βρέγμα, βρέχμα. In

the Anthology βρέγμα occurs as ‘forehead’ in anon. 9.317=54,2 (verse-opening); it designates a ‘skull’ in Alc. Mess. 9.519=2,4 HE (verse-opening). πάλαι: Cf. the opposition between past and present in epitaphs: see on Crin. 16,3. The theme and phrasing bears a certain resemblance with Il. 22.402f. (on the head of dead Hector): κάρη δ᾽ ἅπαν ἐν κονίῃσι / κεῖτο πάρος χαρίεν. λαχναῖον: here only. Rh. 1.1312 λαχνῆέν re Nic. Al, 410 πολλάκι λασίαις... κεφαλαῖς.

For λαχνῆεν, cf. Il. 18.415, al. It is used of a head in Ap. κάρη. Cf. Il, 2.219 ψεδνὴ δ᾽ ἐπενήνοθε λάχνη (of Thersites), δὲ σκύλαιο κάρη, περὲ δ᾽ αἴνυσο Adyyyy. See on Crin. 30,2 Note that another unicum of a corresponding formation,

Ὀρκυναῖον, occurs at (τίη. 29,1 at the same sedes. Apart from Crinagoras’ general taste for ἅπαξ Aeyöueva,the word is further formed to create a ὁμοιοτέλευτον with the juxtaposed ἐρημαῖον, which results to an impressive sound effect. ἐρημαῖον....! ὄμματος: épnuatos is not Homeric, but frequent in Hellenistic

authors and Nonnus (e.g. Ap. Rh. 2.672, 3.324, [Moschus] 3.21, Nonnus D.

5.544, 31.203, 42.61, al.; see Kidd on Arat. 948, Campbell on Ap. Rh. loc. cit. and on Qu. Sm. 12.489). Usually the adjective qualifies places (mountains, islands, etc); for a freer use, cf. Ap. Rh. 4.1298f. ὡς δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἐρημαῖοι, πεπτηότες ἔκτοθι πέτρης | χηραμοῦ, ἀπτῆνες.. «νεοσσοί. The dead man’s hairless and tongueless head, qualified with a compound with &onw-, too, occurs at Philip AP 7.383=32,3f. GP ἐρημοκόμης κεῖται καὶ χῆρος ὀδόντων / κόρση. See above, intr. note. KeAudos as the hollow of the eye is unique (LSJ s.v. 2 6); for the shell of an egg,

cf. [Opp.] Cyn. 3.503. Metaphorically, Aristoph. Vesp. 545 ἀντωμοσιῶν κελύφη ‘the husks of affidavits, Antiphil. AP 9.242=20,7 GP, the boat of an old man, serving as his cofhn. ἀγλώσσου... στόματος: in poetry ἄγλωσσος appears rarely: Pind. N. 8.24, Soph. Tr. 1060 (= βάρβαρος here: see Jebb ad loc.). In the Anthology also at

Archias 7.191=20,5 GP, Satyrus API 153=4,1 FGE. Crinagoras’ phrase occurs at the same sedes at Simias 7.193=2,4 HE ἀγλώσσου φθεγγομένα στόματος (of a locust) and Antiphil. 7.641=17,2 GP ἀγλώσσῳ φθεγγόμενον στόματι (of a water clock).

ἁρμονίη: often used of a skeleton, especially in the poems on a subject similar

to that of the present poem. Cf. Leon. AP 7.480=74,2 and 7.472=77,7f. HE ἐκ roins ὥνθρωποι ἀπηκριβωμένοι ὀστῶν / dpyovins, Philip 7.383=32,6 GP κώλων ἔκλυτος ἁρμονίη. See also Geflcken on Leon. 32,2. In the present poem, ἀγλώσσου ἁρμονίη στόματος has a further implication which underlines the

tragedy of mortality: ‘harmony; literally applied on music, is here, with an oxymoron, attributed to the ‘tongueless mouth’ of the dead. For the association of ἁρμονία with the human voice, cf. Plato Leg, 665a τῇ δὲ ad (sc. τάξει) τῆς φωνῆς, τοῦ τε ὀξέος ἅμα καὶ βαρέος συγκεραννυμένων, ἁρμονία ὄνομα προσαγορεύοιτο,

AApp 1.197,3f. ὃς θῆρας καὶ δένδρα καὶ ἑρπετὰ καὶ πετεηνά | φωνῇ καὶ χειρῶν κοίμισεν ἁρμονίη (Orpheus), Plut. Mor. 460, 3314 and the following. 3 ψυχῆς ... ἕρκος: the phrase recalls the epic ἔρκος ὀδόντων, especially Il. 9.408f. yoyy}.../...emel dip κεν ἀμείψεται ἕρκος ὀδόντων," as was already observed by Jacobs’. It could be taken as qualifying the mouth, mentioned just before, as the soul departs from the body through the mouth, because it is conceived as breath (see Kirk on Il. 5.696). Cf. θυμὸν ἀποπνείων at Il. 4.524, 13.654, Tyrt.

10,24 IEG; see Janko on Il. 15.252-3. The phrase, however, is probably referring to the whole skull, since it opens the second couplet ofthe poem, the two other periphrases of which describe the skull itself (see above, intr. note). The Bude

commentators compared Polemon AP 11.38=2,4 GP ψυχῆς φρούριον ἀκρότατον (of a skull); Brodaeus (74, and in Brodaeus-Obsopoeus 77) cited Galen 6.73,4

Kühn ὁ μὲν yap ἐγκέφαλος οἶκός τίς ἐστι τῆς λογικῆς ψυχῆς. Yet, even in this case, ἕρκος strongly evokes the Homeric expression and suggests that the poet intentionally transfers the traditional term for the mouth to another part of the body, closely related to the mouth, using it as a bridge between the ἁρμονίη στόματος and the series of the metaphorical periphrases that depict generally the dead mans head. ἀσθενές: not Homeric. The attribution of ἀσθενής to the skull (see prev. note) refers to the easiness with which death comes to men and to the small resistance man is able to show. This notion further implies the general weakness of man in regard to his fate. Cf. the only other occurrence of the word in the Anthology, Palladas 10.84,3, where it qualifies mankind in regard to the vanity of life, perhaps echoing Aristoph. Av. 685f. Cf. also Eur. fr. 803a,3 TrGrF 6 yap πᾶς ἀσθενὴς αἰὼν βροτοῖς, Leon. 7.472=77,13 HE ἠοῦν ἐξ ἠοῦς ὅσσον σθένος, ὦνερ, ἐρευνῶν.

ἀτυμβεύτου θανάτοιο: ‘unburied death’ is a metaphorical phrase for ‘unburied dead’; Jacobs (1826, 241) compared Zonas 7.404=5,4 GP σὸν μόρον εἰνάλιον; Stadtmüller added Opp. Hal. 5.346 ἀτυμβεύτου δὲ τάφοιο, ‘burial without a > “Epxos ὀδόντων recurs twice elsewhere in the Iliad, seven times in the Odyssey, usually in the phrase ποῖόν σε Eros φύγεν ἔρκος ὀδόντων.

tomb, on men devoured by sea creatures. Close variations of Crinagoras’ expression recur at Nonnus D. 32.199, 34.248 ἀτυμβεύτω... πότμῳ, 36.457 aruußeirw... μοίρῃ; ἀτύμβευτος is a rare word, used principally by Nonnus,

often in the same sedes as in the present poem. 4 λείψανον: in the same sedes at Crin. 41,6; see ad loc. For an abstract noun

(comparable to θάνατος here) connected to λείψανον, cf. Bion Borysthenites fr. 64 Kindstrand τὸ γῆρας λείψανον εἶναι τοῦ βίου, Nonnus D. 28.147 Yvopens... λείψανον, cf. 18.159 λείψανον Ἠοῦς. In the Anthology, Rufinus 5.62=23,2 Page λείψανα... ἡλικίης, the expression taken up also by Agathias in 6.76,4, Mel. 5.166=52,3 HE oropyns... λείψανα (see Gow-Page ad loc.), Leon. 6.4=52,8 HE

ἀρχαίας λείψανα τεχνοσύνας, Agath. 5.302,13 λείψανον αἰδοῦς. εἰνόδιον... παρερχομένων: ‘a cause for tears on the road for the wayfarers’; Gow-Page compare Theodoridas AP 7.527=8,1 HE κηδεμόνων μέγα δάκρυον. Cf. also Peek 1960=376,6 Kaibel (Ap I-II) κακὸν γονέων χηροσύνης δάκρυον, Peek 1541=201,1 Kaibel (II-I Bc), Peek 1545,5 (Ap I-II). See further Seelbach 97.

Gow-Page remark that the dative mapepyoudvors would have rendered the

expression easier; Crinagoras 8,1 displays a similar structure with the dative, τὴν κούροις ἱερὴν ἔριν, ‘subject for strife. Note, however, δάκρυον with the genitive in Theodoridas 8,1 HE and Peek 1960,6, as in the present poem. The same vocabulary is used by Antip. Thess. at AP 9.3=106,lf. GP eivodinv καρύην μεπαρερχομένοις ἐφύτευσαν / παισί... παίγνιον. Εἰνόδιος, by the road, is a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il, 16.259£.). The word occurs at [Theocr.] 25.4, five times in Nonnus; some of its occurrences in the Anthology are Antip. Thess. loc. cit,, Phanias 6.299=5,1, Theodoridas 7.479=16,4 HE, Archias 7.213=21,5 GP. Meineke’s conjecture εἰνοδίων (232) can be supported by the

similar phrase (same sedes) at anon. AP 7.48,4 καὶ πόνος eivodiou τῇδε παρερχομένοις (which Meineke discusses), but, as Gow-Page observe, this would spoil the beauty of the phrase. A metaphorical usage of the word, comparable to the present εἰνόδιον δάκρυ, is Arat. 131f. κακοεργόν.... μάχαιραν /

eivodinv, ‘the criminal sword for murder on the highways’ (Kidd; see ad loc.). The presence of the skull by the road might be an ironical allusion to dedicatory objects placed by the road. Cf. anon. AP 6.37=77,3 FGE, a staff offered by herdsmen to Pan. ITapepydpevos is a conventional word for the ‘passer-by; esp. in sepulchral poems. Cf. anon. AP 7.48,4 (see above), Antagoras 7.103=1,2 ἔννεπε... ξεῖνε, παρερχόμενος, Call. 7.523=39,2 tore τὸν Ἱππαίου παῖδα παρερχόμενοι; cf. παρέρχομαι at Call. 7.271=45,4 HE, Peek 967=226,9f. Kaibel (Ap III-IV), Peek

1295=278,4 Kaibel (Ap III).

δάκρυ: Leonidas asserts that no one will shed tears for the dead mans bones, exposed on the road (7.478=73,6 HE) σοί δ᾽ οὐδεὶς οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ δάκρυ βαλεῖ. Cf. the

notion that such a spectacle should be a cause for tears at anon. AP 9.159=62,1f.

470

AP 9.439=47

FGE κρανίον... τις ἐσαθρῶν | εἰκόνα τὴν κοινὴν οὐκ ἐδάκρυσε βίου; cf. also Auson. ep. 76,3 Green fleverunt alii, fletu non motus Achillas, etc. (see Page FGE 366f.). For the common request for tears from the wayfarer in sepulchral poems, cf. Peek 669=363,6 Kaibel (An II-III), Peek 963=127,5 Kaibel (ap II-II), Peek 1243=564,1f. Kaibel (ap II), Peek 804=236,9 Kaibel (II-I sc). Also cf. Peek 1924,58f.=618b,15f. Kaibel (ap I-IT) οὔτις ἀδακρύτοισι τεὸν παρὰ τύμβον

ἀμείβων 7 ὀφθαλμοῖς, κτλ. 56. κεῖσο: the imperative is often uttered in a hostile spirit in the epic, as it is

spoken with contempt by a warrior exulting over a dead or dying enemy. For instance, Il. 21.122, 184, Nonnus Ὁ. 17.292 κεῖσο νέκυς, Qu. Sm. 1.644, 757. Cf. 6.431 κεῖσο κατὰ χθονός (cf. next note), al. However, κεῖσο can be addressed to

the dead in a sympathetic mood, Peek 2040=243,13f, Kaibel (ap I-II) οἷον δὲ Umvowv,...] τοῖος καὶ νέκυς ὧν κε[ἴσο] κατὰ λεχέων. For the word's dedicatory

connotations in the context of the present epigram, see above, intr, note. Nicolini Sabienses (31) and Aldi Filii (31)* printed κεῖτο. κατὰ πρέμνοιο: πρέμνον, the foot ofa

tree trunk, recurs at Crin. 43,6; see ad loc.

Similar constructions to the present phrase are Call. H. 4.209f. ἐκλίθη (sc. Leto).../ φοίνικος ποτὶ πρέμνον, [Theocr.] 20.22 ὡς κισσὸς ποτὶ πρέμνον (for the construction of ποτί + acc. of place where, see Gow and Hunter on Theocr. 1.29), Nic. Th, 418 κατὰ πρέμνον κοίλης ὑπεδύσατο φηγοῦ, anon, API 127,3 Βακχιακὸν παρὰ πρέμνον.

P and Pl have κεῖσο πέλας κατὰ πρέμνοιο, the phrase being deficient in metre and syntax. Most editors before Jacobs accepted the introduction of a σύ (first in Badius and Etienne) to treat the metre and stopped line 5 at ὄφρα: Badius Ascensius (35) and Etienne (53), followed by Brodaeus-Obsopoeus 77, print

κεῖσο πέλας σὺ κατὰ πρέμνοιο παρὰ πρόπον (there, and in his own edition

(1549, 74, where σύ was not added), Brodaeus suggested πρέπον and explained ‘cui terra non esset iniecta’); Lubin (113) printed κεῖσο πέλας σὺ κατὰ πρέμνοιο

παρὰ τρόπον; Brunck printed κεῖσο πέλας σὺ κατὰ πρέμνοιο παρ᾽ ἀτραπὸν ὄφρα / ἀθρήσῃς, correcting the verbal form in the opening of line 6 into subjunctive (similarly de Bosch (1.158), but printing ἀθρήσαις). More recently H. White? defended κεῖσο πέλας σὺ κατὰ πρέμνοιο παρ᾽ ἀτραπόν, ὄφρα / ἀθρήσαις render-

ing ‘lie...nearby...under the tree-stump, so that you may consider what profit; etc. Various are the difficulties arising from these readings: a) being the subject of ἀθρήσαις (-ns), the skull is invited to reflect on the inevitability of death, which does not seem probable; Ὁ) πέλας can hardly stand together with κατὰ πρέμνοιο, even in an absolute construction (‘lie nearby’); c) ὄφρα never stands * For the edition of Aldi Filii (ie. of Paolo Manuzio) repeating the Nicolini one, see on Crin. 19,3 ἄλλιστ᾽ Aidy with note there. ° “Three Epigrams from the Garland of Philip, Corolla Londinensis 5 (1985), 96f.

AP 9,439=47 at verse-end in extant hexameters. So Jacobs and modern editors following him are right in suspecting a lacuna after ὄφρα and deleting either πέλας or κατά. Diibner, Waltz, and Page (1975, 316) print κατὰ πρέμνοιο, accepted also by GowPage (though not admitted in the text) who suspect that the scribe began κεῖσο πέλας by mistake, and after writing κατὰ πρέμνοιο forgot to strike out πέλας, while Jacobs (followed by Geist, Rubensohn, Stadtmüller, Holtze, Beckby, and Paton) restored the text as πέλας πρέμνοιο (Jacobs! in the commentary, Jacobs? and Jacobs 1826 (241) in the text). Gow-Page further remark that xara + gen.

without implication of motion is quite uncommon,’ so that it is less likely to be a result of interpolation. For such a construction, cf. Peek 2040,14 κεῖσο κατὰ λεχέων (see above, on xetao); More than ten instances in Quintus Smyrnaeus: κεῖτο... κατὰ χθονός at 1.663. Cf. 3.396, 6.431; also 8.132 κεκλιμέν᾽... κατὰ χθονός, al.

παρ᾽ ἀτραπόν: cf. Leon. AP 7.478=73,1 HE, also on an unburied corpse, τίνος dpa mapa τρίβον ὀστέα ταῦτα;. For a tomb ‘by the road, cf. AApp 5.30,1f. τοῦτ᾽ jpiov.../...ap0waav τᾷδε παρ᾽ ἀτραπιτῷ. For the expression, cf. Nic. Th. 917 σπέρμα map ἀτραπιτοῖσι xAod lov, Antip. Thess. AP 9.706=81,5 GP παρατραπίην

men ἐοῦσαν (a poplar; for the adjective, see Gow-Page ad loc.). Among modern editors, Dibner, followed by Waltz, falsely reported that Pl has παρὰ τρόπον. In fact, while Pl, Q, and Paris. Gr. 2744 have παρὰ πρόπον, Paris. Gr. 2739 has παρὰ τρόπον. ὄφρα «τις εἴπῃ» ἀθρήσας: ὄφρα «μάθῃ τις», ‘so that a man may learn, is the

supplement of Jacobs (Jacobs 1812, 131 and Jacobs”) accepted by most editors. In a similar way Simonides (20 IEG), after presenting the sorrows of life, pro-

ceeds to advise his audience to enjoy its pleasures (Il. I1f.) ἀλλὰ σὺ ταῦτα μαθὼν βιότου ποτὶ τέρμα | ψυχῇ τῶν ἀγαθῶν TAO χαριζόμενος. Cf. also γιγνώσκειν in final clauses with ὄφρα in Homer (Il. 6.230f. τεύχεα δ᾽ ἀλλήλοις ἐπαμείψομεν, ὄφρα καὶ οἵδε / γνῶσιν ὅτι κτλ., 22.382, Od. 22.373). A similar moral, expressed

also with the verb ἀθρεῖν, appears at Kaibel 344,2-4 (Hadrianoi, Roman period): καὶ θ]ρῆνος γονέων ἀπαρήγορον ἐνθάδ᾽ [ἀθρ]ήσας γνῶθι τέλος Bıörov' διὸ παῖζε τρυφῶν ἐπὶ κόσμῳ, ray

7

‘4

a

a

>

A

͵7

πρὶν σῶν παίδων πένθος τοῖον ἀθρῆσαι ἐπὶ τύμβοις.

Of course, none of these examples are identical in phrasing with our verse. Other suggestions include Sternbach's (1889, 307) ὄφρα (or ὀφρ᾽δ) πελάσσας / ἀθρήσαι, Harberton’s (329) ὄφρ᾽ ὁ παρέρπων / ἀθρήσῃ, supplementing a

substantival form after ὄφρα and making a verb of the first word of line 6, being thus close to Pl’s ἀθρήσαις and Stadtmüller’s ὄφρα τρυφᾷ τις / ἀθρήσας. 6 While πέλας +

gen. is of course a very y common expression denoting pP

proximity; see LSJ s.v.

472

AP 9.439=47

Alan Griffiths suggests ὄῴρα «τις εἴπῃ» ἀθρήσας ἱτίπλέον φειδομένῳ βιότου; comparing Call. AP 12.102=1,3f. HE ἣν δέ τις εἴπῃ / “rq τόδε βέβληται θηρίον),

οὐκ ἔλαβεν and Philip 7.554=27,5f. GP κεῖνος tv’ εἴπῃ | ὄντως πατρῴη χεὶρ ἐπέθηκε λίθον. For ἀθρεῖν with λέγω, φημί, etc., cf. Call. AP 6.148=16,5 HE

ἀθρήσας φήσεις, Apollon. 9.280=21,1 GP εἶπεν ἀθρησας, ‘Plato’ AP] 160=23,3f. PGE ἀθρήσασα...! φθέγξατο, Peek 1612=711 Kaibel (Rome, ap II). Ὄφρα τις εἴπῃ at hexameter-end, introducing someones words, occurs frequently in Nonnus (D. 2.303, 8.249, 15.285, 21.39, al.). In the present edition this supplement

is adopted, as it offers verve and vividness to the narrative. τί πλέον: ‘what profit is it, quid prodest. Cf. next note. In a similar context about the vanity of human efforts, cf. Menecrates AP 9.390=1,5; also Diot. 7.261=4,1

HE ri πλέον eis ὠδῖνα πονεῖν (at the same sedes, verse-opening, as at Alc. Mess. 5.10=6,3 HE, anon. API 125,3). For the phrase, see further Gow on [Theocr.] 8.17, Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 322, Gow-Page, Guichard, and Sens on Asclep. 2,1

HE (AP 5.85,1). Asclepiades’ 2 HE refers to the need to enjoy life in regard to death; the poet sees ‘no profit’ in a girl who φείδεται her maidenhood. See next note.

φειδομένῳ βιότου: ‘ce quon gagne A lésiner sur les moyens d’existence, i.e. ἃ ne

pas jouir des plaisirs de la vie’ (Soury); for φείδεσθαι βιότου, cf. Antip. Sid. AP 7.493=68,6 HE φειδώ... βιότου and [Theocr.] (for its attribution to Theocritus, see

Gow [Theocr.] ep. 25) 7.534,1 ἄνθρωπε ζωῆς περιφείδεο, Diog. Laert. 7.706,2f. οὐδ᾽ ἐφείσατο /...rHs ψυχῆς, φείδεσθαι having the sense ‘have consideration

for!” For more examples of φείδομαι in the Anthology, see further Guichard 148f. and Sens (2011) 9. The vocabulary and context of the phrase suggest that Crinagoras might have in mind Asclepiades 2 HE (see prev. note): Φείδῃ mapdevins‘ καὶ τί πλέον; Οὐ yap és Adnv

ἐλθοῦσ᾽ εὑρήσεις τὸν φιλέοντα, κόρη. Ἐν ζωοῖσι τὰ τερπνὰ τὰ Κύπριδος" ἐν δ᾽ Ἀχέροντι ὀστέα καὶ σποδιή, παρθένε, κεισόμεθα. 3

a

>

€

zZ

x

,

f

The concluding phrase of the present poem echoes Asclepiades’ opening one, while Crinagoras’ opening βρέγμα and its following description corresponds to Asclepiades ὀστέα καὶ σποδιή in the last line.

” See LSJ s.v. IIL.

AP 9.234=48

Ἄχρι τεῦ, & δείλαιε, κεναῖς ἐπὶ ἐλπίσι, θυμέ,

5.

πωτηθεὶς ψυχρῶν ἀσσοτάτω νεφέων ἄλλοις ἀλλ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ὄνειρα διαγράψεις ἀφένοιο; Κτητὸν γὰρ θνητοῖς οὐδὲ ἕν αὐτόματον. Μουσέων ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ δῶρα μετέρχεο, ταῦτα δ᾽ ἀμυδρά εἴδωλα ψυχῆς ἠλεμάτοισι μέθες. ν

~

3

LA

7

—

AP 9.234 [C] Κριναγόρου περὶ φιλοσοφίας καὶ ὅτι μόνη ἀρετὴ τίμιον κτῆμα Pl 1574 (εἰς σοφίαν). 1 Κριναγόρου 1 ἃ PPP: & Pl | ἐπὶ Pl: ἐπ᾿ Ρ 6 μέθες Ρ]Ρ-; -Haıs P et fortasse Pl Brunck n. 33, Rubensohn n. 27

How long, my poor heart, fluttering on empty hopes very near the cold clouds, will you sketch dreams upon dreams of riches? Nothing comes to mortals of its own will. Rather pursue the gifts of the Muses and leave these dim phantoms of the soul to fools. Crinagoras instructs himself to be content with the gifts of the Muses and stop dreaming of riches which cannot be attained. The rhetorical question which moves in the realm of the unreal, describing what cannot be obtained, in the form of the poet's address to his soul, occupies exactly the first half of the poem. Each line of this half has a word denoting the intangible and the imaginative: ἐλπίσι, νεφέων, ὄνειρα, the first two accompan-

ied by terms implying the fallacy/remoteness of these notions: κεναῖς, ψυχρῶν. In the fourth line the poet ‘returns’ to reality with a gnomic assertion introduced with a γάρ which explains the reasons of the vanity of the hopes for wealth expressed in the first sentence, and in the last couplet he offers a ‘solution’ to his worry, articulated with two imperatives addressed again to himself: engagement in poetry and rejection of deceptive thoughts. Here he resumes the first half’s account of the futility of his daydreaming with a firmer spirit of condemnation: he conclusively describes it as ἀμυδρὰ εἴδωλα ψυχῆς, and the dismissal

AP 9.234 = 48 of his ‘other self’s’ thoughts culminates in the absolute denunciation of that mentality, which he now explicitly finds appropriate only for fools, ἠλεμάτοισι.

The idea that poetry offers comfort to any kind of distress is often found in literature. Cf. Pind, N. 4.1-3 ἄριστος εὐφροσύνα πόνων κεκριμένων / ἰατρός" ai δὲ σοφαί / Moody θύγατρες ἀοιδαὶ θέλξαν viv ἁπτόμεναι, Soph. Ichn. (fr. 314 TrGrF) 325f. καὶ τοῦτο λύπης ἔστ᾽ ἄκεστρον / καὶ παραψυκτήριον, Ov. Tr. 4.10,118 tu (Musa) curae requies, tu medicina venis, Hor. Od. 1.32.14f. o laborum / dulce

lenimen.* Theocritus at 11.1-3 claims that there is no other remedy for love than song (cf. also Call. AP 12.150=3 HE). Poetry is for Leonidas in AP 7.715=93 HE a consolation for the bitter fate of dying in a foreign land. The Budé commentators compared Honestus AP 9.230=5 GP, also a praise of poetry. Crinagoras’ mood,

caused by his modest economical state, is relatively similar to Theocritus’ distress in 16.5-7, where the poet complains that his poems cannot offer him any profit. But above all the present epigram recalls Bion 8 Reed, a poem also dealing with the poet’s philosophy of life, especially Il. 10-14, Bion’s protest against the vanity of riches (see below, on ἄχρι τεῦ and ἃ δείλαιε... θυμέ). Bion’s frag-

ment displays features of the cynic diatribe (rhetorical questions, moral issues like the shortness of life) found in Leon. AP7.472=77 HE, as well; cynical is also the spirit of Leon. 6.302=37 and 7.736=33 HE.’ Later epigrammatists’ variously expressed feelings for poverty are Palladas AP 9.394, 10.63, 11.302, 11.303, Agathias 10.66.’ In the present poem Crinagoras, for all his treating the same

general philosophical issue, i.e. the vanity of the desire for wealth, does not express the cynic spirit since he does not offer any generalized philosophical view on life and, more importantly, since he renounces wealth not on grounds of its vanity per se but only because of the practical reason that he cannot obtain it. Giangrande noticed that the motif of poverty can be subdivided into two themes, ‘complaints about impecuniousness or eulogy of frugal life’ (1968b, 135). Crinagoras’ poem belongs to the first category, as the author does not

adopt the elegy’s admiration of frugal life.* The author’s claims about his modest means need not be taken literally, of course, as the poets’ poverty constitutes

a topos in literature, and Crinagoras was in fact neither poor nor of a low social rank (see Intr., Life and Work). Cf. the valuable gifts he sends to his friends; see on 4, intr. note. See also on Crin. 36, intr. note. For the similar exaggerating complaints of Martial, cf. Nauta 87, Schöffel 470-2. For the elegiac motif of poverty as dealt with in the epigram, see Giangrande (1968b) 135ff. For more examples, see Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. Od. 1.32.15. > See Reed on Bion 8.8-14; cf. Giangrande 1968b, 135f. As Reed notes, Crinagoras opposes poetry to the struggle for wealth, while Bion ‘implicitly equates the two’ (see on }. 10 with n. 27). Leonidas’ AP7.472=77 HE has been described as ‘eine wirkliche paränetische Elegie’ (Geficken 1896, 128f.).

* See Giangrande, 1968b, 135. * Despite his occasional reproaches to his poverty (351, 649), Theognis asserts that he is content with little; 11. 1155f. condense his philosophy on wealth: οὐκ ἔραμαι πλουτεῖν οὐδ᾽ εὔχομαι, ἀλλά μοι εἴη / ζῆν ἀπὸ τῶν ὀλίγων μηδὲν ἔχοντι κακόν; see J. Carriere, Théognis de Mégare (Paris 1948), 183, 236f. For Theognis’ place in popular philosophy, see Kindstrand 36.

1 ἄχρι red: for the ‘until when’ rhetorical question, Garzya (123 with ἢ. 8) compared Hom. Il. 24.128, Callin. fr. 1,1 JEG, and Theogn. 1299. The question ἄχρι

or μέχρι τίνος is common in epigrams and occurs almost always at the opening of the poem. Cf. Strato AP 12.21=15, 12.186=27, 12.218=61 Floridi, Paul. Sil. 5.221,

5.226. Immediately followed by the name of the addressee: Asclep. 5.167=14,5 HE, Rufinus 5.103=37,1 Page. Cf. Bion 8.10-12 és πόσον ἃ δειλοὶ καμάτως κεὶς ἔργα πονεῦμες, >

[4

x

4

>

”

a

ψυχὰν δ᾽ ἄχρι τίνος ποτὶ κέρδεα καὶ ποτὶ τέχνας βάλλομες, ἱμείροντες ἀεὶ πολὺ πλείονος ὄλβω;

For epigrams opening with a question, see further Siedschlag 22, n. 9. The μέχρι τίνος question has its origins in sympotic literature; see Siedschlag 22, n. 9. The poet uses the epic τεῦ; in the Anthology, cf. τεῦ χάριν at Nicarchus AP 9,330,3, Antiphilus 9.551=10,2 GP, anon. API 313,2.

ἃ δείλαιε... θυμέ: all editors of Planudes print ὦ (ὦ appearing in Lascaris and his apographs, Paris. Gr. 2891 and 2863. See Intr., Manuscript Tradition, Codex Marcianus Graecus 481 [Pl] and its apographs). Modern editors accept ὦ, For the preference of d over ὦ, cf. the same choice at Theogn. 351, 649 ἃ δειλὴ πενίη (based on Il. 16.837 ἃ δειλέ, 11.816 ἃ δειλοῦ; see Van Groningen ad loc., Gow on

Theocr. ep. 6,1. The exclamation is very common in Homer (for instance, Il. 11.441 and 452, 17.201, 24.518, Od. 11.618, 18.389), the adjective appearing always in the contracted form in Homer. The exclamation in the opening of Theocr. AP 9.432=6 Gow=22 HE is ἃ δείλαιε, and the uncontracted form also occurs at Leon. AP 7.466=71,1 HE, Theocr. 4.60. Address to one’s soul with the vocative θυμέ echoes the same apostrophe of elegy. Cf. Theogn. 213, 877, 1029, especially 695f. οὐ δύναμαί σοι θυμὲ παρασχεῖν ἄρμενα navra: | τέτλαθι- τῶν δὲ καλῶν οὔ τι σὺ μοῦνος Epas.” For other occur-

rences of the apostrophe to one’s θυμός, cf., for instance, Archil. 128,1 LEG, Pind. N. 3.26 and O. 2.89, Call. H. 4.1, fr. 75,4f., Mel. AP 12.117=19,3 and 12.141=96,1f.

ΗΕ. Crinagoras’ peremptory tone in his address to his soul in regard to the ‘disillusioning’ content of the poem and the similarities of expression (‘empty hopes; deceptive ‘images’) recalls Meleager’s erotic distress in AP 12.125=117 HE and especially the final couplet ὦ δύσερως ψυχή, παῦσαί ποτε καὶ δι᾿ ὀνείρων / εἰδώλοις κάλλευς κωφὰ χλιαινομένη.

* The apostrophe to one's heart, however, is found as early as Od. 20.18 τέτλαϑι δή, κραδίη: see Van Groningen on Theogn. 695 and Garzya 123. ° In her classification of the references to thymios in Homer and lyric poetry, Darcus Sullivan

(152) includes this passage, as well as the passages of Theognis mentioned above, in the category of Θυμός as an Active Agent, on the grounds that the vocative suggests ‘that θυμός acts independently within a person! For bibliography on the discussion of the use of thymios in Greek literature,

see Darcus Sullivan 147, nn.

land 2.

476

AP 9.234=48

The vocative with @ in the present poem has a confidential-emotional tone, as in Call. H. 4.1, similarly to the Homeric practice. See Intr. Language and Style, Apostrophes. κεναῖς ἐπὶ ἐλπίσι: editors have tried to cure the hiatus by proposing either a) ἔτ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίσι (Jacobs’, followed by Geist, Rubensohn, Stadtmüller, and Beckby) or

b) κεναῖσιν ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίσι (Boissonade in J. Ε Boissonade and A. Villemain, Babrii Fabulae lambicae CXXIII (Paris 1844), 39-40, and Bothe in Dübner, printed in

Diibner, followed by Paton and Waltz). Gow-Page, who retain the reading of the Planudean

codex (like Brunck, Jacobs’, and Jacobs 1826, 246), rightly

remark that a) is unlikely after the opening ἄχρι red and b) creates a trochaic

break in the fourth dactyl, a metrical abnormality very unusual in the poets of the Garland (see Intr., Metre, Hermanns Bridge). Crinagoras’ passage bears a resemblance to Hes. Op. 498f. πολλὰ δ᾽ ἀεργὸς ἀνήρ, Kevenv ἐπὶ ἐλπίδα μίμνων |

... προσελέξατο θυμῷ. Crinagoras is perhaps reminiscent of the Hesiodic passage and might be further taking into account the operative digamma, as Hesiod does, although he is in general indifferent to hiatus. See Intr., Metre,

Hiatus.

For the motif of empty hopes, common in Greek literature (which Crinagoras uses in a similar rhetorical question also in the opening of 16), see West on Hes. loc. cit. cf. Pind. N, 8.45 κενεᾶν δ᾽ ἐλπίδων χαῦνον τέλος, Aesch. Pers. 804

(with Garvie ad loc.), Soph. Aj. 478, El. 1460 (with Finglass ad locc.), Eur. IA 987, Mel. AP 12.125=117,4, anon. 12.90=1,8 HE. For a similar construction, cf. Nonnus D, 35.195 καὶ κενεῇ χρόα λοῦσεν em’ ἐλπίδι, 36.246 καὶ Keven πολέμιζεν ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι.

2 πωτηθείς: the verb is a poetic frequentative of ποτάομαι and a Homeric ἁπαξ

λεγόμενον (Il, 12.287). See Hatzikosta on Theocr. 7.142. In regard to the ‘fluttering on hopes, cf. Aristoph. Eq. 1244 λεπτή τις ἐλπὶς ἐστ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἧς ὀχούμεθα, Lucian Alex. 16.3f. ἀνθρώπων... ταῖς ἐλπίσιν ἐπαιωρουμένων. Jacobs’ further cites Philo Ebr. 36.7 ἀνθρώπων κεναῖς αἰωρουμένων δόξαις (cf. Philo Mut. 94.4f. of ἐν ταῖς κεναῖς φερόμενοι δόξαις) and Dio Cass. 44.17 ἔδοξε καὶ ὁ Καῖσαρ ἐπί τε τῶν νεφῶν μετέωρος αἰωρεῖσθαι

καὶ τῆς τοῦ Διὸς χειρὸς ἄπτεσθαι. Cf. also the fluttering because of hope at Pind. P 8.90 (with Giannini and Ἰακώβ ad loc.), Soph. OT 487. Cf. also Mac. Cons. AP 10.70,4f. doAıxais δ ἐλπίσι παιζόμενος /... γέγηθα πλανώμενος. For the ‘fluttering soul; cf. Eur. ΕἸ. 175-8 οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἀγλαΐαις, φίλαι, / θυμὸν οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ χρυσέοις | ὅρμοις ἐκπεπόταμαι / τάλαιν᾽, Cf. Theocr. 2.19 δειλαία, πᾷ τὰς 7. Cf. Plato Leg. 6990 ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ἐλπίδος ὀχούμενοι. More examples are cited by Porson on Eur. Or. 68-9 (R. Porson, Euripidis, Orestes, London 1811). Cf. also Palladas’ rejection of Hope and Tyche (AP 9.49,1, 134,1, 172,1); see Bowras discussion (‘Palladas on Tyche, CQ 10 (1960), 126-8).

For the common notion that Tyche is the giver of wealth, see Kindstrand 196f., 246f.

AP 9,.234= 48

477

φρένας ἐκπεπότασαι; and the same sentence again at 11.72, which opens Polyphe-

mus’ ‘disillusioned’ question to himself in another poem of self-consolation for something that cannot be achieved. Aristophanes occasionally uses expressions referring to the ‘flying’ of soul or mind, either in the sense of ‘dreaming, as in the present epigram (Vesp. 93), or in the sense of excitement (Nub. 319, Av. 1445).° Cf. also Theogn. 1053 τῶν yap μαινομένων πέτεται θυμός τε νόος Te.

Crinagoras seems to combine the two expressions, that of a ‘fluttering soul’ with that of people ‘fluttering on hopes’ in a new image, where it is the soul and not the man as a whole that now flutters on hopes; thus he stresses both his strong longing to obtain wealth and, at the same time, the impossibility of the realization of his dream. buxypav...vebewv: Crinagoras soul flies near the clouds which are cold because they do not provide the hoped-for result, as Jacobs (1826, 246-7) remarked, comparing Eur. Alc. 353 ψυχράν... τέρψιν, IA 1014 puypd... ἐλπίς, Hor. Epist.

1.3,26 frigida curarum fomenta. Cf. also Soph. Ant. 650 ψυχρὸν παραγκάλισμα, with which Griffith compares Eur. Alc. 353. Mayer compares Horace's expression to Crinagoras’ line, noting that “Florus’ cares... chill his ingenium’? Clouds can be cold literally (of winter, [Opp.] Cyn. 1.119) or metaphorically (Kaibel 1028,68 (Andros, Augustan times), πολέμω κρυερὸν νέφος). ἀσσοτάτω: cf. the same construction and sedes of the word (but as adjective) at Crin. 6,4. As here, as an adverb, Crin. 38,7; see ad loc. Paris. Gr. 2739 reads ἀσσοτάτων.

3 ἄλλοις ἄλλ᾽ Em = ἀλλ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλοις; cf. Plato Rep. 369c οὕτω δὴ dpa παραλαμβάνων ἄλλος ἄλλον, ἐπ᾽ ἄλλου, κτλ. Self-variation with Crin. 38,8 ἄλλα... ἀλλοῖαι;

see ad loc. διαγράψεις: ‘sketch. The metaphor is from painting; cf. Plato Rep. 500e αὐτὴν (τὴν πόλιν) διαγράψειαν of τῷ θείῳ παραδείγματι χρώμενοι ζωγράφοι, with G. Stallbaum (Platonis Politia, London 1858) ad loc.

ὄνειρα... ἀφένοιο: for the rare construction of ὄνειρον + gen., of things dreamed of, cf. Plut. Thes. 32.1 ws ὄναρ ἐλευθερίας ὁρῶντας. Cf. Philod. AP 5.25=3,6 GP (15 Sider) οὐδ᾽ ὄναρ οἷδε φόβου (the ‘shade’ of fear), ἄφενος is

masculine here, as at Call. H. 1.96, where it appears in the same form of the genitive; the masculine is a variant at Il. 1.171, 23.299, Od. 14.99, Hes. Op. 24, 637, Th. 112, and Call. H. 1.94. McLennan

remarks that adevoro could be

the genitive of the neuter ἄφενον, as there are some -os (neuter)/-ov (neuter)

® See Kakridis on Av. 1445, Ε, W. Handley, ‘Words for “soul’, “heart” and “mind” in Aristophanes, RhM 99 (1956), 215, 218f., P. Huart, Γνώμη chez Thucydide et ses contemporains (Paris 1973), 60. ? See R. Mayer, Horace: Epistles, Book 1 (Cambridge 1994), on Ep. 1.3.26.

alternatives in Greek (for instance δένδρος--δένδρον), but the great amount of -os (neuter)/-os (masculine) alternatives in Greek renders the masculine almost

certain.'?

4: As Gow-Page comment, Crinagoras seems to mean that the acquisition of

wealth demands efforts which are beyond his power. For a similar difficulty, cf. the exaggerating comparison of the effort needed to persuade an avaricious

man with superhuman toils in Theocr. 16.60-3. The line is encased by an adjective and the noun it qualifies; see on Crin. 5,1. κτητόν... θνητοῖς: possessible, acquirable by mortals. For the construction, cf. Plato Symp. 197d (Ἔρως)... ζηλωτὸς ἀμοίροις, κτητὸς εὐμοίροις, Dio Cass, 11.43,11 τὸ μὲν κτητὸν διὰ βραχέος τοῖς τὸν νοῦν αὐτῷ προσέχουσι, Jos. A). 3.166,5 οὐ κτητὸς ἀνθρώποις κόσμος. Krnrös (only here in the Anthology) is a

Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 9.407, same sedes) and appears rarely in poetry; cf. Eur. Hipp. 1295, Hel. 903. At Hes. Op. 406, it has the sense οἔκεκτημένος. See LSJ s.v. I.

yap: it introduces the reality presented in I. 4 (difficulty to acquire riches) as a justification of the scepticism about the validity of the wish for wealth developed in the first half of the poem. For the confirmatory ydp (‘giving the ground for belief’), see Denniston 58, I.

οὐδὲ ἕν; for the poet's indifference to hiatus, see Intr., Metre, Hiatus. The phrase is common in prose and comedy (Aristoph. Lys. 1045, Ran. 927, Pl. 138

and 1115). In hexameter or elegiac poetry very rarely: [Theocr.] 23.3, Antip. Thess. AP 7.629=76,3 GP, anon. 9.138,3. This phrase and its hiatus are ‘not common in serious poetry, Gow remarks on [Theocr.] 23.3. See also Dover on Ran. 927. αὐτόματον: the word is traditionally associated with abundance, as it recalls the

Hesiodic image of earth providing fruit of its own accord in the Golden Age, Op. 117. καρπὸν δ᾽ ἔφερε ζείδωρος ἄρουρα αὐτομάτη πολλὸν τε Kal ἄφθονον ΕΣ

7

2

Vw

The same reminiscence occurs at Aristoph. Ach. 976, and, as has been observed,

the word is always present in the Schlaraffenland of the Old Comedy: cf., for instance, Telecleides fr. 1,3 ἡ γῆ δ᾽ ἔφερ᾽οὐ δέος οὐδὲ νόσους, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτόματ᾽ἦν τὰ

δέοντα, Metagenes fr. 6,9, Pherecrates fr. 113,6 and 137,3 K-A."! Cf. the idyllic

10 See MacLennan’s discussion on Call, H. 1.94. Also West on Hes. Th. 112-13.

* See Olson on Aristoph. Ach. 976.

image of abundance at Dioscorides AP7.31=19,5 and 7f. HE and a similar image

(response of Rhea to her worshippers) at Ap. Rh. 1.1142f. 5f.

Μουσέων.... δῶρα: the expression occurs frequently in Greek literature,

indicating music or poetry in general; cf., for instance, Hes. Th. 103 δῶρα θεάων (sc. of the Muses), Archil. 1,2 IEG, Solon 13,51 IEG, Theogn. 250, Leon. AP

7.715=93,5, Alc. Mess. 12.64=9,5 HE, anon, API 295,7£., Opp. Hal. 2.26; cf. also Peek 127,2 (Thespiae, Ap II-III), Peek 1025=617,4 Kaibel (Rome, AD II), Peek

588=106,2 Kaibel (Athens, Ap III).'?

For the position of ἀλλά, see on Crin. 9,5 δαίμονες ἀλλὰ δέχοισθε. ἀλλ᾽... μετέρχεο, ταῦτα δ᾽; the imperative appears twice in Homer (II. 5.429 and 6.86). Crinagoras’ phrase, with which he turns himself to the occupation that is appropriate for him, seems to be modelled on the similar epic advice of Zeus to Aphrodite not to enter the battlefield, Il. 5.428f. ov τοι τέκνον ἐμὸν δέδοται πολεμήϊα ἔργα, ἀλλὰ σύ γ᾽ ἱμερόεντα μετέρχεο ἔργα γάμοιο, ταῦτα δ᾽ Ἄρηϊ θοῷ καὶ Ἀθήνῃ πάντα μελήσει. „

é

3

\

,

2.»

„

Note the probable echo of the present poem in Pall. AP 9.171,2 where the poet, brought to despair by his poverty, sells his books and decides to change profession eis ἑτέρας τέχνης ἔργα μετερχόμενος.

ἀμυδρά | εἴδωλα ψυχῆς: images, phantoms of the soul, i.e. created by it. Cf. Plato Phaedo 66c ἐρώτων δὲ καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν καὶ φόβων καὶ εἰδώλων παντοδαπῶν καὶ φλυαρίας ἐμπίμπλησιν ἡμᾶς πολλῆς (the body), Crinagoras may be play-

ing with the Homeric description of the souls of the dead as εἴδωλα (Il. 23.72, Od. 24.14, Il. 23.104), using the same words in a different context and meaning. For ἀμυδρός qualifying an image of the mind, cf. Plato Tim. 49a ἀμυδρὸν

εἶδος. Cf. the ‘dim phantom’ visiting Penelope, Od. 4.824 and 835 εἴδωλον ἀμαυρόν.

ἠλεμάτοισι: in earlier poetry the word is found only at Sappho fr. 26,5 and Alc. fr. 70,4 L-P. In later poetry it occurs quite often, as it is used by Hellenistic

'? Likewise wine is δῶρα Διωνύσου (Hes. Op. 614), sleep ὕπνον δῶρον (Il. 7.482), marriage δῶρον Ἀφροδίτης (Hes. Sc. 47); see West on Hes. Th. 102-3. In regard to the use of the expression in Alc. Mess. and Crinagoras, Skiadas (1965, 77f.) observes that in some cases it is very difficult, if not impossible, to decide whether these later poets refer specifically to earlier works where the expression appears (while in other cases it is not: Leon, AP 7.715=93,5f. HE is an imitation of Theogn. 250, as shown by Reitzenstein, 157), since poetic expressions are transmitted through literature in one way or another.

70

AP 9,234=48

poets for the Homeric ἠλεός (Od. 2.243, 14.464).'° Cf. Theocr. 15.4 ὦ τᾶς ἀλεμάτω ψυχᾶς (prob.),'4 Ap. Rh. 4.1206 ὅτ᾽ ἠλεμάτως KoAyoe μάθον ἀντιόωντες, Call. Η. 6.90 ἀλεμάτως ... κατέρρεεν, Agath. 11.350,6 ἠλεμάτου παίγνια φαντασίης, μέθες: for μέθες + dat., ‘leave to, cf. Il. 14.364 μεθίεμεν Ἕκτορι νίκην and Eur,

Ba. 350 στέμματ᾽ ἀνέμοις καὶ θυέλλαισιν μέθες.

13. See Mooney on Ap. Rh. 4.1206.

** See Gow on Theocr. 15.4.

AP 9.513 =49

A pdpacw ev πολλοῖσι διέπρεπες, ὅσσα Mévavdpos ἔγραφεν, ἢ Movaewv σὺν μιῇ ἢ Χαρίτων. 4

nn

LA

\

aN

/

_— AP 9.513 Κριναγόρου caret Pl Jacobs! Paral. 65, Rubensohn n. 38

You were excellent in many dramas that Menander wrote with the aid of one of the Muses or the Graces. On an actor famous for roles in Menander's comedies. The phrasing and structure of the couplet resembles Crin. 7,3f. (on Anacreon); see further ad loc. and, for the authenticity of the couplet, on Crin. 7, intr. note and 3f. The alliteration of 6, p, 7, and o is predominant in the first line at the bucolic diaeresis of which starts the description of Menander and his talent, continuing in and occupying the rest of the distich. Other references to comic actors in the Anthology are Call. 6.311=27 (on the dedication of the comic mask of Agoranax), Phalaecus 13.6=3 HE (on Lycon, an

epitaph), Palladas 11.263 (on Paulus, a bad actor playing roles of Menander). See Raines 85f. and passim, for comedy in general in the Greek epigram.' The past tense here implies that the actor has stopped acting, as Stadmüller observed; the scholar further assumed that the poem appeared on the tomb of

the actor, adorned with a statue of himself; Gow-Page added that the monument could consist in a relief sculpture representing the actor, Menander and

‘a female figure whom Crinagoras supposes to be “either one of the Muses or one of the Graces”. As Gow-Page observe, the assumption that this is an inscribed poem can be supported by evidence like the epitaph in Peek (681, Athens, ap I) ofan actor specialized in Menandrian roles, whose name (Strato) was inscribed

separately. As regards epigrams which were presumably real inscriptions and are preserved in the Anthology as well, we have a series of epitaphs in the 1 J. M. Raines, ‘Comedy and the Comic Poets in the Greek Epigram, TAPA 77 (1946), 83-102.

seventh book accompanied by information about the place of their discovery, like 7.330=Peek 274 (Dorylaion), 7.331=Peek 676 (Charax), 7.332=Peek 1818 (Acmonia), 7.333=Peek 1563 (Azanoi), 7.334=Peek 2004 (Cyzicus), 7.340=Peek

319 (Thessalonica).? However, the purely epideictic character of the present poem cannot be excluded: the epigram can be totally unrelated to any monu-

ment, and be (part of) a literary epitaph of a well-known person, like Crin. 18 or 20, for some reason placed in the ninth instead of the seventh book of the Anthology similarly to Crin. 14 which is placed in the fifth instead of the seventh book (see ad loc., intr. note).

Jacobs (Jacobs’ (the poem appears in Paralipomena, ἢ. 65) and Jacobs?) holds that the extant distich is a part of an epigram the other couplet(s) of which contained the name of the actor and are now lost. We have epigrams consisting only in one couplet (for instance all the epigrams on Myron’s Cow are distichs; cf. further Siedschlag 81), but they are quite different from the present epigram, as they contain the important information the reader needs to know. If indeed the present epigram is only a fragment of the original poem, its case is similar to that of Crin. 30, of which the Planudean codex preserves only the last couplet. 1 at Peek 681,1f. (see above, intr. note), the actor’s aptitude is described as Mevavöpeiwv ἐπέων δεδαηκότα πάσας / τύξιας εὐιέροις ἀγλαὸν ἐν θυμέλαις. δράμασιν ἐν πολλοῖσι: cf. the Homeric phrasing Od. 8.232 κύμασιν ἐν πολλοῖσ᾽,

19.110 ἀνδράσιν ἐν πολλοῖσι (same sedes); also Palladas AP 10.84,2 δάκρυσι δ᾽ ἐν πολλοῖς (same sedes). διέπρεπες: the verb first at h. Merc. 351. For the construction, cf. Lucian Salt. 9.5

διαπρέψαντα ἐν τῇ ὀρχηστικῇ. As regards the imperfect, which describes the qualities of the dead in epitaphs, the Budé commentators compare ‘Plato’ 7.670=2,1 FGE ἔλαμπες and Jul. Aeg. 7.601,6 λάμπες. Add Peek 735=590,6 Kaibel (AD III?) ῥητῆρσι μετέπρεπες Αὐσονίοισι, Philod. 7.222=26 GP=33,3 Sider ἢ καλύβη Kat δοῦμος ἐνέπρεπεν. For the praise of the dead, see further on Crin. 14,4 ἐς etdeos ...eveykanevn.

2 ἔγραφεν: in the Anthology used for poets at Lucillius 9.572,2 (same sedes) and Asclep. AP 9.64=45,8 HE, both on Hesiod. Μουσέων.... Χαρίτων: the forms again in Crinagoras at 11,2 and 48,5 (Movoew»;

at 11,2 at the same sedes, referring to Callimachus art), 7,2 and 14,6 (χαρίτων, also pentameter-end; at 7,2 also of a poet, Anacreon), At Crin. 39,4 the art of a ? Not sepulchral: for instance, Geminus AP! 103=7 GP, on a bronze statue of Heracles by Lysippus, which has been found inscribed on a statue base, now lost, of a copy of the work, See Gow- Page on Geminus 7, intr. note. Philip AP! 104=69 GP is probably an imitation of Geminus’ poem (or vice versa: cf. Gow-Page on Gem. 7, intr. note).

pantomimist is described as χάριτες; see ad loc. For the ὁμοιοτέλευτον see Intr.,

Metre, Homoeoteleuton and agreement between pentameter ends. Here the figure stresses the correspondence between the correlated deities.

The combination of the Muses and the Graces is very common in praises of poets in the Anthology. For Menander, cf. Palladas 10.52,2 ws ἀνὴρ Μουσῶν καὶ Χαρίτων τρόφιμος. Cf. also anon. 9,187=42,1-4 FGE. Muses and Graces associated with other poets: Simias 7.22=5,6 (on Sophocles) Μουσῶν ἄμμιγα καὶ Χαρίτων (which Hecker 1843, 176 and 1852, 264 first compared with the present phrase), Alc. Mess, 7.1=11,8 (on Homer) Μουσάων ἀστέρα καὶ Χαρίτων, Mel. 7.419=4,2f. HE (on himself) ὁ τὸν γλυκύδακρυν Ἔρωτα / καὶ Μούσας ἱλαραῖς

συστολίσας Χάρισιν, anon. 7.416=45,1f. FGE (on Meleager) τὸν σὺν Ἔρωτι / καὶ Μούσαις κεράσανθ᾽ ἡδυλόγους Χάριτας. Cf. Greg. Naz. on Euphemius, 8.126,3,

8.127,1{. 8.134,3. Cf. the dialogue between the Muses and the Graces on the same in 8.128. See also Kannicht on Eur. Hel. 1341-5. For the collaboration of Muse and the poet, and a review of the relevant bibliography, see A. Hardie, “The Pindaric Sources of Horace “Odes 1.12”, HSCP 101 (2003), 379 with n. 38.

σύν: for the preposition, used to express the aid of the Muses to a poet, cf. anon. AP 5.201=37,3 τοῦτο τὸ σὺν Μούσαισι μεληθέν, Mel. 7.417=2,3 HE ὁ σὺν Μούσαις

Μελέαγρος, Antiphil. 9.192=36,7 GP ἵλατε σὺν Μούσαισι.5

* See further P. Bing, The Well-Read Muse (Göttingen 1988), 20,

API199=50

Kai κλαῖε καὶ στέναζε συσφίγγων χεροῖν

τένοντας, ὦ 'πίβουλε'" τοῖα τοι πρέπει. Οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ὁ λύσων' μὴ λεειν᾿ ὑπόβλεπε: αὐτὸς yap ἄλλων ἐκ μὲν ὀμμάτων δάκρυ ἔθλιψας, ἐν δὲ πικρὰ καρδίᾳ βέλη πήξας ἀφύκτων ἰὸν ἔσταξας πόθων 3

5.

4

A)

ὔ

Ἔ

La

3

pus, τὰ

>

4

3

3A

0

A

>

”

4

/

7

θνητῶν δ᾽ ἐστί σοι γέλως ἄχη. -“

δ᾽

5

΄

IA

La

Πέπονθας of ἔρεξας" ἐσθλὸν ἡ δίκη. PIIV? 8 (εἰς ἀγάλματα θεῶν καὶ θεαινῶν), 48 Kpıvayöpov εἰς τὸ αὐτό [sc. ἀγαλμα Ἔρωτος dedeuevov] caret P Brunck n. 1, Rubensohn n. 50

Weep and groan trying to set free the sinews of your arms, schemer; this is what you deserve. There is no one to untie you; do not look at us piteously; for you yourself, Eros, have squeezed tears from other eyes and, having fixed bitter arrows in the heart, you instilled the poison of inescapable desires, and the woes of mortals are your laughter. You have suffered what you have done; justice is something excellent. On an image of Eros in bonds. In the first three lines of the poem we have Eros’ punishment: he is presented as a prisoner, through a series of negative imperatives which describe the god’s plaintive reaction to his bondage (κλαῖε, arevale, ὑπόβλεπ᾽). In the next four

lines, through a series of, for which he is presently form ἐστί epitomizes all permanent source of joy

mainly, forms in the aorist, we hear of Eros’ past acts punished: ἔθλιψας, wi fas, ἔσταξας; the final present Eros’ afflictions to humans, since these constitute a for him. At the last line of the poem, the mischief

(ll. 4-7) and the punishment (ll. 1-3) is summarized in three words which

densely describe the just correspondence of deeds and affliction: πέπονθας of ἔρεξας. And the next sentence, also of three words, closes the poem with an

axiom which approves the accurate repayment presented in the previous sentence, confirming that justice is something ἐσθλόν. The poem is written in iambic trimeters; for its metre, see Intr., Metre, lambic. It appears last in a series of epigrams, variations of one another, ‘on a statue of

Eros Bound’ in Pl: the others are Satyrus AP! 195=5 FGE, Alc. Mess. API 196=19

HE, Antip. Thess. AP! 197=89, Maccius API 198=11 GP." Geist (8) rejected the ascription to Crinagoras on the grounds of subject, metre, and style: in regard

to metre, Geist rejected both this and the iambic AP 7.380 as alien to the poet's practice; as regards content and style, he claimed that the poem is far from Crinagoras’ expression of ‘high tones’ and lacked any epic element, and also

that its subject is outside the range of the poet's usual interests. Although these points, and especially Geist's remarks concerning the language, should not be ignored, the absence of high epic expression agrees with the playful and ironic mood that the theme itself demands. Even if it does not belong to the poet's usual themes, we cannot deny the possibility that Crinagoras experimented

with an exercise on a subject fashionable at his time. Other poems where Eros is slave/captive, literally or figuratively, are Mel. AP 5.177=37 and 5,178=38, 12.113=62, anon. 12.112=15 HE.” In AP5.179=7 HE Meleager

threatens Eros that he will burn his arrows and bind him in chains. For Eros being tied up as a punishment for his acts against mortals, cf. also Moschus I (Ἔρως δραπέτης) and Ausonius’ Cupido Cruciatur. Ausonius’ piece is inspired by a work of art, a wall painting the author saw in Trier, as he himself explains in the introductory note addressed to Gregorius Proclus, to whom he sends the poem. The image of Eros in bondage is not uncommon in Hellenistic art.” Bonner placed Crinagoras’ poem in parallel with a scene carved on a gem: on the right Eros has his hands bound to a post, on which appears a griffin, symbol of Nemesis, and on the left Psyche is approaching Eros holding a torch. Over the scene we read δικαίως: Eros is tortured as he has tortured the soul. The final verse of Crinagoras’ poem implies the idea of ‘justice’ exactly as it is depicted on the gem.” A work belonging to this obviously common type of relief, therefore, with a reference to δίκη, may indeed have constituted Crinagoras’ source of inspiration, although the writing of such poems seems to be a familiar poetic exercise of Hellenistic and later times. * For the thematic relation of the certainly Philippan poets’ (Maccius and Crinagoras) AP!198 and 199, see A. Cameron, "Ihe Garlands of Meleager and Philip, GRBS 9 (1968), 345. * See further P. A. Rosenmeyer, The Poetics ofImitation: Anacreon and the Anacreontic Tradition (Cambridge 1992), 185.

* For archaeological and literary evidence, see W. Fauth-Gatlingen, ‘Cupido Cruciatur, Grazer Beiträge 2 (1974), 45-50 (also mentioning Crinagoras’ poem (50)), Roscher 3.2, 3244-6 (s.v. Psyche).

* See O. Jahn, ‘Auf Eros und Psyche bezügliche Kunstwerke, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig 3 (1850), 164, and C. Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets (Ann Arbor 1950), 121. Description of the gem to which Bonner reiers (Ruthven 2) in Bonner 279, n, 161; photograph in Pl. VIII.

Eros receives the treatment that he deals out to others. Cf. his complaint

when stung by a bee and his mother’s reply (Anacreont. 35); in Antip. Thess,

API 197=89 GP every punishment of the boy corresponds to his own deeds (πυρὶ πῦρ, δόλον... δόλῳ, and tears for tears); at Satyrus API 195=5,5f. FGE he

is being fastened exactly as he himself binds humans: cf. AP Mel. 12.132=21,3f. (to his soul) εἷλέν σε πάγη. Ti μάτην Evi δεσμοῖς | σπαίρεις; Αὐτὸς "Ἔρως ra πτερά σου δέδεκεν and 12,158=93,3 HE δαμάσαι ἀλύτοισι χαλινοῖς, Also cf. Eros’

image as ἃ gaoler of the soul at Mel. 12.80=17,5f. HE, which seems to be ἃ direct reversal of Moschus setting, πάλιν ef oe φυγοῦσαν / λήψετ᾽ "Epws, εὑρὼν δραπέτιν

αἰκίσεται, and Meleager’s self-image as a slave of love at 12.81=86,5 HE. Unlike Satyrus, Crinagoras does not make explicit the idea of direct retribution in the case of the fastening; the last verse, however, may suggest that Eros’ binding also corresponds to his own binding of the soul. Other poems on a payment to Eros corresponding to his deeds are Mel. AP 12.144=106 HE, on an Eros now himself in love, and anon. AP! 251, on an image of Eros and Anteros, the latter attacking the former with an equal amount of fire and ‘bitter arrows. If. καὶ κλαῖε: Maccius’ poem, too, opens with In an equally mocking spirit Antipater at AP! not to shed tears, as he is the one who rejoices αὐτός... ἔθλιψας. Eros is crying for his suffering

the sarcastic imperative «Aate. 197=89,3f. GP advises the boy δάκρυσιν ἠϊθέων; see below, on at Mel. AP 12.144=106,] HE and

anon. API 251,4 (see above, intr. note).

A similar phrasing with emphatic imperatives in the apostrophe is Theocr. AP 7.664=14,1 HE Ἀρχίλοχον καὶ στᾶθι καὶ εἴσιδε.

στέναζε: Eros is receiving the treatment that he hands out, as the verb is characteristic of the symptoms of love: στενάχειν in Mel. 5.160=26,2 HE, Agath. AP 5.267,1, Mac. Cons, 5.229,3. Στενάζειν occurs only here in the Anthology and appears mainly in tragedy.

συσφίγγων: the active participle can only mean that Eros is binding himself even more tightly in his effort to escape (Huet 32). Huet further proposed σὺ σφίγξον (as if the poet addressed a servant, instructing him to tie the boy more

tightly), Jacobs! suggested (without printing it) νῦν σφιγχθείς, and Graefe (47) emended to συσφίγκτοιν χεροῖν. Boissonade’s correction (in Dibner) συσφιγχθείς gives the verse the required meaning, as it points to the agent of Eros fastening.

Cf. the other poems on the fastening of Eros: Maccius API 198=11,1 GP κλαῖε δυσεκφύκτως odıyxdeis χέρας, Mel. AP 5.179=7,6 HE σφίξω cots περὶ ποσσὶ πέδην." Alcaeus uses σφίγγεσθαι for Marsyas at API8=18,5 HE δὴ yap ἀλυκτοπέδαις σφίγγῃ χέρας. At Herondas 5.25 σύσφιγγε τοὺς ἀγκῶνας is the order to the * For the meaning, cf, also Satyrus API 195=5,1f. FGE τίς ἐν deopota.../ ὥχμασεν;, Alc. Mess.

API196=19,2 HE ris πλέγδην σὰς ἐνέδησε χέρας, Antip. Thess. APl197=89,1 GP ris δὴ cas παλάμας πρὸς κίονα δῆσεν; 4

,

a

person who will tie the slave up. In the present epigram there remains, nevertheless, the difficulty of justifying the corruption of συσφίγγων to συσφιγχθείς. If we are to retain Ρ] 5 reading, there are two possible solutions: a) σὺ σφίγγων, proposed by Dibner and accepted by Beckby, i.e. imperative accompanied by the personal pronoun: κλαῖε καὶ orevale σύ is often used in comedy (cf. Aristoph. Ach. 191, 299, Eq. 131, 155, al.); then we have the participle σφίγγων rather than the compound συσφίγγων;" in an image similar to that of our poem, σφίγγειν χεῖρας occurs at Batrach. 88, of a mouse being drowned and trying to

escape; or Ὁ) συσφίγγων could denote that Eros is simply struggling to get free: Etienne’s Thesaurus gives συστρέφειν as a synonym of συσφίγγειν. In Eupolis fr. 339 K-A we have λυγίζεται καὶ συστρέφει τὸν αὐχένα which is taken to mean

‘struggling to get free’ (see LSJ s.v. ovorpedw 1). Note that the two verbs are almost synonyms, though in a different meaning, that of ‘condense, ‘harden, at Athen. 2.14 τὸ ψυχρὸν ἐπιτήδειον ἦν συστρέφον Kal συσφίγγον. This solution is

preferred in the present edition. χεροῖν / révovras: τένων occurs frequently in the dual in Homer, mainly referring to the sinews of legs, and likewise usually in literature: I]. 4.521, 14.466, 22.639. Cf. Eur. Ph. 42, Cycl. 400, al.; of hips, Il. 5.307, neck Il. 10.456. Only

once is it used of the sinews of the arm in Homer: Il. 20.478f. revovres / ἀγκῶνος. ὦ ᾿πίβουλ᾽: Maccius at AP] 198=11,1-4 GP employs several scolding terms to address Eros (ἄκριτε δαῖμον, σωφροσύνας ὑβριστά, φρενοκλόπε, etc.). Cf. the adjectives which Meleager uses of the boy at AP 12.144=106,1 dpevoAnora, 5,178=38,3-6 σιμόν, ἀείλαλον, ὀξὺ δεδορκός, ἄγριον, 12.57=111,4 HE τριπανοῦργον.

For ἐπίβουλος, treacherous, cf. Xen. Cyr. 1.6.27 καὶ ἐπίβουλον εἶναι καὶ κρυψίνουν καὶ δολερὸν καὶ ἀπατεῶνα καὶ κλέπτην καὶ ἅρπαγα. τοῖα τοι πρέπει: for the expression, cf. Kaibel 924,2 (Athens, III-II Bc) Νίκῃ τοιάδε δῶρα πρέπει. Also, Men. fr. 755,1 K-A σὺ μὲν παραινεῖς ταῦτα toca σοι

πρέπει.

3 οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ὁ λύσων: for the expression, cf. I]. 21.103 νῦν δ᾽ οὐκ ἐσθ᾽ὅς τις θάνατον φύγῃ, 22.348 οὐκ ἐσθ᾽ ὅς... ἀπαλάλκοι, 23.345 οὐκ ἐσθ᾽ὅς κε σ᾽ ἔλῃσι.

'λεειν᾽ ὑπόβλεπε: cf. Philostr. Im. 2.30,2 οὐδὲ ἐλεεινὸν βλέπουσα πηδᾷ εἰς τὸ

πῦρ. Ὑποβλέπειν usually describes angry or suspicious looks (e.g. Aristoph. Lys, 519 and Th, 396), although here we have the ‘shy half-glance of a timid suppliant, as Gow-Page put it. Together with the present passage, LSJ cites Philostr. Jun. Imag. 2,20f. (C. L. Kayser, Flavii Philostrati opera, vol. 2. (Leipzig

1871)) where the look of Marsyas staring with fear at his torturer is described: ὑποβλέπει δὲ és τὸν βάρβαρον τοῦτον τὴν ἀκμὴν τῆς μαχαίρας παρακονώμενον 6 While Dübner interpreted ‘ad (i.e. αὐτός) σφίγγων; stressing Eros’ responsibility for his fastening.

488

API! 199=50

és αὐτόν. For Crinagoras’ image, cf. the supplicating look of Love, trying to persuade the poet not to sell him, at Mel. AP 5.178=38,9 HE καίτοι Aiooer, ἐδού, δεδακρυμένος.

4f. adrés.../ ἔθλιψας: cf. Antip. Thess. AP] 197=89,4 GP σὺ yap τέρπῃ δάκρυσιν ἠϊθέων. The idea that Love brings tears to men is a commonplace, especially in

the poetry of Meleager. Cf. the epithet γλυκύδακρυς he often attributes to Eros: AP 5.177=37,3, 7.419=4,3, 12.167=109,2 HE. Cf. Mel. 5.212=10,2 HE ra γλυκὺ δάκρυ φέρει.

56. ἐν δέ...

πήξας: for πηγνύναι of arrows, cf. II, 8.298 πάντες δ᾽ ἐν χροὶ πῆχθεν

ἀρηϊθόων αἰζηῶν. For the piercing of the heart by the arrow of Love, cf. Nonnus D. 42.33 Βάκχον "Epws τόξευεν, ὅλον βέλος eis φρένα πήξας (see below on ἐὸν ἔσταξαι πόθων), 48.483, and 42.213. Cf. Paul. Sil. AP 5.266,3

πικρὸν Ἔρως ἐνέπηξεν ὀδόντα / eis ἐμε, 5.268,4 λὰξ ἐπιβὰς στέρνοις πικρὸν ἔπηξε πόδα.

ἔθλιψας: a rare expression with δάκρυ: cf. Cyril, Comm. ad Is. 70.485,38 PG ἐκθλίβεται yap ἐξ ὀδύνης τὸ δάκρνον, Eust. Od. 1586,58 μνήμη ὑποκινοῦσα

ἐξέθλιβε τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ δάκρυον. In regard to liquids, θλίβειν in the Anthology usually has the sense of ‘wring’ (cf. Antip. Sid. API 178=45,4 HE ἐκθλίβει νοτερῶν ἀφρὸν ἀπὸ πλοκάμων, on Anadyomene Aphrodite who wrings the seawater from her tresses, Antip. Sid. 7.27=15,8 HE, ‘wringing wine from the folds of Anacreon’s garment).

πικρά.... βέλη: the image of Eros with his arrows appears in the fifth century ΒΟ. We

have iconographic evidence

(of Eros as an archer)

from

490-470

Bc

(the Brygos Painter); in literature, Aesch. Pr. 649 ἱμέρου βέλει, Eur. Med. 530f., IA 548f., and thereafter frequently in literature and art.’ Cf., for instance, Ap. Rh. 3.281-7, Archias AP 5.58=L1f. GP, Rufinus 5.97=36,1f. Page, Mel. 5.198=24,5f., 5.215=54,3f., 12.76=89, and 12.78=83 HE, al.

In Homer the arrow is typically bitter: πικρὸς diords at Il. 4.134, 4.217, 5.99, 5.278, al. Cf. IL 22.206 πικρὰ βέλεμνα, Mimn. 14,8 IEG πικρά.... βέλεα. The

‘bitter arrows’ of love are also commonplace. Cf. Mel. AP 12.109=61,3 HE τὸ γλυκύπικρον Ἔρωτος ἔχων βέλος, anon, API 251,4 πικρῶν βελέων: in the heart, cf., for instance, [Theocr.] 23.5 πικρὰ βέλη ποτικάρδια βάλλει, Mel. AP 5.163=50,4

HE, AApp 4.133,2f.

ἀφύκτων.... πόθων: the “inescapable desire. The juxtaposition of ἀφύκτων and ἰόν, however, the meaning of ids being also an ‘arrow, recalls the ” For a general survey of the motif and for a theoretical approach to it, see C. P. Cénovas, “The Genesis of the Arrows of Love: Diachronic Conceptual Integration in Greek Mythology, AJP 132 (2011), 553-79, For the early-fifth-century ac evidence, see ibid. 555f. It has been suggested that the motif perhaps appeared as early as Sappho, that is ¢.600 Bc; see ibid. 558 and C. Pace, ‘Le frecce degli Eroti (Anacr. fr. 100 [PMG 445] P, = 127 Gent.), Eikasmos 12 (2001), 19-26, esp. 26 with n. 33,

AP] 199=50

Euripidean ‘inescapable arrow of love’: Med. ἄφυκτον ὀϊστόν. Cf. Aesch. Supp. 110 κέντρον arrows’ in a non-erotic context occur at Eur. Soph. Tr. 265, Ph. 105. For the inescapability of

Arg. AP 9.221=35,1 GP.

489

531 τόξοις ἀφύκτοις and 635 ἔχω ἄφυκτον." ‘Inescapable Hipp. 1422 τόξοις ἀφύκτοις, love, cf. Aesch. Pr. 903, Marc.

At AP! 197=89,1f. GP Antipater presents Eros fastened with ἀφύκτοις / ἅμμασι, implicitly recalling the god’s own inescapability for mortals, as every other

punishment of Eros in this poem is congruent with his own acts (see above, intr. note). For πόθοι, in plural and not personified, cf. Alpheus AP 12.18=11,2 GP (verse-end) νόσφι πόθων, anon. 12.100=5,1 πόθων λιμένα, anon. 12.160=31,4

πόθων... ἡψάμεθα, anon, 5.168=3,3 ἀπαυδήσαντα mödoıs, Hedylus 5.199=2,4 HE παρθενίων.... πόθων, al.

ἰόν: Crinagoras uses the word as ‘poison’ but, at the same time, plays with its other meaning, that of ‘arrow’ (see above on ἀφύκτων.... πόθων). For the ‘poi-

son of love, cf. Paulus Silentiarius’ parallelism of Eros with the bite of a rabid dog in AP 5.266,1-4. The ‘poison in the heart’ occurs metaphorically at Aesch. Ag. 834 δύσφρων yap ἰὸς καρδίαν προσημένος (of envy).? For the ‘poison of love’

and further discussion of Love as a liquid, see next note. In love poetry, however, ἰός is much more common as the arrow of love: cf. Asclep. AP 12.50=16,3f. and 12.75=21,1, Mel. 12.144=106,1 HE, Archias 5.58=1,3 GP.

ἰὸν ἔσταξας πόθων: Eros has pierced the heart with his arrows and has instilled

the poison of desire; a similar expression, with orale, occurs at Eur. Hipp. 525f. “Epus Ἔρως, ὁ κατ᾽ ὀμμάτων | στάζεις πόθον, εἰσάγων γλυκεῖαν ψυχᾷ χάριν. For Eros as a liquid, cf. Hes. Th. 910f. τῶν καὶ ἀπὸ βλεφάρων ἔρος εἴβετο δερκομενάων / λυσιμελής, Callistr. Stat. 14 ἀφροδίσιον ἵμερον ἐξ ὀμμάτων στάζουσαι

(the Nereids). However, in all these passages, eyes are involved in the imagery of a ‘liquid’ Eros. Without the idea of eyes, for Eros distilled into the heart, cf. also Aleman fr. 59a PMG “Epws με δηὖτε Κύπριδος ἕκατι ἰ γλυκὺς κατείβων καρδίαν ἰαίνει. Commenting on Ov. Ars Am. 1.236 sed tamen at spargi pectus

Amore nocet, Kenney cited passages where Love is distilled into the heart (for instance, Lucr. 4.1059f, hinc illaec primum Veneris dulcedinis in cor / stillavit gutta)'° and passages where love is described as poison,'' remarking that in

5 Cf. Mel. 5.163=50,4 HE; see on πικρὰ... βέλη. For κέντρον as sexual desire, see H.T. Johansen

and E. W. Whittle, Aeschylus. The Suppliants, 3 vols, (Copenhagen 1980), on |. 110. 5. Fraenkel renders ‘seated close to’ or ‘by, not ‘in the heart. See ad loc. © See E. J. Kenney ‘Notes on Ovid: II, CQ n.s. 9 (1959), 245f. and M. Davies, ‘Aleman S9AP,

Hermes 111 (1983), 496-7. See also Kenney (1970) 384f. and Hunter on Ap. Rh. 3.290 γλυκερῇ δὲ κατείβετο θυμὸν avin.

"Ov. Am. 1.8,103f. blandire noceque; / impia sub dulci melle venena latent, Ars Am. 2.520 quae patimur, multo spicula felle madent, Plaut. Cist. 69 Amor et melle et felle est fecundissimus, Prop.

2.12,19 intactos isto satius temptare veneno, Virg. Aen. 1.688 occultum inspires ignem fallasque veneno.

APTI99=350

Crinagoras the two ideas are combined together. Kenney suggested that Crinagoras might have had in mind Lucretius’ 4.1059f.'? Love is conceived as

something that can be ‘poured out’ in the heart already in Homer, as Vox noted:'* 11.14.3151. épos.../...€vi στήθεσσι περιπροχυθείς. The notion of ‘liquid’ grace(s) is Homeric: Od. 2.12, 6.235, 8.19, 17.63 karexeve χάριν. Desire, together with

graces, is poured around Pandora in Hes. Op. 65f. χάριν ἀμφιχέαι....

καὶ πόθον.

In the Anthology, with στάζειν, cf. Philod. 5.13,5f. (=2 GP=9 Sider with Sider ad

loc., 1.6) xpws.../...oraßeı μυριάδας χαρίτων, Christod. 2.1,322f. (on the statue of Homer) τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτῷ / πλειότερην ἔσταζε χάριν. Cf. further Nonnus D. 42,33f. Βάκχον Ἔρως τόξευεν, ὅλον βέλος εἰς φρένα πήξας" { ἔφλεγε δ᾽, ὅσσον

ἔθελγεν ἐπιστάξας μέλι Πειθοῦς. For a metaphor with στάζειν in the heart (with delight), cf. also Opp. Hal. 1.273-6.

7 τὰ θνητῶν.... ἄχη: the image of Eros laughing, often out of enjoyment at what he causes men, is a commonplace: Mel. AP 5.176=6,3 and 5.179=7,3 HE. Cf. also Mel. 5.180=8,1f. HE τί ξένον ei βροτολοιγὸς "Epws .../ πικρὰ γελᾷ.

Likewise traditional is also Eros’ habit of causing mortals pain (cf., for instance, the adjective βροτολοιγός attributed to him in Mel. 8,1 HE, mentioned above, Diosc. 12.37=10,2 HE, Marc. Arg. 9.221=35,5 GP). Cf. the refusal of the conventional attribution of the pains of love to the god at Lucian AP 10.29,1. 8 πέπονθας of’ ἔρεξας: cf. Eros punishment, facing an Anteros, at anon. AP] 251,3 ὥς κε πάθῃ τά γ᾽ ἔρεξεν. For the idea of retribution and in regard to the following δίκη, cf. Hes. fr. 286,2 εἴ κε πάθοι τά τ᾽ ἔρεξε, δίκη κ᾽ ἰθεῖα γένοιτο. Cf. AApp 6.292,5 ἀμείψῃ δ᾽ οἷα γ᾽ ἔρεξας. Jacobs’ compared Mel. AP 12.132b=22,7f. ἄξια πάσχεις | ὧν ἔδρας (Meleager to his soul) and 12.144=106,4 HE ὡς μόλις ol’ ἔδρας πρόσθε παθὼν ἔμαθες (on Eros in love; see above, intr. note). For similar phrasings, cf. Ap. Rh. 4.475 ἴδεν οἷον ἔρεξαν, 4.558 χόλος λάβεν οἷον Epe£av, 4.1499 ὡς

μάθον οἷον ἔρεξε. ἐσθλὸν ἡ δίκη: for the idea of justice implicit in the matter of binding Eros up, see above, intr. note. Alxn in the sense of ‘justice, ‘right, occurs first in Homer; for instance, Il. 19.180. For a neuter predicate to δίκη, cf. Plato Leg. 937d καὶ δίκη ἀνθρώποις πῶς οὐ καλόν, ὃ πάντα ἡμέρωκε TA ἀνθρώπινα. For the construction

(neuter predicate to an abstract noun), cf. K-G II (1) 77,5. For a gnome ending the epigram, see Intr., Language and Style, Structure.

12 “the idea (Le. of “liquid love") is combined, perhaps not altogether felicitously, with that of Love's inescapable arrows by Crinagoras, API 199,5-6, etc. See Kenney (1970), 384f. ©. Vox, ‘On Love as a Fluid) Hermes 120 (1992), 375-6.

AP] 273 =51

Αὐτός σοι Φοίβοιο πάις λαθικηδέα τέχνης

ἰδμοσύνην, πανάκῃ χεῖρα λιπηνάμενος, Πρηξαγόρη, στέρνοις ἐνεμάξατο' τοιγὰρ ἀνῖαι ὄρνυνται δολιχῶν ὁππόσαι ἐκ πυρετῶν καὶ ὁπόσα τμηθέντος ἐπὶ χροὸς ἄρκια θεῖναι φάρμακα πρηείης οἷσθα παρ᾽ Ἠπιόνης. Θνητοῖσιν δ᾽ εἰ τοῖοι ἐπήρκεον ἰητῆρες, οὐκ ἂν ἐπορθμεύθη νεκροβαρὴς ἄκατος.

5.

—

PIIV® 15 (eis εἰκόνας ἰατρῶν), 5 Κριναγόρου eis εἰκόνα Πραξαγόρου ἰατροῦ caret P 5 ὁπόσα EX ὁππόσα corr. Pl Brunck n. 16, Rubensohn ἢ. 51

Phoebus’ son himself, anointing his hand with All-heal, rubbed into your chest the pain-stilling science of your art, Praxagoras; therefore you know from gentle Epione whichever anguishes arise from long fevers and whichever remedies are sufficient to apply on wounds of the flesh. If there were enough such healers for mortals, the ferry heavy with the dead would have never crossed the water. Praise of the physician Praxagoras of Cos. The structure of the epigram is, in its general lines, that of Pind. P 3.45-53, where, too, the medical education and skills of Asclepius are presented: Kai pa νιν Μάγνητι φέρων πόρε Κενταύρῳ διδάξαι πολυπήμονας ἀνθρώποισιν ἰᾶσθαι νόσους. Τοὺς μὲν dv, ὅσσοι μόλον αὐτοφύτων

ἑλκέων ξυνάονες, ἢ πολιῷ χαλκῷ μέλη τετρωμένοι ε

/

7

WwW

~

ζω

/

7

ἢ χερμάδι τηλεβόλῳ, ἢ θερινῷ πυρὶ περθόμενοι δέμας 7 χειμῶνι, λύσαις ἄλλον ἀλλοίων ἀχέων Rhy

~

a

\

4

[4

„

7

3

[2

”

3

Ld

ἔξαγεν, τοὺς μὲν μαλακαῖς ἐπαοιδαῖς ἀμφέπων, ”

4

x

τοὺς δὲ προσανέα πί-

a

3

En

3

3

API 273=5] vovTas, ἢ γυίοις περάπτων πάντοθεν φάρμακα, τοὺς δὲ τομαῖς ἔστασεν ὀρθούς.

The kind and order of ailments (natural sources of pain, wounds, ‘fever, for which see below on δολιχῶν.... πυρετῶν) and, partly, their treatment’ which

Pindar displays are retained by Crinagoras, though condensed and described with epic terms, which mostly recall scenes where Podaleirius and Machaon tend the wounded in the Iliad. See below, passim. Crinagoras’ poem is divided into three parts: the first one (Il. 1-3) presents Praxagoras’ art, shown to him by a god, the second one (ll. 3-6) presents the ills that this art heals, and the

last one (ll. 5-6) states a generalizing comment on the merit of such doctors. The last idea, on the value of doctors, comes back to the opening notion of the art of medicine, so that the two enclose the central idea of illnesses/injuries (see Intr., Language and Style, Structure); however, the notion of medicine recurs throughout, touching the central part as well (Il. 1-2 λαθικηδέα rexrns I ἰδμοσύνην, πανάκῃ, 1. 5-6 äprıa / φάρμακα, |. 7 ἰητῆρες). For the pattern of ‘knowledge, see below, on οἶσθα. The opening and closing images, conveying the supernatural element, the first in an actual situation (Asclepius has taught

Praxagoras), the second in an hypothetical one (with such doctors death would not exist), involve traditional literary patterns: the motif of gods’ hands and the motif of the boat of the dead. See below, on πανάκῃ χεῖρα λιπηνάμενος, στέρνοις Eveud£aro and ἄκατος,

The sequence AP! 267-74 in the Planudean Anthology are poems on ‘images of physicians’ (eis ἰατρῶν εἰκόνας: 267 and 270-3 form an unbroken sequence of the fifteenth chapter of the fourth book of PIA, i.e. IV® 15, 1-5), the most famous among which are Hippocrates, Praxagoras, and Galen. Whether these poems really accompanied paintings or busts which represented these famous physicians or were simply ‘demonstrative, inspired by images or not, is difficult to decide from the extant evidence. One can suggest that anon. API 271, which is

a joke on the names of Sosander and Hippocrates and on which Planudes’ lemma is eis Σ ὥσανδρον ἱπποϊατρόν, could not accompany Sosander’s picture; unless we imagine a picture of both physicians together, it rather seems ‘epideictic. Praxagoras was a physician of the last third of the fourth century Bc (}.c.300), highly reputed in antiquity, teacher of Herophilus and placed by Galen beside Hippocrates and Diocles. His father, Nicarchus, was also a famous physician. One of Praxagoras’ most important contributions in the evolution of medicine is the distinction between arteries and veins, the former believed to contain air, the latter blood; this theory was held by Nicarchus and was afterwards elaborated by Praxagoras. See RE s.v., Steckerl Iff., 17ff.” He was also the first to * Pindar summarizes the possible ways of healing; see Young 41. Crinagoras mentions only the φάρμακα, See below, on θεῖναι / φάρμακα,

* Sometimes confused with the elder Praxagoras, probably his grandfather; see Fraser 1.345.

API 273=51

493

see the importance of the pulse as a means of diagnosis; see further V. Nutton,

Ancient Medicine (London 2013’), 128. The influence of Praxagoras extended

over many centuries; there is evidence for the existence of a ‘Praxagorean School in the time of Galen. He wrote several books on medicine and one letter of his survives; see Steckerl 4f. The view that he was the father of Theocritus,

whose father was called Praxagoras, is unlikely; see Steckerl 1 with n. 1. Nutton (op. cit. 363, n. 97) suggests cautiously that there is a link between this poem and Crin. 22 (on Nicias of Cos) and that the poet wrote it inspired by a statue of

Praxagoras which he saw during a visit to Cos. Lf. αὐτός: for the emphatic reference to the god’s communication of his qualities to a human, cf. Crin. 17,6, 18,1, Call. fr. 67,1 αὐτὸς Ἔρως ἐδίδαξεν Arovriov,

Damocharis API 310,1f. αὐτή σοι πλάστειρα Φύσις παρέδωκε τυπῶσαι / τὴν Μυτιληναῖαν, ζωγράφε, Πιερίδα. See further on Crin. loce. citt.

Φοίβοιο πάις: Asclepius; cf. h. Asclep. lf. Ἰητῆρα νόσων Ἀσκληπιὸν ἄρχομ᾽ ἀείδειν / υἱὸν Ἀπόλλωνος τὸν ἐγείνατο δῖα Κορωνίς (see Allen-Halliday-Sikes ad loc. For the story, cf. Hes. frr. 122, 123, Pind. P. 3.12~46 with Young 34), Kaibel 1027,11.

(Athens, AD II-III) AcxAnme,.../ Anroidov σεμνῆς re Kopwridos ἠπιόφρων παῖ, AApp 4.53,9 παῖδα Kopwvidos, ἤπιον ἀνδράσι. The physicians art of healing

is a divine gift: cf. Theogn. 432f. and Eur. Alc. 969-72. Fraser (1.343) remarked that ‘the medical profession of the Hippocratic period constituted a looseknit and wide-spread organization, the members of which were called Asclepiadae and were, according to tradition, originally descended from the revered hero who was the traditional founder of the healing art... although the “family” of the Asclepiadae certainly survived, the physicians

of the Hellenistic period are not so called as a medical koinon. Praxagoras is actually connected with the Coan tradition of the Asclepiadae, being the last doctor Galen calls an Asclepiad (Fraser 1.343 and 1.345 with n. 26); Galen

describes him (fr. 45 Steckerl=Gal. 10.28,9 Kühn) as Πραξαγόραν τὸν ἀπὸ Ἀσκληπιοῦ. For πάις, ἃ disyllable, cf. Theodoridas AP 6.156=2,3 ΗΕ, Cometas 15.40,], anon. API 48,6 and 62,2. λαθικηδέα: a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Il. 22.83). In anon. AP 9.524,12 it qualifies Dionysus; cf. the attribution of the adjective to ofvos at Alcaeus 346,3 L-P

and to grapes at Nonnus D. 7.339, 19.54, 21.234. For its connection with a drug, cf. Syn. Ep. 146,43 Ἑλένῃ μὲν οὖν τὸ λαθικηδὲς φάρμακον Πολυδάμνα πόρε Θόωνος παράκοιτις, Eust. Od. 1493,37 λαθιηκηδὲς οἷον φάρμακον προσμίξασα; cf. 1510,42-3 (for the notion of a drug which makes people forget pain in Homer, cf. Od. 4.220£.; for a pharmacological discussion of the passage, see S. West on Il. 220ff.). For the painkilling qualities of remedies, cf. Il. 4.191 (see below, on φάρμακα / θεῖναι), 15.394; in Il. 5.401 φάρμακα are ὀδυνήφατα.

494

AP} 273=51

For the art of medicine as painkilling, cf. h.Asclep. 4 κακῶν θελκτῆρ᾽ ὀδυνάων, Pind. P 3.46. See also next note. In Homer and in most of its other occurrences in hexameter verse, the word stands before the bucolic diaeresis; for the same metrical position as here,

cf. Paul. Sil. Descr. 894. At this sedes, cf. πολυκηδέα

νόστον at Od. 23.351

(and πολυκηδέα δεσμόν / τιμήν in Olympiodorus AApp 3.177,2 and AApp add.

1.292b,4 respectively). The attribution of the adjective to the first word of the next line, in an enjambment, rather than to the following word which concludes the hexameter, is a morphological variation on the Homeric pattern and resembles Ap. Rh. 4.1073 πολυκηδέα ῥύεο Κόλχων / παρθενικήν. τέχνης | ἰδμοσύνην: ἰδμοσύνη first occurs at Hes. Th. 377, then only in later poetry. Occurrences of the noun in the singular are Nic. Th. 346 (same sedes,

in the acrostich of Nicander’s name), |Manetho] 3.324 (same sedes), 6.744; in

the plural, Opp. Hal. 4.607, AApp 2.613,4 ἰδμοσύναισι νόμων (on a judge), Orph. Arg. 609, 1233. A similar expression occurs at Nonnus D. 5.218f., in association with the art of another son of Phoebus, Aristaeus, son of Cyrene, who knew how to appease the destructive Dog Star: πολυφερβέος ἴδμονα τέχνης |... βιοσόον viea Φοίβου, κτλ. Phoebus himself is described as ‘knowing the art of healing the pains’ in a phrasing similar to that of Crinagoras at D. 19.140f. Φοῖβον ἀδελφεόν, ἴδμονα τέχνης / Avourdvov. Nonnus often uses the expression ἕδμονι τέχνῃ, always at the end of the hexameter (for instance D, 7.186, 13.206, 14.219, 34.283).

Τέχνη as a skill, especially manual, is Homeric. Cf. Od. 3.433 πείρατα τέχνης (of the smith), 6.234 (see below, on στέρνοις eveud£aro), 11.614; its usual sedes

in Homer is the verse-end. Ἰατρικὴ τέχνη is acommon phrase; cf., for instance, Plato Phaedr. 270bl, Xen. Mem. 4.2,5, frequently in Galen. In poetry, the word refers to medicine at anon. AP 7.135,4 δόξαν ἑλὼν πολλῶν οὐ τύχᾳ, ἀλλὰ τέχνᾳ, anon. 9.199,1 ἀθανάτην διὰ τέχνην, Agath. 9.631,2, anon. 14.54,], anon. AP! 271,3;

also IG II? 4473, 11-13 (Attica, I BC) (of Asclepius): τὸν δ᾽ ἀνὰ Πηλιάδας κορυφὰς ἐδίδαξε [ré]yvy[v re καὶ σο]-

φίαν Κένταυρος ἀλεξίπονον͵ [μ]ερόπεσσιν παῖδα Κορωνίδος, ἥπιον ἀν[δ]ράσι, δαίμονα σεμνότατον]

For gods as the teachers of the various skills to humans, cf. Od. 6.232-4, 23.159-61 ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε τις χρυσὸν περιχεύεται ἀργύρῳ ἀνήρ / ἴδρις, ὃν Ἥφαιστος δέδαεν καὶ Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη ἰ τέχνην παντοίην, κτλ. Τέχνη is usually accompanied by an

adjective (cf, for instance, Jul. Aeg. AP 6.29,1 ἁλινηχέος ... τέχνης, anon. 9.199,1; see above). At verse-end, as here, it occurs at I]. 3.61, Od. 3.433; in the Anthology, Mac. Cons. 6.56,5, anon. 7.135,4, Jul. AP/ 108,1, anon. AP] 342,3.

πανάκῃ χεῖρα λιπηνάμενος: πανάκη for πανάκεια here only (like βασίλη for βασίλεια: Rubensohn s.v, πανάκη in Index Verborum), but cf. Πανάκη, as ἃ proper name at Herondas 4.6 (for the goddess, often represented as daughter of

AP] 273 =51

495

Asclepius and Epione, see Headlam ad loc. and F. Williams on Call. H. 2.40).

The word designates the juice ofa plant which has medical qualities (identified with various plants; cf. Theophr. HP 9.15,7 πανάκεια, Nic. Th. 508 πανάκειον, 565, 685 πάνακες). Cf. Callimachus’ suggested identification of goddess and plant; see F. Williams on Call. loc. cit.” Doctors believed that a natural therapy

deriving from plants is possible and that plants were associated with divine powers. Herophilus, Praxagoras’ student, is reported to have called the plants ‘the hands of gods. The idea is repeated by Galen (Galen 12.966,14 Kühn); see further Edelstein 231 with ἢ. 84, This does not reveal any superstitious trend towards magic, but rather a ‘rationalistic supernaturalism' which revived the old ideas about the power of plants which involves a miraculous element (see Edelstein 231), Praxagoras, among others, including Herophilus, did belong to the so-called ‘logical school’; see Edelstein 231, Steckerl fr. 1.

The way in which Asclepius communicated his art to Praxagoras is all the more suitable to him, as the skilfulness of hands is a typical quality of physicians and divinities associated with medicine: see on Crin. 12,4 μαλακαῖς χερσί. For the healing power of hands, either human or divine, in literature, see Weinreich

(1909) 28-50, 63-6, Kosak" 10ff. Asclepius’ hands, anointed with the juice of πανάκη, are further relevant to the traditional connection of plants with divinities. For the notion of transmission of a quality through hands, see further below, on στέρνοις ἐνεμάξατο. Crinagoras is probably playfully combining two Callimachean passages, H. 2.39f. οὐ λίπος Ἀπόλλωνος ἀποστάζουσιν ἔθειραι, /

ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὴν Πανάκειαν and fr. 7,12-14 (of the Graces) an’ ὀστλίγγων δ᾽ αἰὲν ἄλειφα ῥέει, | ἔλλατε viv, ἐλέγοισι δ᾽ ἐνιψήσασθε λιπώσας / χεῖρας ἐμοῖς. The imagery of the two passages is anyway relative; cf. Harder on fr. 7,12 ἄλειφα ῥέει. Perhaps having associated the two passages through the image of the anointed hair of

the divinities, Crinagoras transferred to his poem the ‘Panaceia’ in the form of oil from the hymn to Apollo? and the act of communicating it to a human through the deity’s hands, which are again anointed, from the Aetia. The key word is λιπηνάμενος," recalling both the λίπος of Apollo's hair, which is identified with the All-healing, and the λιπώσας χεῖρας of the Graces. For the oil through which Graces communicate their beauty to men, cf. also Rhianus 12.38=1,1f. HE (ona καλλίπυγος) Ὧδραί σοι Χάριτές τε κατὰ γλυκὺ χεῦαν ἔλαιον, ὦ πυγά. 3 Πρηξαγόρη: cf. Κριναγόρη also in verse-opening at Crin. 1,2. στέρνοις ἐνεμάξατο: Jacobs' compared Theocr. 17.36f. τᾷ μὲν Κύπρον ἔχοισα Διώνας πότνια κούρα / κόλπον ἐς εὐώδη ῥαδινὰς ἐσεμάξατο χεῖρας, Call. fr. 7,13f,, Mel. AP 12.122=85,1f. HE ὦ Χάριτες, τὸν καλὸν Ἀρισταγόρην ἐσιδοῦσαι / * Also cf. Pliny's testimony (NH 25.11) that one of the varieties of panaces has the additional

name asclepion, after which Asclepius called his daughter Panaccia. * J. C. Kosak, “Therapeutic Touch and Sophokles’ Philoktetes, FHSCP 99 (1999), 93-134. 5 For λίπος as oil here, see E Williams ad loc,

° For the form of the participle, cf. λιπήνας in Opp. Hal. 4.357.

496

AP] 273=51

ἀντίον eis Tpudepas ἠγκαλίσασθε χέρας. Beckby cites Rhianus AP 12.121=4,3f. HE (the Graces) καί σε ποτὶ ῥοδέαισιν ἐπηχύναντο χέρεσσιν, κοῦρε, πεποίησαι δ᾽ ἡλίκος ἐσσὶ χάρις. An early occurrence of the idea of transferring a quality by

‘wiping’ the hands upon someone is Eur. Ba. 343f. This transfer through touching in general is much more common and attested since Homer (Od. 16.172-4, Theocr. 10.25, etc.); see Weinreich (1909) 51-62 and Harder on Call. fr. 7,13

ἐνιφήσασθε λιπώσας / χεῖρας. See also above, on πανάκῃ χεῖρα λιπηνάμενος.

Euparreodaı occurs in Hellenistic and later poetry in the sense ‘press upon’: Nic. Th. 766f. Metaphorically, Call. H. 3.124 χαλεπὴν ἐμμάξεαι ὀργήν, Opp. Hal. 2.502 κακὴν ἐνεμάξατο κῆρα.

τοιγάρ: for the particle, which bears ‘a strong logical force, “therefore”, “in consequence”, see Denniston 565. The implication is that, since Asclepius has communicated his art to Praxagoras, the god’s wife, Epione, also helps the

physician with her teaching. 3f.: Rolleston (37) saw a possible reference to malaria in this description. ἀνῖαι: the word, in either number, occurs typically at verse-end, as here (for instance, Hom. Od. 7.192, 17.446, Theogn. 1337, Ap. Rh. 1.258, 2.884, 3.264, al., Theocr. 2.39, Call. H. 5.83, Qu. Sm. 3.62, 4.214, al., Nonnus D, 6,57); elsewhere,

Hom. Od. 20.52, Call. fr. 263,2, Philitas fr. 7,3 Spanoudakis, Antip. Sid. AP 7.424=29,3

and 8 HE.

It can indicate both the distress of the soul (cf. Nic.

Th. 427, Ap. Rh. 3.1103, 3.1404 ı, Qu. Sm. 1.720, 9.349) and physical pain (Nic. Al. 122, Qu. Sm. 4.404 (Podaleirius tending the wounded)). In Homer the word

denotes weariness and in later poetry it can designate erotic distress; see further Spanoudakis on Philitas loc. cit. The mistake of Pl (ävia:) is retained in old editors of Pl and Jacobs, Geist,

Holtze, among modern editors. For the construction, see below, on 5f. ὁπόσα. öpvvvraı: on abstract notions, cf. Hom. Il. 5,532 φευγόντων δ᾽ οὔτ᾽dp κλέος ὄρνυται οὔτέτις ἀλκή, Qu. Sm. 1.472 μέγα δὲ κράτος ὄρνυται ἀνδρῶν. Cf. LSJ s.v.

3 Ὁ. The present grammatical form here only; ὄρνυντο in Il. 23.131, ὥρνυντο in Od. 2.397 and 24.496, Qu. Sm. 7.254, 14.488.

δολιχῶν... «πυρετῶν: cf. δολιχοὶ kauaroı in Paul, 511, AP 6.65,12, anon. 12.87=20,4 HE, Jul. Pol. 9.7=1,6 GP, whereon Gow-Page note that SoA: yds takes occasionally a temporal sense. Crinagoras seems to have in mind Od. 11.172 δολιχὴ νοῦσος in combination with I. 22.31 πολλὸν πυρετόν, πυρετός being a Homeric ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. Pindar's θερινῷ πυρὶ can indicate fever, but it more

likely describes the extreme summer heat, responsible for the sunstroke; see Young 41 with n. 4. /Ivperös denotes the summer’ heat also in Nonnus, D, 5.276 and 13.282. ‘The word is rare in poetry. Cf. Aristoph. Vesp. 1038; elsewhere in the Anthology only at Agath. 11.382,1 and 16. In Peek 1862=247,2 Kaibel (Hadrianoi, ap I-II), πυρετός is presented as the cause of the person’s

API 273=51

497

death; see further on Crin. 15,4 ἠελίου καῦμα. The Corpus Hippocraticum deals

with various kinds of fevers: long (μακρός; cf. Aphor. 3.16,2, 4.44,1,5.64,6,7.64,1),

continuous, acute, quartan, tertian, semitertian. Cf. Epid. 3.3,12 πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ἔλλα πυρετῶν ἐπεδήμησεν εἴδεα τριταίων, rerapralwv, νυκτερινῶν, ξυνεχέων, μακρῶν, πεπλανημένων, ἀσωδέων, ἀκαταστάτων. For discussion of some of these fevers in the cases mentioned in Epid. 5 and 7, see Smith passim.’ Galen

offers critical comments on the Hippocratic theories of fever; cf. In Hipp. Aphor.

Comm. 17b.602, 723, 872 Kiihn.

ὅππόσαι: the relative is postponed as at Crin. 26,3, 34,2, 30,4.

5f. ὁπόσα: most editors accept Pl's ὁπόσα, ‘thou knowest from gentle Hepione (sic) herself all woes that spring from long fevers, and what drugs it is fitting to lay on flesh cut by the knife’ (Paton). Wolters’ (345) and Van Herwerden’s (1886,

412) ὁπόσαι, accepted by Rubensohn, Aubreton, Gow-Page, and Marzi-Conca, creates a construction where both ὁπόσαι refer back to dviax. It ‘gives the proper subdivision of dvia: into those which arise from fever and those which arise “on the occasion of” wounds’ (Gow-Page; for ἐπί + gen., see next note), further allowing a pause at the bucolic diaeresis, before äprıa. In this case, however, θεῖναι would be the object of οἶσθα and (σύ) its subject, while the two indirect questions would refer to avia: which would stand somehow like an ‘absolute nominative’ (although this is not impossible; cf. the passage from Philostratus cited below). Aubreton

translated ‘et alors a toutes les douleurs jaillies de

longues fiévres, 4 toutes celles que les chairs blessées font endurer, tu sais appliquer...’, the preposition 4 being added arbitrarily in the translation to smooth the construction. In order to accept this interpretation and to avoid the ‘absolute nominative, the change of ἀνῖαι to ἀνίαις seems necessary (as Wolters (345) also suggested); however, the double change of PI's reading (ἀνίαις and ὁπόσαι) is a counter-argument to this solution. Another obstacle to this construction is that θεῖναι φάρμακα suits wounds, but it is difficult to apply to the

‘anguishes of fevers’ (see further below, on θεῖναι φάρμακα). On the other hand, if Pl’s ὁπόσα is retained, the syntactical difficulty is (partly) solved, as we have two indirect questions (dvia:... πυρετῶν, ὁπόσα... φάρμακα) as the objects of οἶσθα, granted that we take the dvia: as belonging to the indirect question, although it stands before it (normal order: ὁππόσαι aviat ὄρνυνται δολιχῶν ἐκ

πυρετῶν), in a figure of prolepsis-hyperbaton (for prolepsis, in general, see K-G II (2) 577-80). Cases of prolepsis similar to that of our passage, though much simpler, where the subject of the indirect question is placed before it, are, for instance, Plato Lach. 190d ἐπιχειρήσωμεν, ὦ Aaxns, εἰπεῖν ἀνδρεία τί ποτ᾽ ἐστίν (see Smyth 488, $ 2182, c), Xen. Mem. 1.2,44 βία δέ, φάναι, καὶ ἀνομία τί ἐστιν.

7 W. Ὁ. Smith, ‘Implicit fever theory in Epidemics 5 and 7, in W. Ε Bynum, V. Nutton (eds.) Theories of Fever from Antiquity to the Enlightenment (London 1981), 1-18.

498

AP] 273=51

For relative pronouns referring to terms of different gender,” cf. Philostr. Gymn, 14,22 νοσήματα, ὁπόσα κατάῤῥους καὶ ὑδέρους καὶ φθόας ὀνομάζομεν, καὶ ὁπόσαι ἱεραὶ νόσοι, ἰατροὶ μὲν παύουσιν ἐπαντλοῦντές τι, κτλ. Of course, the infinitive

θεῖναι as the mood of the indirect question is problematic and we have to accept it as idiomatic. Equivalent phrasings appear rarely in later writers: cf. Epiphan,

Panarion 1.300,9 Holl? μὴ ἔχον πόθεν γεννηθῆναι... This difficulty could be avoided if we were to understand a copulative εἰσί which would make ἄρκια a predicative to φάρμακα: oloda ὁπόσα φάρμακα εἰσὶ ἄρκια θεῖναι τμηθέντος ἐπὶ χροός (‘you know which medicines are sufficient/helpful to apply on wounds’),

Apkıos + inf., ‘certain’ or ‘sufficient to do something’ is Homeric. See LSJ s.v, and next note. ἄρκια: a Homeric word: qualifying μισθός, 1]. 10.304, Od. 18.358 ‘sufficient’ or

‘certain’; see Ebeling s.v.). For the possible construction here, see prev. note. In the sense of ‘helpful’ (LSJ s.v. II), of medicines, cf. Nic. Th. 508 παντὶ yap ἄρκιός ἐστι' TO μιν πανάκειον ἔπουσιν, 837 τὰ ἕκαστα διείσομαι ἄρκια νούσων (which is also mentioned by Van Herwerden (1886, 413) as a parallel to the present passage), Al. 628 τόδε γάρ re καὶ ἄρκιον al κε πίησθα. Elsewhere in the Anthology, Leon. 7.726=72,7 HE, Agath. 5.278,5, 9,154,5.

τμηθέντος ἐπὶ χροός: the phrase echoes the Homeric tev7’ ἀλλήλων ταμέειν χρόα νηλέι χαλκῷ (Il. 13.501, 16.761). Cf. ταμεσίχροα (of the bronze, the spear)

at {|. 4.511, 13.340, 23.803; [Theocr.] 25.279, also used by Nonnus (see Chryssafis on [Theocr.] loc. cit.). The poet's variation lies in that the Homeric phrase

describes wounds of war, while Crinagoras is referring to wounds in general, Cf. Pindar’s inclusion of three kinds of possible wounds in his list; see above, intr. note. θεῖναι / φάρμακα: cf. Il. 4.190f. (of Machaon) ἕλκος δ᾽ ἰητὴρ ἐπιμάσσεται HO ἐπιθήσει φάρμαχ᾽, a κεν παύσῃσι μελαινάων ὀδυνάων. u

5

4

>

td

3

>»,

4

Qu. Sm. 4.399f. (of Podaleirius) καθύπερθε δὲ φάρμακ᾽ ἔθηκε

κεῖνα, τά οἱ «τὸ» πάροιθε πατὴρ Eos ἐγγυάλιξε. * As opposed to the usual construction where both relative pronouns refer to the same term which is presented as subdivided: cf., for instance, h. Tell. 3f. ἠμὲν ὅσα χθόνα δῖαν ἐπέρχεται nd ὅσα πόντον | ἠδ᾽ ὅσα πωτῶνται, τάδε φέρβεται ἐκ σέθεν ὄλβου, Leon, Alex. AP 9.78=17,3f. FGE ἁπτιόσα yap κλαδεῶσι παπαίνομεν, ἄλλος ἐφέλκει" ὁππόσα δ' ὡμὰ μένει, μητρὶ περικρέμαται, Qu. Sm, 6.472--4 indy Νυμφάων, ὁπόσαι περὶ μακρὰ νέμονται / οὔρεα Παφλαγόνων καὶ ὅσαι περὶ βοτρυόεσσαν / ναίουσ᾽ Ἡράκλειαν, Cf. also 3.941 μνήσατο γὰρ, Τρώεσσιν ὅσας ἐφέηκεν ἀνίας / ἠδ᾽ ὁπόσας ἔτ᾽ ἔμελλεν.

° K. Holl, Epiphanius, Bände 1-3: Ancoratus und Panarion, vol. 1 (Leipzig 1915). *° See further K. S. Kontos, Γλωσσικαὶ Παρατηρήσεις (Athens 1882), 498f.

API

Z/9=51

In Homer φάρμακα are also ‘spread’ (πάσσειν) on the wounds: Il. 4.218f., 5.401 and 900, 11.515 and 830, 15.394. φάρμακα

are remedies derived mainly from

herbs and are used principally in the treatment of wounds (bleeding, poison-

ous afflictions, τραύματα, φλεγμοναῦῶ); together with φύλλα, ῥίζαι, etc. they are seldom mentioned in ‘purely literary descriptions’ of such treatments, perhaps

because of the readers’ lack of interest in the topic." For the tmesis, cf. Hes. Op. 815 ἐπὶ ζυγὸν αὐχένι θεῖναι, same sedes.

οἶσθα: for the usage of the verb in association with medicine, cf. I. 4.218f. ἥπια φάρμακα εἰδώς / πάσσων, 11.74] 7) τόσα φάρμακα ἤδη ὅσα τρέφει εὐρεῖα χθών

(here φάρμακα means ‘potent herbs’: see Cunliffe s.v.). Praxagoras’ εἰδέναι of the remedies from Epione echoes his ἐδμοσύνη from Phoebus’ son (1f.); the poet

thus stresses Praxagoras’ superior medical qualities by enclosing the presentation of his skills in the idea of superhumanly acquired knowledge. πρηείης... . Ἠπιόνης: self-variation with 12,4 adtvas.../ mpneias μαλακαῖς χερσὶ σὺν Ἠπιόνης. See ad loc., on rpneias and Ἠπιόνης. 7£.: Jacobs (Jacobs'

and 1826, 126) compared

Magnus

Medicus AP! 270,3f.

ynpevev δὲ μέλαθρα πολυκλαύτου Ἀχέροντος / σῇ παιηονίῃ χειρὶ βιαζόμενα

(on Galen). Cf. also Nicodemus of Heraclea AP 9.53=9 FGE Ἱπποκράτης φάος ἦν μερόπων, καὶ σώετο λαῶν | ἔθνεα, καὶ νεκύων ἦν σπάνις εἰν Atön. Cf. also Kaibel 594=1283,11f. Peek (Rome, AD IV) εἰητὴρ δ᾽ ἅμ᾽ Ἀσκληπιάδης μακάρων τρίβον Het, χρημοσύνην δ' ἔλιπεν πολυκήριον ἐν vexveoawy.' For the moraljzing

ending of the poem, see on Crin. 30,56. ὦ κακόν...}... ἀγαθόν. θνητοῖσι: also at verse-opening the dative occurs at Hes. Th. 296; in the

Anthology at Marc. Arg. 6.248=23,5 and 6.333=14,4, Parmenion AP! 216=14,3, Antiphilus AP/ 334=46,4 GP. In Crinagoras, cf. 48,4 κτητὸν yap θνητοῖς οὐδὲ ἕν

αὐτόματον. ἐπήρκεον: the verb is Homeric: Il. 2.873, Od. 17.568, ἐπήρκεσε(ν). This form of the

plural only here. For the absolute use of the verb, ‘to be enough; see LSJ s.v. ΠΙ; cf. Solon 5,1 JEG δήμῳ μὲν yap ἔδωκα τόσον γέρας ὅσσον ἐπαρκεῖν. Note ἄρκια in

Ι. 5; cf. Ἐνυάλιον and Ἐνυώ in two consequent lines in Crin. 26,4f. For such repetitions of words of the same stem in late poetry, see H. White (1989) 18f., 39f. inrnpes: in the Iliad the word usually refers to Asclepius or Podaleirius and Machaon, his sons: Il. 2.732, 4.194, 11.518 (here in the same sedes). They are " See C. F. Salazar, The Treatment of War Wounds in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Leiden et al. 2000), 67. For φάρμακα applied to wounds and their various kinds, according to medical writers of antiquily, see ibid. 54-67. Edelstein (231, n. 87) observed that φάρμακον stopped having any magical association from the seventh century sc until the Hellenistic period, when magic reappeared, through the discovery of new plants, especially those of the Orient.

Mentioned by EP. Weber (Aspects of Death and Correlated Aspects of Life in Art, Epigram, and Poetry (New York 1918), 302) together with Crinagoras’ poem and Magnus Medicus API 270.

API Z/S=o31

called also tyrpoi: II. 11.514, 11.833. In the Anthology, for instance, Theocr. 6.337=1,2 (of his friend, the physician Nicias), Leon. 7.466=71,8 HE, ‘Diog,

Laert! 7.108,3, anon. 7.158,1 (of the physician Marcellus), anon. AP! 271,1 (of Hippocrates and the veterinary surgeon Sosander).

οὐκ av: having translated ‘the boat would never have crossed...’, Gow-Page noted that ‘ov« av has to do the work of οὐδέποτ᾽ dv’ For different past tenses in the protasis and in the apodosis of the past unreal condition, cf. Goodwin 148, $ 410. For imperfect in the protasis and aorist in the apodosis, cf. Od. 16.2206, 24.50f. (see Goodwin 160, § 435). In the Anthology, similar phrasings are Asclep. 12.75=21 HE ei πτερά σοι προσέκειτο καὶ ἐν χερὶ τόξα καὶ iol, / οὐκ ἂν

Ἔρως ἐγράφη Κύπριδος ἀλλὰ σὺ παῖς, Simon. 7.344b=83b FGE ἀλλ᾽εἰ μὴ θυμόν ye Adwy ἐμὸν οὔνομά τ’ εἶχεν, / οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ τύμβῳ τῷδ᾽ ἐπέθηκα πόδας, Antip, Thess. 9.266=108,5f. GP εἰ δὲ σὺ τοιούτοις τότ᾽ ἐνέπνεες, οὐκ ἂν Ὕαγνις τὴν ἐπὶ Matdvipw κλαῦσε δύσαυλον ἔριν, Lucill. 11.259,3f. ἵππον, ὃν εἰ Φρύγες εἷλκον ἅπαντες / σὺν Aavavis, Σκαιὰς οὐκ ἂν ἐσῆλθε πύλας. The difference between

these passages and the present one is that in the other epigrams the aorist refers to a unique and unrepeated act, while the crossing of death’s boat here is repeated; the reference to a unique event, however, could not be excluded here,

too, if we take the verb as denoting the first time the boat crossed the Acheron, which was fatally followed, of course, by all the others. ἐπορθμεύθη: the verb is not Homeric; it occurs at Aesch. Ch. 685, Soph. Tr. 802,

frequently in Euripides. For the crossing of Acheron, cf. Archias 7.68=14,2 GP Ἄϊδος ὦ vexunye,.../ ὃς βαθὺ πορθμεύεις τοῦτ᾽ Ax€épovros ὕδωρ with Gow-Page

ad loc. Cf. also πορθμεύς as Charon, the ferryman of the dead: for instance, Eur. Alc. 253, Theocr. 17.49, Antip. Thess. AP 7.530=22,1 GP. Cf. also πορθμὲς as the boat in Julian Aeg. AP 7.585,2 and πορθμήιον as the fee in Call. Hec. fr. 99 Hollis. Gow-Page note that πορθμεύεσθαι suits the passengers better than the boat. The verb is indeed normally used of people (cf., for instance, Hdt. 2.97 πορϑμεύονται.. οὐκέτι κατὰ τὰ ῥεῖθρα τοῦ ποταμοῦ, Eur. lon 1599 δεῦρο πορθμεῦσαι βρέφος, etc.); a nightingale is πορθμευομένη on ἃ dolphin at Philip AP 9.88=40,5 GP. Referring to an object, cf. Eur. IT 735f. τάσδε πορθμεύσειν γραφάς / πρὸς Ἄργος, and for a part of the human body, cf. Eur. IT 936 τί γάρ ποτ᾽ἐς γῆν τήνδ᾽ ἐπόρθμευσας πόδα and 266 πορθμεύων ἴχνος with the note of Kyriakou ad loc. on πορθμεύειν, usually, though not always, denoting travel at sea. The verb is not unattested for boats, however: cf. Appian BC 4.4,25 ὡς εἶδε πορθμευόμενον ἤδη τὸ σκάφος, Nonnus D. 3.45 νῆα δὲ πορθμεύσαντες ἀκυμάντου σχεδὸν ὅρμου.

νεκροβαρής: for the ‘cargo’ that dead people constitute on the boat that carries

them, cf. Antip. Thess. AP 7.530=22,2 φόρτος ὁ Τανταλίδης, Aemilianus 9.218=2,2 GP νεκύων φόρτον ἀμειψαμένην.

API 273 =51

501

NexpoBapys occurs here only. Gow-Page compare Opp. Hal. 2.603 aiwoBapys,

‘heavy with blood. For compounds with Bapos, cf. the Homeric oivoßapns (Il. 1.225; in the Anthology appearing at Mel. 12.117=19,2 HE, ‘Simon’ 7.24=66,5 FGE, al.), ‘heavy with wine, and χαλκοβαρής (Il. 15.465, Od. 11.532, 21.423), ‘heavy with bronze’ See Janko on Il. 15.461-5, Giangrande 1967, 19.

äraros: not in Homer, At verse-end the form occurs also at Theogn. 458. The word is usually feminine; for a masculine

form, cf. Hdt. 7.186 τοὺς Ev τοῖσι

σιταγωγοῖσι ἀκάτοισι ἐόντας, τοῖσι transmitted by a group of manuscripts. In

association with the dead, cf. in the Anthology Antip. Sid. 7.464=53,1f. HE ἐξ ἀκάτοιο | Κωκυτοῦ θεμέναν ἴχνος ἐπ᾿ ἀϊόνι, Bassus 9.279=7,1 Andains araroıo,

Antip. Thess. 9.242=20,7f. (on the death of an old ferryman whose boat served him also as a coffin), Marc. Arg. AP 7.374=19,7f. GP, in the last two cases the word standing at the end of the last pentameter, as in the present epigram. Gow-Page cite also Peek 946,2 (Calymnos, II-I BC) ἅρπασεν ὠκύπλους d νεκύων

äkaros. For the boat of Charon, occasionally described specifically as heavy/ huge, cf. also Zonas AP 7.365=4,2 GP νεκύων Bäpıv and Leon. 7.67=59,3f. HE ei

καί σοι μέγα βρίθεται ὀκρυόεσσα / βᾶρις ἀποφθιμένων with Gow-Page ad loc. on βᾶρις, Theocr. 16.41 εὐρεῖαν σχεδίαν; see also Geffcken on Leon. 94,3. For

ἄκατος, a specific kind of ‘oared galley, see Casson 159f.*° 13 L, Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Baltimore and London 1995); in 159, n. 6 Casson cites examples of äkaros as a cargo vessel and as Charons ferry.

Bibliography The Bibliography lists works cited more than once. Editions

Aldi Filii, Florilegium diversorum epigrammatum in septem libros distinctum (Venice

1550). Aldus, Florilegium diversorum epigrammatum in septem libros (Venice 1503).

Aldus, Florilegium diversorum epigrammatum in septem libros (Venice 1521). Badius Ascensius J., Florilegium diversorum epigrammatum in septem libros (Paris 1531). Beckby H., Anthologia Graeca, 4 vols.

(Munich 1957-8).

Brodaeus J., Epigrammatum Graecorum libri VII (Basle 1549). Brodaeus J., Obsopoeus V., Epigrammatum Graecorum Annotationes (Frankfurt 1600). Brunck R. F. P., Analecta veterum poetarum Graecorum, 3 vols. (Strasburg 1772-6). Conca F, Marzi M., Zanetto G., Anthologia Palatina, 3 vols. (Torino 2005-11).

De Bosch H., Anthologia Graeca cum versione latina Hugonis Grotii edita ab Hieronymo de Bosch, 5 vols. (Utrecht 1795-1822). Di Giunta F (heirs of), Florilegium diversorum epigrammatum in septem libros (Florence 1519).

Dibner F, Cougny E., Anthologia Palatina cum Planudeis et Appendice nova, 3 vols. (Paris 1871-90).

Etienne H., Florilegium diversorum epigrammatum veterum, in septem libros divisum (Paris 1566).

Geist E., Krinagoras von Mytilene (Gießen 1849). Gow A. S. F, Page D. L., The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip, 2 vols. (Cambridge

1968). Holtze O., Anthologia Graeca ad Palatini codicis fidem edita, 3 vols. (Leipzig 1884-90). Jacobs C. F. ὟΝ (=Jacobs’), Anthologia graeca, 13 vols, (Leipzig 1794-1814). Jacobs C. FE W. (=Jacobs?), Anthologia Graeca ad fidem codicis olim Palatini nunc Parisini edita, 3 vols. (Leipzig 1813-17).

Jens J., Vetera Epigrammata Graeca (Rotterdam 1742). Lascaris A. I, AvOoAoyia διαφόρων ἐπιγραμμάτων (Florence 1494). Lubin E., Florilegium omnium veterum Graecorum poetarum epigrammatum in septem libros divisum (Heidelberg 1603).

Nicolini Sabienses P. & I. M., Florilegium diversorum epigrammatum in septem libros distinctum (Venice 1550).

Page D. L,, Epigrammata Graeca (Oxford 1975). Paton W. R., The Greek Anthology, 5 vols. (London 1916-18). Reiske J., Anthologia Graeca nunc primum e codice msto. edita, Miscellanea Lipsiensia Nova 9 (1752), 80-148, 297-323, 434-81, 661-97.

Reiske J., Anthologiae Graecae a Constantino Cephala conditae libri tres (Leipzig 1754). Reiske J., Anthologiae Graecae a Constantino Cephala conditae libri tres (Oxford 1766).

Rubensohn M., Crinagorae Mytilenaei Epigrammata (Berlin 1888). Stadtmiiller H., Anthologia Graeca, 3 vols. (Leipzig 1894-1906). Waltz P., Soury G., Irigoin J., Laurens P., Aubreton R., et al., Anthologie grecque, 13 vols,

(Paris 1928-2011). Other Works

Acosta-Hughes B., Arions Lyre: Archaic Lyric into Hellenistic Poetry (Princeton 2010). Acosta-Hughes B., A Gift of Callimachus, SIFC 10 (2012), 24-39. Alexiou M., The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition (Lanham MD et al. 20027). Allen T. W., Halliday W.R., Sikes E., The Homeric Hymns (Oxford 1936).

Ancey G., ‘Sur deux épigrammes de Crinagoras, Rev. Arch. 15 (1910), 139-41. Andriotes N., Ἐτυμολογικὸ Λεξικὸ τῆς Kowns Ἑλληνικῆς (Thessaloniki 1971). Angio F, Bär S., Baumbach M., et al., Der Neue Poseidipp (Darmstadt 2015). Apostol R., A Case for the Reading “Gaza” in Crinagoras Anth. Pal. 9.284 Line 3) CJ 112 (2016), 26-38.

Argentieri L., Gli Epigrammi degli Antipatri (Bari 2003). Argentieri L., ‘Meleager and Philip as Epigram Collectors, in Bing-Bruss (2007), 147-64,

Aubreton R., ‘La tradition des épigrammes de l’Anthologie Palatine, REA 70 (1968), 32-82.

Aubreton R., ‘La tradition de lAnthologie Palatine du XVlIe au XVIIIe siecle, Revue d’Histoire des Textes 10 (1980), 1-53, and 11 (1981), 1-46.

Austin R. G., P Vergili Maronis Aeneidos, liber sextus (Oxford 1977). Austin C., Bastianini G., Posidippi Pellaei Quae Supersunt Omnia (Milan 2002). Autore O., Marziale el’ Epigramma Greco (Palermo 1935). Bahr C., Review of E. Geist, Krinagoras von Mytilene, Heidelberger Jahrbücher der

Literatur 42 (1849), 381-7.

Bake 1., Geel I, Hamaker H. A., Hofman

Peerlkamp P., Bibliotheca Critica Nova,

Volumen IV (Leiden 1828).

Barrett W. S., Euripides, Hippolytos (Oxford 1964). Bastianini G., Gallazzi C., Posidippo di Pella: Epigrammi (Milan 2001). Bayfield M. A., ‘On Some Derivatives of τέλος, CR 15 (1901), 445-7. Bechtel F., Lexilogus zu Homer (Halle 1914). Bechtel Ε, Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit (Halle 1917).

Bekker I., Lexica Segueriana, Glossae Rhetoricae (ed. Cod. Coislin. 345): Anecdota Graeca Vol. 1 (Berlin 1814).

Bing P., Bruss J. S. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram (Leiden 2007). Birt Τὶ, Das Antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhältniss zur Literatur (Berlin 1882).

Birt T., Die Buchrolle in der Kunst (Leipzig 1907). Blok F. F, Isaac Vossius and his Circle (Groningen 2000). Blomfield C. J., ‘Emendationes in Anthologiam Graecam, Museum Criticum 2 (1826), 587-98.

Blümner H., Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern, 3 vols (Leipzig 1875-84). Boissonade J. Ε, Herodiani Partitiones (London 1819),

Bömer F, Ovidius Die Fasten (Heidelberg 1958). Bomer F, “Caesar und sein Glück, Gymnasium 73 (1966), 63-85. Bomer E, Ovidius Metamorphosen, 7 vols. (Heidelberg 1969-86). Bonneau D., La crue du Nil (Paris 1964).

Borgeaud P., Recherches sur le Dieu Pan (Rome 1979). Bornmann ΕΒ, Callimachi Hymnus in Dianam (Florence 1968). Borthwick E. K., ‘Emendations and Interpretations in the Greek Anthology, CQ 21

(1971), 426-36.

Bowersock G. W., Anth. Pal. 7.638 (Crinagoras), Hermes 92 (1964), 255-6. Bowersock G. W., Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford 1965).

Bowie E. L., ‘Luxury cruisers? Philips epigrammatists between Greece and Rome, Aevum Antiquum 8 (2008), 223-58.

Bowie E, L., Men from Mytilene; in Schmitz-Wiater (2011), 181-95.

Bowra C. M., Greek Lyric Poetry (Oxford 1961). Bradley M., Colour and Meaning in Ancient Rome (Cambridge 2009). Braswell B. K., A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian of Pindar (Berlin & New York 1988). Braund D., ‘Anth. Pal. 9.235: Juba II, Cleopatra Selene and the Course of the Nile, CQ 34 (1984), 175-8.

Brecht F.J., Motiv- und Typengeschichte des griechischen Spottepigramms (Leipzig 1930). Breitenbach A. Kommentar zu den Pseudo-Seneca-Epigrammen der Anthologia Vossiana (Hildesheim 2009). Bruchmann C. F. H., Epitheta Deorum (Leipzig 1893). Brulotte E. L., The Placement of Votive Offerings and Dedications in the Peloponnesian Sanctuaries of Artemis (Diss. Michigan 1994). Buchan J., Augustus (London 1937).

Bücheler Ἐ, Petronii Satirae et Liber Priapeorum (Berlin 1882). Bücheler F., ‘Catalepton, RAM 38 (1883) 507-25.

Buck C. D., The Greek Dialects (Chicago 1955). Buck Ὁ, D., Petersen W., A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives (Chicago 1944).

Bulloch A. W., Callimachus: The Fifth Hymn (Cambridge 1985). Buraselis K., Kos between Hellenism and Rome: Studies on the Political, Institutional and Social History of Kos from ca. the Middle Second Century B.C. until Late Antiquity (Philadelphia 2000). Burkhard K., Das antike Geburtstagsgedicht (Zurich 1991). Bury J. B., The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London 1890). Butler H. E., Barber E. A., The Elegies of Propertius (Oxford 1933). Cairns F,, Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Edinburgh 1972).

Calder III W. M., Kirstein R., Aus dem Freund ein Sohn’: Theodor Mommsen und Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Briefwechsel 1872-1903 (Hildesheim 2003). Caley E. R., Richards J. F. C., Theophrastus on Stones (Columbus OH 1956).

Cameron A., The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes (Oxford 1993). Cameron A., Callimachus and his Critics (Princeton 1995).

Campbell M., A Commentary on Quintus Smyrnaeus’ Posthomerica XII (Leiden 1986). Campbell M., A Commentary on Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica III 1-471 (Leiden

1994). Canobbio A., M. Valerii Martialis, Epigrammaton liber quintus (Naples 2011).

Canter H. V., ‘The figure Ad YNA TON in Greek and Latin Poetry, AJP 51 (1930), 32-41. Carcopino J., Daily Life in Ancient Rome (trans. E. O. Lorimer, London 1940).

Chantraine P, Grammaire homérique, tome 1 Grantnaire (Paris 1958"),

Chantraine P., Grammaire homérique, tome II Syntaxe (Paris 1963°), Chantraine P, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris 1968). Chantraine P., La Formation des noms en grec ancien (Paris 19797). Chardon de la Rochette S., Mélanges de critique et de philologie, 3 vols. (Paris 1812), Chaumont M. L., ‘La campagne de Tibére en Armenie, AC 61 (1992), 178-89. Chryssafis G.,A Textual and Stylistic Commentary on Theocritus Idyll XXV (Amsterdam

1981).

Cichorius C., Rom und Mytilene (Leipzig 1888). Cichorius C., Rémische Studien (Leipzig-Berlin 1922).

Citroni M., M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Liber Primus (Florence 1975).

Clausen W. V., A Commentary on Virgil, Eclogues (Oxford 1994). Coleman R,, Vergil, Eclogues (Cambridge 1977). Collard C., Euripides, Supplices, 2 vols. (Groningen 1975). Cook A. B., “Who was the Wife of Zeus?) CR 20 (1906), 365-78 and 416-19.

Cook A. B., Zeus: A Study in ancient Religion, 3 vols. (Cambridge 1914-40). Cooper F. A., The Temple of Apollo at Bassai (New York & London 1978). Cooper F. A., The Temple of Apollo Bassitas, 4 vols. (Princeton 1992-6). Cunliffe R. J., A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect (Glasgow ὃς Bombay 1924). Darcus Sullivan S., “The Function of θυμός in Hesiod and the Greek Lyric Poets’ Glotta 59 (1981), 147-55.

Daremberg Ch., Saglio D., Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, 10 vols. (Paris 1877-1919),

Davies M., Sophocles’ Trachiniae (Oxford 1991). Dee 1. H., The Epithetic Phrases for the Homeric Gods: A Repertory of the Descriptive Expressions for the Divinities of the Hiad and the Odyssey (New York 1994). Delorme J., Gymnasion: étude sur les monuments consacrés a léducation en Gréce (Paris 1960). Demandt A., Das Privatleben der römischen Kaiser (Munich 1997).

De Meyier K. A., Codices Manuscripti VII: Codices Bibliothecae Publicae Graeci (Leiden 1965).

Demoen K., ‘“Ou est ta beauté qu’admiraient tous les yeux?” La ville detruite dans les traditions poétique et rhetorique, in K. Demoen (ed.), The Greek City from Antiquity to the Present (Louvain et al. 2001), 103-25. Denniston J. D., The Greek Particles (Oxford 1954°). Dettori E., Filita Grammatico: Testimonianze e frammenti (Rome 2000), Deubner L., Attische Feste (Berlin 1932).

De Visser M. W., Die nicht Menschengestaltigen Götter der Griechen (Leiden 1903).

Dickie M. W., ‘Poets as Initiates in the Mysteries, A&A 44 (1998), 49-77. Diller A., The Tradition of the Minor Greek Geographers (New York 1952).

Dilthey K., Symbolae Criticae ad Anthologiam Graecam (Göttingen 1891). Dilts M. R., Kennedy G. A., Two Greek Rhetorical Treatises from the Roman Empire (Leiden et al. 1997).

Dingel J., Senecas Epigramme und andere Gedichte aus der Anthologia Latina (Heidelberg 2007).

D’Orville J. Ph., Critica vannus in inanes Joannis Cornelii Pavonis paleas (Amsterdam 1737).

D’Orville J. Ph., Animadversiones in Charitonis Aphrodisiensis de Chaerea & Callirrhoe (Amsterdam 1750).

Dover K., Aristophanes, Frogs (Oxford 1993). Dunbar N., Aristophanes, Birds (Oxford 1995).

Dutoit E., Le Theme de ladynaton dans la poésie antique (Paris 1936). Ebeling H., Lexicon Homericum, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1885). Ebert J., Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen (Berlin 1972).

Ebert J., ‘Zu Fackelläufen und anderen Problemen in einer griechischen agonistischen

Inschrift aus Ägypten, Stadion 5 (1979), 1-19. Edelstein L., Ancient Medicine (Baltimore 1967). Edelstein L., Kidd 1. G., Posidonius I. The Fragments (Cambridge 1972).

Edwards M. W., The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. V: books 17-20 (Cambridge 1991). Elliger W., Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung (Berlin 1975). Ellis R., ‘On some epigrams of the Greek Anthology, JPh 18 (1890), 211-24. Emperius A., Opuscula philologica et historica (Gottingen 1847). Engels D., Roman Corinth: an alternative model for the classical city (Chicago 1990). Etienne H. (Stephanus), Thesaurus Graecae Linguae (Paris 1831-65).

Eyben E., ‘Antiquity’s View on Puberty, Latomus 31 (1972), 677-97. Fantham E., Julia Augusti: the Emperors Daughter (London & New York 2006). Fantuzzi

M.,

‘La tecnica

versificatoria

del P.Mil.Vogl.

VIII

309,

in G, Bastianini,

A. Casanova (eds.), 1 Papiro di Posidippo un Anno Dopo (Florence 2002), 79-97. Farnell L. R., The Cults of the Greek States, 5 vols. (Oxford 1896-1909). Finglass P. J., Sophocles, Electra (Cambridge 2007).

Finglass P. J., Sophocles, Ajax (Cambridge 2011). Finsler G., Kritische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Griechischen Anthologie (Zurich 1876). Fitton J. W., “The odAos / ἴουλος song, Glotta 53 (1975), 222-38.

Floridi L., Stratone di Sardi, Epigrammi (Alexandria 2007). Fordyce Fraenkel Fraser P. Frazer J.

C. J., Catullus: A Commentary (Oxford 1961). E., Agamemnon, 3 vols. (Oxford 1950). M., Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols. (Oxford 1972). G., Pausanias, Description of Greece, 6 vols. (London 1913).

Frisk H., Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg 1973-97). Fusi A., M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Liber Tertius (Zurich-New York 2006). Galan Vioque G., Dioscörides, Epigramas (Huelva 2001). Galan Vioque G., Martial, Book

2002).

VII:

A Commentary

(trans. J. J. Zoltowski, Leiden

Gandini C., Diplomatico e poeta. Crinagora di Mitilene nella Roma di Augusto (Reggio Calabria 2015). Gardiner E. N., Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals (London 1910),

Gardiner E. N., Athletics of the Ancient World (Oxford 1930). Gardthausen V., Augustus und seine Zeit, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1904). Garvie A. F, Aeschylus, Choephori (Oxford 1986). Garvie A. F., Homer, Odyssey, Books VI- VIL (Cambridge 1994).

Garvie A. F., Aeschylus, Persae (Oxford 2009). Garzya A., Studi sulla lirica greca da Alcmane al primo impero (Messina-Florence 1963).

Geer R. M., ‘The Greek Games of Naples, TAPA 66 (1936), 208-21. Geffcken J., Leonidas von Tarent (Leipzig 1896). Geffcken J., Griechische Epigramme (Heidelberg 1916). Geoghegan D., Anyte. The Epigrams (Rome 1979), Gerber D. E., Pindars Olympian One: A Commentary (Toronto et al. 1982). Gerlaud B., Triphiodore, La Prise d’ Ilion (Paris 1982). Giangrande G., "Two Alexandrian Poetasters, CR 15 (1965), 279-82.

Giangrande G., Review of A. 5. Ε Gow, D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, CR 17 (1967), 17-24. Giangrande G., “The Use of the Vocative in Alexandrian Epic, CQ 18 (1968a), 52-9.

Giangrande G., ‘Sympotic Literature and Epigram in A. Dihle (ed.), LEpigramme grecque, Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur !Antiquité Classique 14 (Geneva 1968b), 91-177,

Giangrande G., ‘Fifteen Hellenistic Epigrams, JHS 95 (1975a), 31-44. Giangrande G., ’humour des Alexandrins (Amsterdam 1975b).

Giannini P., Gentili B., Bernardini P. A., Cingano E., Pindaro, Le Pitiche (Rome 2006). Gold B. K. (ed.), Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome (Austin 1982). Gold B. K., Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome (Chapel Hill 1987).

Goldberg C., Carmina Priapea (Heidelberg 1992).

Goodwin W, W., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (London 1929). Gow A.S. E, Theocritus, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1952).

Gow A. 5, F, The Greek Anthology: Sources and Ascriptions (London 1958). Gow A. 5. F, Page D. L., The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1965).

Gowers E., Horace, Satires Book I (Cambridge 2012). Graefe C. F., Epistola Critica in Bucolicos Graecos (St Petersburg 1815). Green R. P. H., The Works of Ausonius (Oxford 1991). Grewing FE, Martial, Buch VI, Ein Kommentar (Göttingen 1997), Griessmair E., Das Motiv der Mors Immatura in den griechischen Grabinschriften (Innsbruck 1966).

Griffith M., Sophocles, Antigone (Cambridge 1999).

Griffiths A., Review of A. S. F Gow, Ὁ. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: the Garland of Philip and some contemporary epigrams, JHS 90 (1970), 216-19.

Gsell S., Histoire ancienne de Afrique du Nord, 8 vols. (Paris 1920-8). Guichard L, A., Asclepfades de Samos, Epigramas y fragmentos (Berne et al. 2004). Gutzwiller K. J., Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context (Berkeley et al. 1998). Gutzwiller K. J. (ed.), The New Posidippus, a Hellenistic Poetry Book (Oxford 2005). Hainsworth J. B., The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula (Oxford 1968).

Hainsworth J. B., The liad: A Commentary, Vol. II]: books 9-12 (Cambridge 1993). Hall E., ‘Introduction: Pantomime, A Lost Chord of Ancient Culture, in Hall-Wyles (2008), 1-40. Hall E., Wyles R. (eds.), New Directions in Ancient Pantomime (Oxford 2008),

Hamilton A., Richard F, André du Ryer and Oriental Studies in Seventeenth-Century France (Oxford 2004).

Bibliography

συν

Handschur E., Die Farb- und Glanzwörter bei Homer und Hesiod, in den homerischen

Hymnen und den Fragmenten des epischen Kyklos (Vienna 1970). Harberton V., Meleager, and the Other Poets of Jacobs’ Anthology (London 1895). Harder A., Callimachus, Aetia, 2 vols. (Oxford 2012).

Hardie A., Statius and the Silvae: Poets, Patrons and Epideixis in the Graeco-Roman World (Liverpool 1983). Harris H. A., Sport in Greece and Rome (London 1972).

Hartigan K., The Poets and the Cities: Selections from the Anthology about Greek Cities (Meisenheim am Glan 1979),

Hartswick K. J., The Gardens of Sallust: A Changing Landscape (Austin 2004). Hatt J. J., Histoire de la Gaule Romaine (Paris 1970). Hatzikosta S., A stylistic commentary on Theocritus’ Idyll vii (Amsterdam 1979).

Headlam W., Herodas, The Mimes and Fragments (Cambridge 1966). Heawood E., Watermarks (Hilversum 1950). Hecker A., Commentatio critica de Anthologia Graeca (Leiden 1843).

Hecker A., Commentationis Criticae de Anthologia Graeca Pars Prior (Leiden 1852). Hehn V., Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere in ihrem Ubergang aus Asien nach Griechenland und Italie sowie in das tibrige Europa (Hildesheim 1963). Hemelrijk E. A., Matrona Docta: Educated Women in the Roman élite from Cornelia to Julia Domna (London & New York 1999).

Henriksén C., Martial, Book IX, A Commentary, 2 vols. (Uppsala 1999). Herbig R., Pan, der griechische Bocksgott (Frankfurt 1949). Heringa A., Observationum Criticarum Liber Singularis (Leuven 1749).

Hermann G., Orphica (Leipzig 1805). Hermann G., Francisci Vigeri de praecipuis graecae dictionis idiotismis liber, cum animadversionibus Henrici Hoogeveeni, Joannis Caroli Zeunii et Godofredi Hermanni (Leipzig 1834°). Herter H., De Priapo (Gießen 1932), Herzog R., ‘Nikias und Xenophon von Kos, Historische Zeitschrift 125 (1922), 189-247. Hillscher A., ‘Hominum litteratorum Graecorum ante Tiberii mortem in urbe Roma commoratorum Historia critica, Jahrbticher fiir classische Philologie Supp. 18 (1892), 353-444. Hine H. M., Hollis A. $., Hornblower Horsfall N., Horsfall N.,

Seneca; Medea (Warminster 2000). Callimachus’ Hecale (Oxford 1990), S., Lykophron, Alexandra (Oxford 2015). Virgil, Aeneid 11 (Leiden & Boston 2003). Virgil, Aeneid 6 (Berlin & Boston 2013).

Howell P, A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial (London 1980). Howell P., Martial, Epigrams V (Warminster 1995).

Huet D., Notae ad Anthologiam Epigrammatum Graecorum (Utrecht 1700). Hulleman J. G., De vita et scriptis Jubae Maurusii disputatio (Trajecti 1845).

Hunter R., Apollonius of Rhodes: Argonautica Book III (Cambridge 1989). Hunter R., Theocritus, A Selection (Cambridge 1999),

Hunter R., Theocritus, Encomium of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Berkeley et al. 2003). Huschke I. M., Analecta Critica in Anthologiam Graecam (Jena & Leipzig 1800). Hutton J., The Greek Anthology in Italy to the Year 1800 (Ithaca NY 1935).

pipuography Hutton J., The Greek Anthology in France (Ithaca NY 1946). Ἰακώβ A., Πινδάρου Πυθιόνικοι (Heracleion 1994),

Iordanoglou D., ‘Is ‘This Not a Love song? The Dioscorides Epigram on the Fire of Troy’ in 1. Nilsson (ed.), Plotting with Eros (Copenhagen 2009), 83-97. Irwin E., Colour Terms in Greek Poetry (Toronto 1974).

Jacobs F., Emendationes in Epigrammata Anthologiae Graecne (Leipzig 1793). Jacobs F, “Observationes Criticae in Anthologiam Graecam), Acta Philologorum Monacensium 1 (1812), 121-72 and 279-303.

Jacobs F., Delectus Epigrammatum Graecorum (Gotha & Erford 1826), Jacobson Ὁ. M., “Corinthian Bronze and the Gold of the Alchemists’? Gold Bulletin

33 n. 2 (2000), 60-6.

Jacobson ἢ. M., Weitzman 237-47,

M. P. ‘What was Corinthian Bronze?, AJA

96 (1992),

James A. W., Studies in the Language of Oppian of Cilicia (Amsterdam 1970).

Janko R., The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. IV, books 13-16 (Cambridge 1991). Jebb R., Sophocles: The plays and fragments (Cambridge 1892-1900). Joret C., La rose dans lantiquité et au moyen äge (Paris 1892). Jory E. J., “The Literary Evidence for the Beginnings of Imperial Pantomime, BICS 28

(1981), 147-61. Jory E. J., ‘Some Cases of Mistaken Identity?: Pantomime Masks and their Context}

BICS 45 (2001), 1-20. Jory E. J., “The Pantomime Dancer and his Libretto; in Hall-Wyles (2008), 157-68. Jost M., Sanctuaires et Cultes dArcadie (Paris 1985). Jullian C., Histoire de la Gaule, 2 vols. (Paris 19937).

Jüthner J., Die athletischen Leibesübungen der Griechen, 2 vols. (Vienna 1965-8). Kaibel G., Epigrammata Gracca ex lapidibus conlecta (Berlin 1878).

Kakridis F., Ἀριστοφάνους Ὄρνιθες (Athens, Ioannina 1987).

Kamerbeek J. C., The Plays of Sophocles: Commentaries (Leiden 1953-84). Kannicht R., Euripides, Helena (Heidelberg 1969).

Kassel

R.,

Untersuchungen

zur griechischen

und

römischen

Konsolationsliteratur

(Munich 1958),

Kay N. M., Martial Book XI, A Commentary (London 1985). Keller O., Die Antike Tierwelt, 3 vols. (Leipzig 1909-20). Kenney E. J., ‘Doctus Lucretius, Mnemosyne 23 (1970), 366-92.

Kephalidou E., Νικητής: εἰκονογραφική μελέτη του apxalov eAAyvırod αθλητισμού (Thessaloniki 1996).

Keppie L., The Making of the Roman Army (London 1984). Kerényi C., Eleusis: Archetypal Image of Mother and Daughter (trans. R. Manheim, London 1967).

Kerényi C., Zeus and Hera: Archetypal Image of Father, Husband and Wife (trans. C. Holme, London 1976).

Keyssner K., Gottesvorstellung und Lebensauffassung im griechischen Hymnus (Stuttgart

1932).

Kidd D,, Aratus, Phaenomena (Cambridge 1997).

Kienast D., Augustus, Prinzeps und Monarch (Darmstadt 19997). Kiessling A., Horatius. I. Zur Chronologie und Anordnung der Oden, in Philologische

Untersuchungen 2 (1881), 48-75.

Kindstrand J. Ε, Bion of Borysthenes (Uppsala 1976).

Kirk G. S., The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. I: books 1-4 (Cambridge 1985). Kirk G. S., The Iliad:

A Commentary, Vol. II: books 5-8 (Cambridge 1990).

Kirkwood 6. M., Early Greek Monody (Ithaca NY & London 1974). Kobiliri P., A Stylistic Commentary on Hermesianax (Amsterdam 1998).

Kokkinos N., Antonia Augusta, Portrait of a great Roman Lady (London-New York 1992).

Kokolakis M., Pantomimus and the treatise Περὶ

ὀρχήσεως (Athens 1959).

König J., Athletics and Literature in the Roman Empire (Cambridge 2005). Kost K., Musaios, Hero und Leander (Bonn 1971). Koukoules Ε, Βυζαντινῶν Bios καὶ πολιτισμός, 6 vols. (Athens 1948-55).

Kühn C. G., Claudii Galeni opera omnia, 20 vols. (Leipzig 1821-33). Kühn H., Topica Epigrammatum Dedicatorium Graecorum (Bratislava 1906). Kühner R., Gerth B., Ausführliche Grammatik der griechishen Sprache (Hanover

1890-1904).

Kurtz D., Boardman ]., Greek Burial Customs (London 1971). Kuster L., Suidae Lexicon, 3 vols. (Cambridge 1705).

Kyriakides S., Ai ἱστορικαὶ ἀρχαὶ τῆς δημώδους νεοελληνικῆς ποιήσεως (Thessaloniki 1954).

Kyriakou P., A Commentary on Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris (Berlin & New York 2006). Lada-Richards L., Silent Eloquence: Lucian and Pantomime Dancing (London 2007).

Lapp F., De Callimachi Cyrenaei tropis et figuris (Diss. Bonn 1965). Lattimore R., Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana 1942). Laurens P, ‘Martial et [épigramme grecque du ler siécle ἀργὸς J.C, REL 43 (1965), 315-41.

Lausberg H., Handbook of Literary Rhetoric (Leiden 1998). Lauxtermann M. D., ‘Janus Lascaris and the Greek Anthology’ in S. de Beer et al. (eds.), The Neo-Latin Epigram: a Learned and Witty Genre (Leuven 2009), 41-66, Le Bohec Y., Larmeé romaine sous le Haut-Empire (Paris 2002). Leaf W., The Iliad, 2 vols. (London 1900). Leary T. J., The Apophoreta (London 1996). Leary T.J., Martial Book XIH, The Xenia (London 2001).

Legrand E., Bibliotheque grecque vulgaire, 2 vols. (Paris 1880-1). Leppin H., ‘Tacitus und die Anfänge des kaiserzeitlichen Pantomimus, RAM 139 (1996), 33-40. Lesquier J., LArmée romaine d’Egypte d’Auguste a Dioclétien (Cairo 1918). Levick B., Tiberius the Politician (London & New York 1976, 1999).

Lightfoot J. L., Parthenius of Nicaea, The poetical fragments and the ’Epwrıra Παθήματα (Oxford 1999),

Luccioni P., ‘Mourir loin de sa patrie: une épigramme de Martial (10, 26) et une épigramme de Crinagoras (AP 7, 645), in A. Garcea et al. (eds.), Polyphonia Romana: Hommages ἃ Frederique Bivile (Zurich & New York 2013), 551-60.

Luck G., ‘Conjectures oubliées d’un helléniste francais, Rev. de Phil. 33 (1959), 42-7. Lumb T. W,, Notes on the Greek Anthology (London 1920). Maas P., Greek Metre (trans. H. Lloyd-Jones, Oxford 1972).

Macan R. W., Herodotus: the fourth, fifth, and sixth books (London 1895), MacDowell D. M., Aristophanes Wasps (Oxford 1971).

512

Bibliography

McKeown J. C., Ovid: Amores, 3 vols. (Liverpool-Leeds 1987-98).

McLennan G. R., Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus (Rome 1977). Macurdy G. H., Hellenistic Queens (Baltimore 1932). Macurdy G. H., Vassal-queens and some contemporary women in the Roman Empire (Baltimore 1937). Maehler H., Die Lieder des Bakchylides (Leiden 1982-97).

Magnelli E., Studi su Euforione (Rome 2002).

Mair A. W,, Oppian, Colluthus, Triphiodorus (Cambridge MA 1928). Maltby R., Tibullus: Elegies (Cambridge 2002).

Marquardt J., Das Privatleben der Romer (Leipzig 1886). Martin J., Antike Rhetorik, Technik und Methode (Munich 1974).

Masson O., Les fragments du poete Hipponax (Paris 1962). Masson O., ‘Nouvelles notes danthroponymie grecque, ZPE 102 (1994), 167-84, Matthiessen K., Euripides, Hekabe (Berlin & New York 2010). Mayer R., Horace, Odes, Book I (Cambridge 2012). Meineke A., Delectus Poetarum Anthologiae Graecae (Berlin 1842).

Merentitis K., “Ai avainarroı προσφοραὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων, Πλάτων 4 (1952), 199-222. Merry W., Riddell J., Homer's Odyssey, Vol. 1, books I-XII (Oxford 1886).

Meyer W., ‘Zur Geschichte des griechischen und lateinischen Hexameters, Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und historischen Classe der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München 6 (1884), 979-1089. Mineur W. A., Callimachus, Hymn to Delos (Leiden 1984). Mommsen T., Römische Kaisergeschichte (nach den Vorlesungs-Mitschriften von Sebastian und Paul Hensel 1882-6), herausgegeben von Barbara aud Alexander Demandt (Munich 1992).

Mommsen T., Gesammelte Schriften: band 4, 5, 6: Historische Schriften (Zurich & Hildesheim 1906-8, repr. 1965). Monk J. H., Blomfield C. J., Ricardi Porsoni Adversaria: Notae et emendationes in poetas Graecos (Cambridge 1812). Monro D. B., Homeric Grammar (Oxford 1891).

Mooney G. W., The Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius (Dublin 1912). Moreno Soldevila R., Martial, Book IV,

A Commentary (Leiden 2006).

Moretti L., Iscrizioni Agonistiche Greche (Rome 1953). Moretti L., Olympionikai, i vincitori negli antichi agoni Olimpici (Rome 1957). Moretti L., “Nuovo supplemento al catalogo degli Olympionikai, Miscellanea Greca e

Romana 12 (1987), 67-91.

Mugler Ch., ‘Sur lorigine et le sens de [expression καθαιρεῖν τὴν σελήνην, REA 61 (1959), 48-56.

Müller K., Geographi Graeci Minores, vol. 1 (Paris 1855). Müller K., Die Epigramme des Antiphilos von Byzanz (Berlin 1935). Murgatroyd P, Tibullus I: A Commentary on the First Book of the Elegies of Albius Tibullus (Pietermaritzburg 1980). Murgatroyd P., Tibullus, Elegies II (Oxford 1994).

Mylonas G. E., Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Princeton 1961). Nauta R., Poetry for Patrons: Literary Communication in the Age of Domitian (Leiden 2002).

Nilsson M. P, Griechische Feste (Leipzig 1906).

Bibliography

513

Nilsson M. P., Greek Popular Religion (New York 1940). Nilsson M. P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion (Munich 1967-74°).

Nisbet R. G. M., Hubbard M.,

A Commentary on Horace, Odes, Book I (Oxford 1970).

Nisbet R. G. M., Hubbard M.,

A Commentary on Horace, Odes, Book II (Oxford 1978).

Nisbet R. G. M., Rudd N., A Commentary on Horace, Odes, Book III (Oxford 2004). Norden E., ‘Das Germanenepigram des Krinagoras, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 49 (1917), 668-79.

Obsopoeus V., In Graecorum Epigrammatum libros quatuor Annotationes (Basle 1540). O'Connor E. M., Symbolum Salacitatis: A Study of the God Priapus (Frankfurt-BernNew York- Paris 1989)

O’Hara J. J., True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (Michigan 1996). Olson 5. D., Aristophanes, Acharnians (Oxford 2002). Olson S. D., Sens A., Archestratus of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE (Oxford 2000). Page D. L., Euripides, Medea (Oxford 1952).

Page Ὁ. L., The Epigrams of Rufinus (Cambridge 1978).

Page D. I.., Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge 1981). Pagonari-Antoniou F, Καλλιμάχον πιγράμματα (Athens 1997). Parke H. W., The Oracles of Zeus (Oxford 1967). Parke H. W., Festivals of the Athenians (London 1977).

Parker H. M. D., The Roman Legions (Cambridge 1971). Parker L. P. E., Euripides, Alcestis (Oxford 2007). Parker R. W., ‘Potamon of Mytilene and his Family, ZPE 85 (1991), 115-29.

Parker W. H., Priapea: Poems for a phallic god (London-Sydney 1988).

Patillon M., Apsinés, art rhétorique (Paris 2002). Peek W., Griechische Vers-Inschriften: Grabepigramme (Berlin 1955). Pezopoulos E. A., ᾿Συμβολαὶ κριτικαὶ καὶ ἑρμηνευτικαὶ eis ἑλληνικὰ ἐπιγράμματα), Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher 8 (1931), 171-88. Pfeiffer R., Callimachus, 2 vols. (Oxford 1949-53).

Pfeijffer I. L., Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar (Leiden 1999).

Piccolos N., Supplement a Anthologie Grecque (Paris 1853). Pierson J., Verisimilium, libri duo (Leiden 1752).

Pierson J., Moeridis Atticistae Lexicon Atticum (Leipzig 1759). Piganiol A,, Les Ligures (Tours 1980).

Pingiatoglou S., Eileithyia (Würzburg 1981). Pircher J., Das Lob der Frau im vorchristlichen Grabepigramm der Griechen (Innsbruck

1979). Politis N. G., Ἐκλογαὶ ἀπὸ τὰ τραγούδια τοῦ ἑλληνικοῦ λαοῦ (Athens 1932°). Postgate J. Ρ, “The Alleged Confusion of Nymph-Names, AJP 17 (1896), 29-44. Powell J. U., Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford 1925).

Préaux C., ‘La lune dans la pensée grecque, Mémoires de la Classe des Lettres 61 (1973). Race W. H., The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius (Leiden 1982). Raffeiner H., Sklaven und Freigelassene (Innsbruck 1977). Reed J. D., Bion of Smyrna, The fragments and the Adonis (Cambridge 1997). Regling K. R., “Zum Fund von Jubadenaren in Alkasar’, Zeitschrift für Numismatik 28 (1910), 9-27.

Reitzenstein R., Epigramm und Skolion (GieBen 1893).

514

Bibliography

Richardson N. J., The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford 1974). Richardson N. J., The Hiad: A Commentary, Vol, VI: books 21-24 (Cambridge 1993).

Richardson N. J., Three Homeric Hymms: to Apollo, Hermes, and Aphrodite (Cambridge 2010).

Robert L., ‘Insciptions de Lesbos et de Samos, BCH 59 (1935), 471-88. Robert L., Monnaies grecques: types, légendes, magistrats monetaires et géographie (Paris 1967).

Rogers B. B., The Comedies of Aristophanes, 6 vols. (London 1875-1930). Rohde E., Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Beliefin Immortality among the Greeks (FreiburgLeipzig 1894, trans, W. B. Hillis, London 1925). Roller Ὁ. W., The Building Program of Herod the Great (Berkeley et al. 1998). Roller D. W., The World of Juba II and Kleopatra Selene (New York & London 2003). Rolleston J. D., The Medical Aspects of the Greek Anthology (London 1914). Roscher W. H., Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (Leipzig 1884-1937). Rosenmeyer P. A., ‘Epistolary Epigrams in the Greek Anthology, in M. A. Harder, R. E. Regtuit, G. C. Wakker, Hellenistic Epigrams (Hellenistica Groningana 6, Leuven et al. 2002), 137-49,

Rossi L., ‘Composition and Reception in AP 9.1-583; Aphegesis, Epideixis and Progymnasmata, in M. A. Harder, R. T. Regtuit, G. C. Wakker, Hellenistic Epigrams (Hellenistica Groningana 6, Leuven et al. 2002), 151-74. Rossi M. A., Theocritus Idyll XVII: a Stylistic Commentary (Amsterdam 1989). Rothstein M., Stark R., Propertius Sextus: Elegien, 2 vols. (Dublin-Zurich 1966). Rotolo V., I Pantomimo, studi e testi (Palermo 1957).

Rouse W. H. D., Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge 1902). Rowe G. O., “The “Ad YNATON’ ἃς ἃ Stylistic Device, AJP 86 (1956), 387-96. Rozokoki A., Ἀνακρέων (Athens 2006). Ruhnken D., Epistola Critica I (Leiden 1749). Russell Ὁ. A., Wilson N. G., Menander Rhetor (Oxford 1981). Russo J., Fernandez-Galiano M., Heubeck A., Hoekstra A., Hainsworth J. B., West S.,

A Commentary on Homer Odyssey, 3 vols. (Oxford 1988-92). Salemme C., Marziale e la poesia delle cose (Naples 2005).

Saller R. P., Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge 1982). Salmasius C., Plinianae exercitationes (Utrecht 1689a).

Salmasius C., Exercitationes De homonymis hyles iatricae (Utrecht 1689). Salmon E., A History of the Roman World from 30 B.C. to A.D. 138 (London & New York 1995").

Schmidt J. H. H., Synonymik der griechischen Sprache, 4 vols. (Leipzig 1876-86). Schmitz T. A., Wiater N., The Struggle for Identity: Greeks and their Past in the First Century BCE (Stuttgart 2011).

Schneider O., Review

of A. Hecker, Commentatio

critica de Anthologia Graeca,

Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft 102 (1845), 809-16. Schöffel C., Martial, Buch 8 (Stuttgart 2002).

Schulte H., Julian von Ägypten (Trier 1990). Schulze W., Quaestiones Epicne (Gütersloh 1892).

Schwyzer E., Griechische Grammatik, 3 vols. (Munich 1950-3).

Bibliography

515

Scott J. A., “The Vocative in Homer and Hesiod, AJP 24 (1903), 192-6. Scott J. A., ‘The Vocative in Aeschylus and Sophocles, AJP 25 (1904), 81~4. Scott J. A., ‘Additional Notes on the Vocative; AJP 26 (1905), 32-43,

Seager R., Tiberius (London 1972), Seelbach W., Die Epigramme des Mnasalkes von Sikyon und des Theodoridas von Syrakus (Wiesbaden 1964).

Sens A., ‘Doricisms in the New and Old Posidippus, in B. Acosta-Hughes et al. (eds.), Labored in Papyrus Leaves (Cambridge MA 2004), 65-83. Sens A., Asclepiades of Samos, Epigrams and Fragments (Oxford 2011). Shackleton Bailey D. R., Propertiana (Cambridge 1956). Sherk R. K., Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore 1969). Shotter D., Augustus Caesar (London, New York 2005’). Sider D., The Epigrams of Philodemus (Oxford 1997).

Siedschlag E., Zum Form von Martials Epigrammen (Berlin 1977). Simon E., Festivals of Attica: an Archaeological Commentary (Madison 1983).

Sitlington Sterrett J, R., “The Torch-Race:

A Commentary on the Agamemnon of

Aischylos vv. 324-326, AJP 22 (1901), 393-419.

Sitzler J., Review

of M.

Rubensohn,

Crinagorae Mytilenaei Epigrammata,

Neue

Philologische Rundschau 9 (1889), 113-18.

Skiadas A., Homer im griechischen Epigramm (Athens 1965). Skiadas A., Ἐπὶ τύμβῳ. Συμβολὴ eis τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν ἑλληνικῶν ἐπιτυμβίων ἐμμέτρων

ἐπιγραφῶν (Athens 1967). Slater W. J., ‘Pueri, Turba Minuta, BICS 21 (1974), 133-40.

Small S. G. P, ‘Marcus Argentarius, A Poet of the Greek Anthology, YCS 12 (1951), 67-145.

Smith K. F., The Elegies of Albius Tibullus (Darmstadt 1971). Smyth H. W., Greek Grammar (Cambridge MA 1956). Sommer L., Das Haar in Religion und Aberglauben der Griechen (Münster 1912). Sommerstein A., Aeschylus, Eumenides (Cambridge 1989). Spanoudakis K., Philitas of Cos (Leiden 2002).

Speidel M., Roman Army Studies, Vol. 1 (Amsterdam 1984). Stamatelatos M., Vamva-Stamatelatou F, Επίτομο Γεωγραφικό Ackid τῆς Ελλάδος (Athens 2001).

Stanford W. B., The Odyssey of Homer, 2 vols. (London 1947-8). Stanford W. B., Sophocles, Ajax (Bristol 1963).

Stansbury H., Corinthian Honor, Corinthian Conflict: A Social History of Early Roman Corinth and its Pauline Community (Diss. University of California, Irvine 1990). Starks J. H., Jr, Pantomime Actresses in Latin Inscriptions, in Hall-Wyles (2008),

110-45. Steckerl F., The Fragments of Praxagoras of Cos and his School (Leiden 1958). Steiner D., Homer Odyssey, Books XVII-XVII (Cambridge 2010). Stephens S., Seeing Double (Berkeley 2003). Sternbach L., Meletemata Graeca, I (Vienna 1886).

Sternbach L., Review of M. Rubensohn, Crinagorae Mytilenaei Epigrammata, Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 40 (1889), 304-8.

Sternbach L., ‘Crinagorea, WS 12 (1890), 206-21.

Stoll H. W, Review of E. Geist, Krinagoras Alterthumswissenschaft 8 (1850), 274-8.

von

Mytilene,

Zeitschrift für

die

Sullivan J, P, Martial: The Unexpected Classic (Cambridge 1991).

Syme R., ‘Some Notes on the Legions under Augustus, JRS 23 (1933), 14-33. Syme R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939). Syme R., ‘Who was Vedius Pollio?) JRS 51 (1961), 23-30. Syme R., History in Ovid (Oxford 1978).

Syme R., The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford 1986). Szastytiska-Siemion A., A Parrot Hails the Emperor’, in K. Marciniak, J. Axer (eds,), Birthday Beasts’ Book (Warsaw 2011), 415-21.

Szczot M., ‘Natalem colimus...- Greek and Latin Birthday Epigrams, in 5. Rucitiski, C. Balbuza, C. Krölczyk (eds.), Studia Lesco Mrozewicz ab amicis et discipulis dedicata (Poznan 2011), 411-16. Taillardat J., Les images dAristophane: études de langue et de style (Paris 1965),

Tarrant D., ‘Greek Metaphors of Light, CQ 10 (1960), 181-7. Thomas R. F, Horace: Odes, Book IV and Carmen Saeculare (Cambridge 2011). Toup J., Emendationes in Suidam, 3 vols. (London 1760-6).

Toup J.. Curae novissimae sive appendicula notarum

et emendationum

in Suidam

(London 1775).

Toup J., Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium et alios lexicographos Graecos, 3 vols, (Oxford 1790).

Triomphe R., Le lion, la vierge et le miel (Paris 1989). Trowbridge M. L., Philological Studies in Ancient Glass (University of Illinois 1930). Tueller M. A., Look Whos

Talking. Innovations in Voice and Identity in Hellenistic

Epigram (Leuven et al. 2008). Usener H., Gétternamen (Frankfurt 2000"),

Vallat D., Onomastique, culture et société dans les Epigrammes de Martial (Brussels 2008). Van Dam H. J., P Papinius Statius, Silvae, Book II,

A Commentary (Leiden 1984).

Van Groningen B. A., Theognis Livre I (Amsterdam 1966). Van Groningen B. A., Euphorion (Amsterdam 1977). Van Herwerden H., ‘Ad Anthologiam Palatinam, Mnemosyne 2 (1874), 302-46. Van Herwerden H., ‘In Anthologiam Palatinam Commentatio Critica Altera, Mnemosyne 14 (1886), 366-414.

Van Leeuwen J. Ε, Aristophanis Ecclesiazousae (Leiden 1905).

Van Lennep J. D., Phalaridis Epistolae (Leipzig 1823). Van Miert D., “The French Connection: from Casaubon and Scaliger, via Saumaise, to Isaac Vossius, in E. Jorink and D. Van Miert (eds.), Isaac Vossius (1618-1689) between

Science and Scholarship (Leiden, Boston 2012), 15-42. Van Raalte M., ‘Greek Elegiac Verse Rhythm, Glotta 66 (1988) 145-78. Veitch W., Greek Verbs, Irregular and Defective (Oxford 1887). Verilhac A. M., Παῖδες ἄωροι: pogsie funéraire, 2 vols. (Athens 1978-82).

Viansino G., Agazia Scolastico, Epigrammi (Milan 1967). Wachtler A., Studien zum VI. Buche der palatinischen Anthologie (Villach 1896).

Waern L, ‘Flora Sapphica, Eranos 70 (1972), 1-11. Warmington E. H., The Commerce between the Roman Empire and India (Cambridge 1928).

Watson L. C., Arae, the Curse Poetry of Antiquity (Leeds 1991). Watson L. C.,

A Commentary on Horace’s Epodes (Oxford 2003).

Watson P,, ‘Erotion: Puella Delicata?’, CQ 42 (1992), 253-68. Weinreich O., Antike Heilungswunder (Gießen 1909). Weinreich O., Studien zu Martial (Stuttgart 1928). Weinreich O., ‘Zwei Epigramme: Dioskorides V 138 und Krinagoras IX 429, WS 59

(1941), 61-88.

Weinreich O., Epigrammstudien I: Epigramm und Pantomimus (Heidelberg 1948). Weisshäupl R., Die Grabgedichte der griechischen Anthologie (Vienna 1889). West M. L., Hesiod, Theogony (Oxford 1966). West M. L., Hesiod, Works and Days (Oxford 1978). West M. L., Greek Metre (Oxford 1982).

West M. L., Introduction to Greek Metre (Oxford 1987). West M. L., Carmina Anacreontea (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1993). White H., Theocritus’ Idyll XXIV:

A Commentary (Amsterdam 1979).

White H., New Essays in Hellenistic Poetry (Amsterdam 1985). White H., New Studies in Greek Poetry (Amsterdam 1989), White P., ‘Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome; JRS 68 (1978), 74-92.

White P, ‘Positions for Poets in Early Imperial Rome; in Gold (1982), 50-66.

White P., Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome (Cambridge, MA 1993). Wifstrand A., Von Kallimachos zu Nonnos (Lund 1933).

Williams C. A., Martial, Epigrams, Book Two (Oxford 2004). Williams F, “2 in Theocritus, Eranos 71 (1973), 52-67.

Williams F., Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo: A Commentary (Oxford 1978). Williams G., Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Empire (Berkeley 1978). Willink C. W,, Euripides’ Orestes (Oxford 1986).

Wolters P, ‘Zu griechischen Epigrammen, RhM 41 (1886), 342-8. Wright M. R., Empedocles: The Extant Fragments (New Haven CT 1981 & London 1995).

Yarrow L. M., Historiography at the End of the Republic (Oxford 2006). Young Ὁ. C., Three Odes of Pindar: A Literary Study of Pythian 11, Pythian 3 and Olympian 7 (Leiden 1968).

Index of Greek Words The numbers refer to epigram and line ἀγκυλόχειλος 4,1

ἄφενος 48,3

dypeurns 43,5 ἀγρότερος 38,4 ἀήτης 34,3

ἄφυκτος 50,6

ἀήττητος 21,8

axvoos 9,3 ἄχος 50,7 ἄψευστος 45,6

ἄθριξ 41,5 ἄθυρμα 19,1 αἰετός 4,1; 21,5

ἀφύλακτος 46,6

ἀχλύω 18,1

βαθυαγκής 26,1

αἷμύλος 19,2 αἰχμητής 21,3 ἄκατος 51,8 ἀκέλευστος 24,8 ἀκηδής 35,5 ἀκρέσπερος 18,1

βαθύπλουτος

ἀκρόδρυον

βρέγμα 47,1 Bporéynpus 24,1

31,4

ἀκρόπτερον 4,1 ἀκτίς 26,3

Bards

36,2

4,5; 16,4; 31,2

βαπτός 4,2 βάπτω 44,4

βληχή 38,7

βότρυς 42,1

γέλγις 42,5

ἁλικύμων 2,1 ἀλιτρός 41,1 ἄλλιστος 19,3

γενέθλιος 3,1; 5,3; 6,3 vepavöpvov 43,5 γήθω 5,4; 12,5 γλύφω 4,2

ἀλάομαι

16,1

ἀμέτρητος 16,6

yodw

ἀμίμητος 7,2;14,6

Sais 4,5; 42,8

ἀμμορίη 37,2 ἀμολγεύς 23,1 ἀμυγδάλη 42,3

δεξιός 1,1; 27,4 διάγλυπτος

3,3

ἀμυδρός 48,5 ἀμφίκομος 30,2

διαπρύσιος

13,1

ἀναθρώσκω

δισθανής 22,6

devraros

21,6

ἀνατέλλω 18,1; 26,3 doAAns 26,5 ἀποκλύζω 46,1 ἀποφαιδρύνω

29,5

ἀραρίσκω 36,6 ἀργύρεος 3,1; 5,1 apnibaros 21,6

ἄρκευθος 43,5 ἄρκιος 51,5 aprıdans 3,6 ἀσπάσιος

34,4

ἄσπασμα

24,3

15,5; 45,3

diepds 46,2 διφέω 32,3 διώκω 34,3

δολιχός 51,4 δόσις 3,5 δρᾶμα 49,1 δρυμός 24,2 δρῦς 27,5 δρυτόμος 29,5

δύσβωλος 41,1 δύσμορος 2,4 δυσνύμφευτος 41,7 δύστηνος 20,1

dooöraros 6,4; 48,2

δῶρον

ἀστράπτω 26,4 arnpds 16,2

ἔαρ

ἀτρεμίη

31,6

αὖλαξ 31,3 αὖος

27,6

αὐτόματος

48,4

14,1

4,6; 7,5; 48,5

6,1; 9,4

ἑδραῖος

35,1

εἴδωλον 48,6 eivaerıs 19,2

ἐκμελετάω 24,3 ἑκυρή 12,5

ἐλαφοσσοΐη

ἐμμάσσω

43,8

51,3

ἔμπεδος

25,6; 27,5

κράσπεδον 29,2 κριός 44,3 κροκάλη 46,1

ἔμπυρος 8,3 ἐπαιωρέω 20,3 ἐπίβουλος 50,2

κοῦρος

8,1

κύανος κύκλος

4,2 32,5

ἐπιμειδιάω

κύρτος 24,1

ἐράσμιος

6,3

19,1

κώδων

13,5

ἔρδω 30,1 ἔρις 8,1 ἑσπέριος 10,1 ἐτήτυμος 14,5

κῶλον

41,4

λαθικηδής 51,6 λαιός 1,1 λαμπάς 8,1

ἔτυμος 14,2 εὔθηλος 23,1 evOnpos 43,7

λείψανον

εὐκταῖος

λευκόλοφον

λαοτέκτων

40,2

λάσιος 30,2

9,1

41,6; 47,4

44,2

εὐμαθία 3,6 eVodpuos 41,3 εὐπειθής 15,6

λέχος 1,2 ληϊστής 30,2 λιθηλογής 43,7

εὐπίδαξ 43,1 evoxıoros 3,3; 42,1

λιπαίνω 51,2

ζοφερός 18,4

λιμήν

31,6; 34,4

λύγδινος

40,1

ζωός 22,2; 45,4

λυγοτευχής 24,1

ἡγητήρ 32,3; 44,3 (ἁγητήρ)

λῶπος

ἡμιπύρωτος

μαλλός 38,3 μαρτύριον 29,4

ἠλέματος 48,6 nideos 9,4

41,5

ἡπειρος 25,6 ἠρινός 6,6 θαρσαλέος 27.4 θηλή

38,6

θλίβω 37,6; 50,5 θρασύς

2,2

μαλακός 12,4; 38,3 μείλιχος

9,2

μεταδόρπιος 4,3 μετοχλίζω 22,5 μετρέω 31,2 μῆτις

30,6

μισητὸς 40,2

Θρήιξ 34,2

μνῆμα μολπή

θρίξ 9,6 θρύμμα 42,2

8,2 2,2

μυελός 42,2

θυμός 3.5 ἰητήρ 51,7 ἴουλος 9,5

μυχός 29,1 ναυμάχος 21,2

vexpoBapys 51,8 νεκρός 22,4

Ἰσθμικός 5,1 ἵστωρ 32,5

véxvs

ἰτρίνεος 42,4 κακοσκηνής

46,1

41,7

κάλαμος 3,2

20,6; 21,6; 40,5; 45,3

νέμεσις 17,3 νεόσμηκτος 3,2 veorevyys 33,3

καλιή 43,3 κάλυξ 6,2 κάλως 11,2

veppds 30,4

κάματος 20,5 κάρπιμος 31,4

Eeiviov

5,2

ὄγχνη

42,5

καῦμα

15,4

vnoxos

44,4

νυμφίδιος 6,4

ὀθνεῖος

20,5

κελάδημα 13,1 κέλυφος 47,1

οἰκήτωρ 27,1

κέρας 3,3

οἰνοπέπαντος 42,1

κλύδων

κόρση κραναός

46,3

41,5 10,2

oikoyevns ὄλπη

19,2

5,2

ὅμαιμος 9,3 ὁμωνυμίη 8,4; 17,2

ὄνειρον

48,3

σκῆπτρον

ὅρος 20,4; 22,1 οὖθαρ

σκοπός

23,2

οὐθάτιος 38,6 ὀχεύς

22.5

πάγος

46,2

παλίμπρητος πανάκη

27,5

51,2

περιγράφω 31,1

περίοπτος 20,4 περίπλοος 32,3

πιλοφόρος 38,2 Πισαῖος 13,2 “ιτύστεπτος 43,3 πλήμυρα 27,1

ποπάς 42,4 πορφύρεος 4,2; 6,2 πότιμος 42,5 πουλυγάλακτος 23,2 πουλυσέβαστος πραπίδες 7,6 πρέμνον 43,6 πρεῶν 43,2

29,3

πρηύς 4,4; 12,4; 34,4; 51,6 πρίων 41,40 προβατεύω

44,1

mpoxon 26,2 πυρετός 51,4 Πυρηναῖος 26,1

Πυρήνη 29,4 πυρικλοπίη

8,2

πυρσός 2,4 πωτάομαι

48,2

ῥάκος 40,6 pela 9,1 ῥεῦμα 33,2 ῥιγηλός 33,1 ῥόδον 6,1 ῥοιβδέω 44,6 ῥοιή 42,1 σάλπιγξ 13,1 σελίς 3,4

σηματόεις 7,7

Wu bou

720,2; 25,6

2,1

σκῦλον 43,8 σκυλοφόρος 10,2 στίβος 30,5σ στρηνής 13,2 στρόβιλος

42,2

σύμπνοος 3,6 συσφίγγω 50,1 σχάζω 6,2 ταγός 21.7 ταχυνόμενος 3,4

ταχινός 43,8 τέλσον 10,2 τένων

50,2

reden 41,7 ropevrös 11,1 τριτοκέω 38,5 Τυρσηνός 13,1 τυτθός 46,2 ὑποβένθιος 44,5 ὑστάτιος

16,5

φιλόξεινος 11,3 φιλοσκίπων 42,7 φρήν 4,5; 5,45 34,1 φύλαξ 30,3 φωρή 30,3 χαίτη 38,3

χάλκεος 5,1 xepuds 15,5 χερνῆτις 46,2 χερσαῖος 35,2

χέρσος 46,3 χεῦμα 21,3 xpiw 30,4 ψάμμος 37,4

ψαφαρός 20,6 ψεδνός 38,4 ψεύστης 2,3 ψιττακός 24,1

ψυχρός 48,2 ὠδίς 9,2; 12,3 ὠκυδίδακτος

24,5

μι

Index of Greek Words

Index of Ancient Authors The numbers refer to pages

Greek Aceratus

AP7.138=1,1FGE

105

Achaeus

fr. 19,1£. TrGrF

Aelius Aristides

In Aegeum Mare

Aeg. 251.7-13

90

Adaeus

Athena Ath. 16.17

157 n. 6

Panathenaicus

AP 6,258=2,1GP 6.2582,6 GP

478 386

7.240=5,2 GP

268

7.238=4,2 GP 9.300=7,3 GP

402 435

9544=9,2GP

315, 322

151

Pan. 185.13-15 354 Schol. on Ael. Arist.1.122,19 228 Aemilianus AP9.218=2,2 GP

500

Aeschylus Agamemnon

Aelian

Ag. 2

63

De Natura Animalium

Ag. 75

267

NA NA NA NA NA

1.37 2.13 2.54 3,3 3,33,5

307 445 445 n. 10 378 244

Ag, Ag. Ag. Ag. Ag.

214 312 314 339 471

324 116 114 n.5 438 218

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

5.43 7.35 9,54-5 10.12 13,18,29f. 14.7 14.27,24 16.2,6f. 16.37 17.10 17,31 17,34

206 147 307 307 255 76 68 255 378 382 378 382

Ag. Ag. Ag. Ag. Ag. Ag. Ag. Ag. Ag. Ag. Ag. Ag.

605 664 667 682, 723 726 731, 979 805 834 891-4 973 1109

209 363 239 171 170 428 260 87 489 59 123 304

NA 4,32

Varia Historia

378

Ag. 586

332

Ag. 1156

266

236

Ag. 1226

408

VH 14.30

253

Ag. 1228-30

406

VH 14.41

68

Ag. 1341-1342

455

Ag. 1440-3 Ag. 1484 Ag. 1491

438 183 87

Ag. 1555-9

453

VH 1.29 VH 3.1,,3{.

236 247

VH 4.7

Fragments fr. 153 Hercher=156 Domingo-Forasté; fr. 342,1 Hercher=339,1 DomingoForaslé

206

Ag. 1157 Ag. 1208 Ag. 1424f.

289 312 63

Ag. 1663

455

Choephoroe Ch. 107 Ch. 127 Ch, 186

Ch. 308 Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch.

626 685 686 861.

Ch. 88if. Ch. 1036

87 321 284 70 313 500 90 153 446 438

Eumenides Eum. 28

Eum. 199f. Eum. 214

Eum. 347 Eum. 375f. Eum. 404 Eum. 459 Eum. 485-6

Eum. 502 Eum. 5678 Eum. 606

Eum. 649f. Eum. 665

Eum. 739 Eum. 832 Eum. 1028 Persae Pers. 158

Pers. 207f. Pers. Pers. Pers. Pers.

269 302 316 326

Pers. 426f. Pers. Pers. Pers. Pers. Pers. Pers. Pers.

438 601 611-18 737 804 811 825

123 160 n. 12 147 149 408 448 401 229 212 157 153 125 153 452 461 84 455 257 232 362 133 169 461 363 455 385 167 476 438 455

Prometheus Pr. 88-90 Pr. 91

Pr. 139f. Pr. 168f. Pr. 433 Pr. 431

Pr. 455f. Pr. 5368, Pr. 545

Pr. 658f.

Pr. 666

2190.5

Pr. 746 Pr. 797

183 203 265 105, 285 289 117 489 403

Pr. Pr. Pr. Pr. Pr. Pr.

808 811. 832-3 841 903 1023

Septem contra Thebas Sept. 12 Sept, 45 Sept. 52

Sept. 116

Sept. 141 Sept. 287

Sept. 389, Sept. 403 Sept. 534 Sept. 700 Sept. 919f. Supplices Su 70 Su 110 Su 327

Su 516 Su 525 Su 554

Su Su Su Su Su

65. 74l 802f. 873 952

Su 997

Su 1048f. Schol. on Aesch. Ch. 822

218 489 363 175 123 360 244 266 462 229 369 169 344 260

Fragments fr. 57,3 TrGrF fr. 98 TrGrF fr. 196,4f. TrGrF

fr. 208 TrGrF fr. 300,2-5 TrGrF fr. 300,6f. TrGrF

220 436 388 116 264 n.4 275

Aeschines

1.134,5f. 148 229 338 409 n. 9 301 460 322 183 332 423

169 277 68 123 153 59 200 204 127 118 87

169

[Aeschines]

Epistulae 5.2,7f.

420

Agathias AP 4.3,88 4.3,9f. 4.3,103 4,3,113

185 106 259 258

Agathias (cont.) 4,3,125

364

fr. 70,4 L-P

479

fr, 397 L-P

387

5.216,2

413

5.267 ,1

486

5.278,5

498

AP

5.289,10

412

6.218=21,2 HE

435

5.302,13

469

5.2732

5.289,3f.

6.32,2-3 6.74,7

140

18 ἢ. 68

428-429

123

fr. 129,17 L-P

402

Alcaeus Messenius

5.10=6,3 HE

68, 472

7.55=12,1

453

7.55=12,3-4f. HE

245, 420

7.412=14,1

167

6.80,1

105

7.495=15,1£.; 15,2-3f. HE

345, 347, 460

6.167

432

7,536=13,1-2; 15,3 HE

109, 197

7.204

413

9,519=2,2: 2,4 HE

153, 467

7.552,9

332

API

7.568,1

456

APIS

7

7.574,3-5

176, 413

API5=5,2 HE

132

7.589.2

231

API 8=18,1; 18,5 HE

435, 486

7.602,3

185

AP!196=19 HE

485, 486n.5

9152-5

367

API5=5 HE

7

9.153

9.153,1 9.154,5 9.619,4 9.641

9.641,6

182

;

369 498 231

Alciphron 3.23,3 4.6,4

83 340 489 and ἡ. 10

298

4.13,16

9.643

349

410

Alcman fr. 59A

Alexis

9.644,2

322, 462

9.644,9 10.14,7

425 n.17 462

‘oes

ἐγ

Alexander Aetolus

11,64,8 11.350,6

205 480

AP 7,709=1,1 HE

ἜΣ. 113721

79

113821and16 "ΜΝ

497

API API 36,5 API 59,2 AP! 36

125 400 430

Agis

AP 6.152=1;1,3 HE 78,430 Alcaeus

fr. 346,3 L-P

fr. 223,7-8 K-A fr. 341,1 ΚΑ

fr. 5,

a

419

139 360

343 376

6.187=5,2 GP

430

9.90=1,25 1,3 GP 9.95=7

70, 231 458

9.101=9 9.101=9,2 GP 9.101=9,4 GP 9.104=10

367 371 374 367

9,526=3,3f,

292

12.18=11,2 GP

489

Ammianus

493

AP 9.573,1

349

11.14,1, 11.14,6 11.15 11.226 Anacreon 11 PMG 15,4 and 72,3ff. PMG

28,1-2 PMG 43 PMG 84,85 PMG 88,2 PMG 126 PMG=137

129 PMG 155 PMG Eleg. 4 IEG

63 247 349 413

7.157 73581 7.169=68,8 FGE 7.179=25 FGE 7.221,6 7.224,2

123 119, 344 267 462 100 100 107 107 107 108 109 109

7.298=49

6 n. 16,

7.334,11f. 7.336=49,1 FGE 7.343,9 7.416=45,1f. FGE 7.482=48,3 HE 7.483=47 and 47,1 HE

126

177

7.543=54,1 FGE

308

7.544=24,2 FGE 7.546=46,1 7.615,2 7.626=1,1-4 GP

376 67 n. 2 177 374 409

109 58 109 424 409 104 444 394 385 108 109

Andronicus AP7.181=1,1 FGE

Anonymous AP 5.2,1-3 5.83=9 FGE 5,84=10 FGE 5.156=22,7 HE 5.168=3,3 HE 5.200=36; 36,3-4 HE 5.201=37,3 HE 5.205=35,6 HE 5.303,4 5.305,1-2f. 6.7 6.21=18,3; 18,6 FGE 6.23 6.23=17,3; 17,5 FGE 6.37=77,1; 77,3 FGE 6.42,3 6.45=43,1 HE 6.48=38,5-6 HE 6.49 6.51=42,5f. HE 6.51=42,9 HE

277 359 125 298

398 406 126, 109 469 400 400, 398 500 268 174 176, 455

Anacreon’ AP 6.139=10,1 FGE AP 6.143=14,1f,; 14,3f. FGE AP 6.346=4,2 AP7.263=3,2 FGE Anacreont. 22 West Anacreont. 44,6 West Anacreont. 1,2 West Anacreont. 60,31 West Anacreont. 7,2 West Anacreont. 20,1 West Anacreont. 42,13 West Anacreont. 57,26 West

6.171=58a,3 HE 6.171=58a,5f. HE 6.171=58a,7 HE 6.343,1f. 7.2b 7.3.1 7.12=39 (39,1; 39,3) FGE 7.28=35a,2 FGE 7,48,4

7.84 7.137.1{;137,5

7.298=49,6 7.323=50,1 7.324=27,1 7.3271. 7.328 7.324=27,1

HE FGE FGE

238

414 n.1

211

92n.11 160

177 182

FGE

7.334,4

182 399 182 462 456 483 337 210, 212

61 100 100 267 489 93, 416, 418 483 93 70 202, 461 113 79,197, 418, 432 432 255, 432, 447

7.734=55,3 FGE 9.15=4,3f. FGE

n,15

9.157=85,4 FGE

51 449, 460 288 192 440

429, 453, 469 418 86 111, 277 113 157 439

9.158=56,6 FGE

71

7.626=1,5 GP

7.667,1 7.691

182

178

7.717=50,6 HE

359

7,714=52,1 HE

132 332 70 243

9.20 and 21=61 a and b FGE 9,47=66 FGE 9.65

9.115,1and 3 9.1251 9.134,4

9.159=62 FGE

9,187=42,1-4 FGE 9.162=63; 63,3f. FGE 9.184=36a,2; 364,5; 36a,9f. FGE

243

465f. and n. 2, 469f. 483 74,77

104-106

Anonymous (cont.)

API 86,3

429

9.199,1 9.210, 7E. 9.317=54,2 HE 9.325=55,1 HE 9.362,2-4 9.362,8 9.363,2 9.383,2 9.383,7-8 9,384,2 and 4 9,384.12 9.458,1F, 9,474,4 9.504,6 9.505,10 9,514 9.524,8 and 524,12 9,525,8 9.525,25 9,580,3 9.593,1 9,613 9.615,7 9,674,3 9,675,2

494 130 427, 445 ῃ. 9, 467 66 158, 188, 198 461 169 323 97,231 101, 203 420 347 250 209 360 51, 262, 346 ἢ. 4 344, 493 150, 344 258 169 171 277 152 346 462

API125,3 API127,2-3 API 183,5f. API 187,2 API192,1 AP] 227=74,3 FGE API 251 and 251,3-4 API254,1-2 API 258,3 AP] 262,1f. and 262,4 API 265 API271,1 API 289 ΑΡΙ 295,2 and 7f. API 300,6f. AP! 309,1f. API 313,2 API 319,2 API] 324,1-4 API 336,6 API 344,1 AP! 369,1-3 AP! 372,5 API 374,26. API 381,1

472 234, 470 298 355 400 435 486, 488, 490 438 429 148 408, 410 439, 500 389, 391 205 n. 12, 479 347 108 475 169 74, 168, 169 126 116 293 125 456 126-127

9,680,2

247, 359

anon. SH 979

6

9.692 9.741,4 9.785,1 9.786=69,2-3 FGE

293 247 90 267, 369

anon. SH 980 anon. 163,13 FGE=SH 982 anon. 163 FGE=U3SPIT

348 249 7

9.810,2

90

10.9=21 FGE

418, 430

Antagoras

AP 9.147=2,2 HE

10121

437

1.53=15,2 FGE

63

Antigonus AP9.406=11HE Antimachus

11.273

405

AP7.103=1,2 HE

275

469

177

11.282 and 420

349

11.297,38. 11.335,3 11.356 , 11216

98 228 349 349

12.87=20,4 HE 12.89=2,1 HE

496 160

Antipater of Sidon AP

176

6.14=1,4 HE

410

6.46=2,3 HE 47-432 HE

161 439

12.9051,8 HE 12.100=5,1 HE 12.112=15 HE

489 485

12.145=8,3f. HE

221, 374 and ἢ. 24

12.160=31,2 and 31,4 HE 14.121,7 , API API12=78,1 FGE API15,3 API 42,4

410, 489 274

Lyde, fr. 398

138

Antiochus

AP11.412

:

405

>

429 139

435 409 297

6.111=46,5 HE 118-492 HE nr 6.118=49,4-5f. HE 6.159, 160 6.160=4 and 4,4 HE 6.206=6,8-9 HE 6.287=52,2 HE

AP! 48,6 and 62,2

493

714=11,2 HE

297

API 72,7

267

7.23=13,4; 7.27=15,7 HE

108

API 83,4

206

7.26=14,2-4 HE

105, 109, 152

88, 169 130 419, 432 120, 203 160

7.27=15; 15,3; 15,7-8 HE 7.29=16; 16,2; 16,5 HE 7.30=17,1; 17,3 HE

7.146=7; 7,3 HE 7.209=57,2 HE 7.210=63 HE 7.218=23 HE 7.241=25 HE 7.241=25,1f. HE 7.241=25,7 HE 7.241=25,10 HE 7.303=26,3; 26,5-6 HE 7.353=27; 27,3f. HE 7.409=66; 66,2 HE 7.409=66,7 HE 7.413=67,5 HE 7.424=29; 29,10 HE 7.424=29,3 and 8 HE 7.464=53,1f. HE 7.467=54,3f; 54,8 HE 7.493=68; 68,2; 68,4; 68,6 HE 7.498=55,7-8 HE 7.711=56,5-6 HE 7.748=33,4 HE 9.151=59; 59,1-3 HE API API167=44,1 HE API178,2=45,2 HE API 178=45; 45,2; 45,4 HE

109, 104, 107 394 197, 195

141, 488 259 n. 10, 277

6n.16

7.367=63,4 GP 7.369=49,4 GP 7.390=62 GP 7.398=65,5 GP 7.530=22,1-2 GP 7.637=61,3 GP 7.639=59; 59,2 GP 7.640=57,1 GP 7.692=107; 107,4f. 7.705=50; 50,5 GP 7.743=67,2 GP 9.3=106,1f.; 106,4 GP 9.23=71 GP 9.26=19,7 GP 9.58=91,1 GP 9.72=95,1f. GP 9.76=80,4 GP 9.77=111,1; 111,5f. GP 9,82=15; 15,1f. GP 9.92=2; 2,2 GP

132

9.96=21 GP 9.107=114,6 GP 9.112=5; 5,3 GP 9.186=103,1-2; 103,4 GP 9.231=35,1 GP 9,238=83,1; 83,6 GP 9.242=20,7f. GP 9.266=108,5f. GP 9.297=47,4-5 GP 9,406=1,3 GP 9.407=34,3 GP 9.408=113 and 113,1f. GP

6.198=100,1f and 100,3f. GP 6.209=10,2 GP 6.241=43 GP 6.249=45 GP 6.256=110 GP 6.335=41; 41,1; 41,5; 41,9 GP 7.216=17,5f. GP 7.18=12,1 GP 7.39=13 GP 7.65=77,4 GP 7.136=55,1f. GP 7.185=16 GP

460, 462 18 n. 68, 177, 187, 332, 453 182 175, 177, 400, 442 6 n, 16, 14, 233, 463 370 268 398 187 500 277 194, 458 338 18 n. 68, 398

116, 367 455 177 n. 5, 469

453 425

132

443 410 63, 277 18 n. 68, 237

21 n. 76, 358 and n. 3, 361

9.93=31,1f.; 31,3 G

73-74, 87, 105, 110, 126, 136f., 289

220 n. 7, 277, 488

89 409, 416,

432, 440

6.198=100,1-5 GP

7.286=14,3 GP 7.287=58,1-2 GP 7.289=26; 26,3

178 6, 200 452 200-203 267 381, 460 397-8, 453 138, 376 343f., 363 428 63, 260 496 501 400, 451 71, 278, 367, 414, 472 184, 346 176, 184 324 182, 217, 367, 369, 373

Antipater of Thessalonica AP 6.93=32 GP 6.109=54; 54,2 GP

7.216=17,1; 17,5f. GP 7.286=14,1-2f; 14,5 GP

122, 125-8,

133, 134 128 399 91 73, 81, 91, 110 η. 15 155 n, 2 91, 202, 227, 332 13 n. 52

398, 400 178 428 18 η, 68, 400

174, 208

9.417=70,4-5f. GP 9.421=28 GP 9.428=1,1 GP 9.517=4,1; 4,3f. GP 9.541=44 GP 9,550=94,5f. GP 9.552=42 GP 9,706=81,5 GP 11.20=20 GP 11.23=38,4-6 GP 11.24=3,5f. GP 11.31=37,1-3 GP 11.158=97,3 GP

453 462 238, 398 n.1 105-6, 140 290 90, 147

501 500 292 296 461 315, 346, 367, 373-4

77,153, 440 367 131, 438 164, 259 91 367, 454

227 471

307 93, 352 374 18 n. 68

197

Antipater of Thessalonica (cont.) API API75=48,2

GP

API131=86,4 GP API197=89; 89,1f; 89,4 GP

123

297 485, 486 and n. 5, 488-9

AP1290=78; 78,6 GP

389, 394

Antiphanes

.66=51,1f; 51,5 GP

197,59, 393

API API136=48,2 GP

244

API334=464GP

499

Antistius

AP7.366=2,3GP AP 11.40=3,4 GP

570

140

Anyte

AP

9.258=5 GP

434

AP

11.322=9

464f,

6.123=1,1f.

GP

Antiphanes Comic fr. 286 K-A

427

Antiphilus

HE

118,

417

6.312=13 HE

177

7.215=12,5-6 HE

188 n. 17, 460

7.232=21,4 HE 7.492=23,1; 23,4 HE

197 167, 277f.

7.646=7;7,;HE

186,453

AP 5.307=13,1 GP

231

7.724=4,3 HE 9.144=15,1 HE

142 444

6.97=21 GP

417

9.745=14 HE

243

176, 349

6.199=16; 16,2; 16,4 GP

150, 381, 430

API

6.250=1 and 1,2 GP

73, 78, 87- 8,

AP] 228=18 HE

360

API 231=19,2 HE

260

6.252=2; 2,2; 2,5 GP

73, 91, 96, 98, 336

API291=3 HE

432, 434

7.141=23,6 GP

290

7.175=24 GP

236

7.176=25; 25,3; 25,5f. GP

Apollodorus 15

422 n. 10

98, 236, 308,

1,129,8

247

462

2.114

303

7.375=26,1-4 GP

149, 206 335

2.132-3

191

7.634=19,1 GP

109

7.641=17,2 GP 9.14=30; 30,3; 30,8 GP 9.34=32; 32,1 GP 9.71=33,2; 33,5f, GP 9.73=5 GP 9.86=34; 34,6 GP

466-7 116, 351, 458 188, 463 336, 344 314, 465 458, 466

9.156=35,5 GP

153

7.378=5,3 GP

399

9.178=6; 6,4 GP

7,631=7,4 GP 7.642=8,1 GP 7.693=9 GP

9,222=37; 37,3; 37,5 GP

12, 292, 296 n. 11, 300, 315 151,158, 333, 483 243, 455, 466

461 460 107, 177, 346, 398, 458, 460 66,123

9,242=20,5; 20,7 GP

403, 466-7

9.243=15 GP

451

9.263=47,2 GP

336

9.244=16,1 GP

197

9.294=38,3f, GP

175

9.257=17;17,2 GP

234, 244

9.298=39,2-3f. GP 9.299=50 GP 9.310=41; 41,1f. GP 9.404=42,1; 42,6;42,8 GP 9.413=8; 8,1-2; 8,5f; 8,6 GP

352, 359 243 371, 374, 458 422-3, 427 289, 315, 320, 373, 374, 466

9.264=18,1;183GP

30n.103,14n. 56, 28, 30, 428 79, 472 12, 243, 249, 296 n. 11, 292, 296 88, 123, 125, 130, 133-4, 175

7.635=28,4 GP

9,192=36,1-4; 36,7-8 GP

350 n. 6

;

Apollonides AP 6.105=1,4 GP 6.238=2 GP 6.239=3,3-6 GP 7.180=4; 4,1 GP 7,233=20,1 GP

9,.228=14,3; 14,6 GP

9.280=21,1; 21,3f.GP 9,287=23 GP 10,19=26 GP

9.549=44,1 GP

434

API

9.551=10,2 GP

475

API 239=30,3 GP

290 430 89; 422 174, 452 230

436

Apollonius Dyscolus Gr. Gr. 2.2,301 and 313 Gr. Gr. 2.2,313

332 148 n.7

Apollonius Rhodius

1.24 1.83-5 1.183 1.290 1.312 1.482 1.520f. 1.602 1.608 1.623-6 1.632, 1.860 1.886 1.1031 1.1068f. 1.1082 1.1090 L1117f. 1.1125 1.1142f. 1.1143 1.1151 1.1167

346 293 447 250 448 250 339 202 132 191 346 124 202 100 192 302 383 437 303 479 387 303 240

3.286f. 3.300 3,412 3,461

70 304 133 387

3,519f.

275

3,533 3,556 3.662 3,675 3.755 3.773 3.792 3.811 3,845 3.847 3.894 3,898 3.962 3.963 3.1035 3.1043 3.1103 3.1145 3.1214f, 3.1229£. 3.1347 3.1392 3.1404

203 233 60 456 187 68 375 175 117 203 375 387 187 202 124 304 496 220 101 131 321 386 496 203

1.1238

387

4.26

1.1243

187

4.38

409

1.1245

183

4.55

203

1.1269 1.1312 1.1361 2.26 2.43f. 2.50 2.124f. 2.164f. 2.190 2.295-7 2.301 2.371 2.516--19 2.576 2.692, 2.696f. 2.728 2.845 2.912f. 2.965 2.1029 2.1048f. 3,3-5 3.126 3,253 3.275

387 467 188 η.17 323 125, 275 187 312 296 250 191 197 308 176 284 124 384 347 187 131 448 319 361 191 150-1 232 294

4.93 4.133 4.195-7 4.217 4,323 4.371 4.475 4,482 4.488f. 4.558 4.564 4.576 4.580 4.640 4.671 4.769 4.815 4.865 4.896 4,902 4.905 4,962 4.966f. 4.968f. 4.1073 4.1113f.

94 381 192 290 246 266 490 69 383 490 386 274 132 302 304 324 152 448 187 412 346 240 448 294, 387 494 203

Apollonius Rhodius (cont.) 4.1133 4.1206 4.1212£. 4.1222 4.1288

4.1298 4.1388 4.1402-3 4.1411 4,1427-8 4.1499 4.1671 4.1684 4.1722 4.1762-4 4.1777 4.1781

Schol. Schol, Schol. Schol. Schol.

A Rh. 1.95 A Rh. 1.757 on A Rh. 3.1-5 on A Rh. 3.533 on A Rh. 4.269

322 480 376 324 188 467 462 127, 127 303 490 408 255 324 191, 131 347 351 284 209 200 264

651 704 751 775 780 805 840.

846 204

1129

Schol. on Arat. 1094 Archias 194

n.1 ἢ. 4

Appian Bellum Civile BC BC BC BC BC

2.9,61 2,13,89 2.18,131 4.4,25 4.20, 4.21, 4.22

Iberica Iber. 68 Iber. 284

232

Arabius or Longinus API39

286 501 452n.3 6l 309

Sf.

7.696=17,4 GP 9.27=25,2 GP Y1l1=18 GP 9.339=23,2 GP 9.343=24,5 GP 10.7=27 GP 10.8=28; 28,3 GP

489

439 419

388 418 111,120 238, 398, 500 260, 304, 467 260, 412 ἢ. 14 153, 447 n. 15 234, 236, 414, 449

435 86 and ιν. 13 307 233 153 343, 418-19 343, 429

Archilochus 216, 366 166, 216 366 366 275

Aratus

22 88 99 131} 156-61 158 160 163 275 407 497 584

AP 5.58=1,3 GP 6.16=4,2 GP 6.179=5,3 GP 6.)81=7,2 GP 6.192=10 GP 6.207=9,8 GP 7,68=14,2; 14,3f. GP 7.191=20,2; 20,3f.; 20,5 GP 7.213=21,1; 21,3 GP 7.214522,1; 22,7 GP 7.278=12,1f,; 12,7-8 GP

2n.6

Apsines On Epilogue 21 53 49 54

868 1062 106

447 289 388 202 388 360 275 275 454 246 444 289 244

287 364 61 376 469 58 58 n. 2

59 58, 249, 250 257 n. 9

130 320 297

1,2 IEG 16 IEG 110 IEG 122,6-9 IEG 128 IEG 172,3 IEG 307 IEG

209, 479 363 149 283 60 98 255

Arethas Deacon AP 15.32,14

169

Ariston AP 6.303=3,3 HE AP 6,306=1; 1,7-8 HE AP 7.457=2,1 HE

290 419, 432 428

Aristo AP 7.457=2,6 HE

448

Aristophanes Acharnenses Ach. 967

Ach. 1092

326 424

INIGEX Ὁ] ANCIENT AUTNOTS Aves Av. Av. Av. Av.

79 287 682f. 685f.

Av.771f.

531

PI, 845

353

257 84 260 466, 468

PI. 998 Pl. 1013 PI.1201 Range

110 353 110 n. 16

260

Ran. 186

326 238

Ran. 342 Ran. 576

Av. 803

326

Av. 1463

Αν 1525 Av.1724

184

Ran. 213

255

324

Ran.

259

238 169

Ran. 1016 Ran. 1424f.

444 134

Ecclesiazusae Feel 290 206

, Thesmophoriazusae

139

Eccl, 573

217

Th. 285

423

Eccl, 690 Eccl. 861 Eccl. 1073

360 332 356

Th. 680 Th. 1148 Th. 1156

68 150 303

Av.809f. Av. 992

Equites Eq. 197

Eq. 935f. Eq. 1244

982

353 460

Vespae 83

258 476

Lysistrata

Veco

477

Ves 545

467

Ves 727

428

Ves 225f.

86

Lys, 141

234

Ves 1299

183

Lys, 314

375

Ves 1431

308

135

Fragments

Lys. 540

Lys.549f.

332

Nubes Nub.243 421 Nub. 285 200 Nub. 319 477 Nub.504 232 Nub.566-9 337 Nub.

614£.

205

fr. 61 K-A

fr, 173,2 K-A fr. 581,1£, ΚΑ fr. 605,1K-A fr, 639 K-A Schol. on Aristoph. Th. 973

420 98 422 326 147

Aristotle

Ne ΩΝ

203 nS

Ethica Nicomachea

Nub. 1168

332

EN 1095b17f.

Nub.1206

443

De Generatione Animalium

Nub, 1384

258

GA 783al4-16

Pax

408

350

384

Historia Animalium

Pax 556 Pax 582

123 347

HA 493al3f. HA 500a,24

386 386

Pax596-9

99

HA 558b23

385 n. 10

Pax 879

320

HA 573b21; 24

385, 445

Pax1000f.

415f.n.1

HA 597b27f.

255

Pax 1165

425

HA 606a13-15; 18f.

378, 382

Pax 1239

375

HA 606b17-19

268 n. 10

ΡΙ. 515

445 n. 11 421

Meteorologica Meteor. 350b5 Meteor. 365a, 365bff.

301 338

337

Pl, 660

Mirabilia

423

Mir. 836al9f.

Plutus PL 296f. PI, 445

385

Index of Ancient Authors

532 Aristotle (cont.) De Mundo De mund. 396a8-10 De mund. 39b,6

337 401

Automedon

De Partibus Animalium

PA 682a12f. PA 688b3

86 244

Physiognomonica Physiogn. 806b,8

383

Ars Po. Po. Po. Po.

428 428 428

Poetica 447a20 1451634 1452b20 1459436

285

Rhetorica Rhet. 1411b26

400

466, 472 475 101

399 346, 347

288 113

244, 245 n.1 198, 442 449

346 482 69

68

60 and n. 7, 489, 500 286 184

Athenaeus

1.20d-e 1.2le-f 2.41b 2.52d

390-2, 395

2.52f-53b 2.57b

422

3.125f-126a

4,154e-f 7.99.6 10.4158 11.488c

11.495e

3,13-14 Maehler 3.82 Maehler 5.150f. Maehler 8.32 Maehler 9.48 Maehler 9.87 Maehler 17.62 Maehler

Barbucallus 259

267, 489

12.75=21; 21,1 HE 12.153=19,2 HE 13.23=33,4 HE

Bacchylides

17.114-16 Maehler

Asclepiades AP 5,64=11,5f. HE 5.85,1=2; 2,1 HE 5.167=14,5 HE 5.169=1,2 HE 5.194=34,3 HE 5.209=36,6 HE 5,210=5 HE 6.308=27 HE 711=28,2 HE 7,284=30 HE 7.500=31,3 HE 9.64=45,4 HE 9,64=45,8 HE 12.17=37,1 HE 12.46=15,2 HE 12.50=16; 16,1; 16,3f.; 16,6 HE

AP 7.534=12,1 GP 11,29=2 GP 11.324=6 GP 11.346=8 GP 11.361=9,5f. GP

390 n. 2

Problemata Pr. 935b25

13.571d 14,646d 15.677 d-f

390 n. 2

487 421 420-1 423 229 324 156 92 244

AP 9.425-7 9,425,2 426,6 9.427,4 Bassus

AP 7.243=2,6 GP 7.372=3,1f; 3,6 GP 7.391=7 GP 9.236=6,5 GP 9.279=7; 7,1 GP 9,289=8; 8,1; 8,3f. GP

234 198, 453 272 153 277,501 66, 69

Bianor

AP 7.387=2,4 GP 7.396=6,5 GP 7.644=4 GP 7.671=5; 5,1 GP 9.223=7; 7,4 GP 9.227=8,1; 8,3 GP 9.259=10 GP 9.272=11,5-6 GP 9.308=15,1 GP 9.423=16; 16,7 GP 9.548=17 GP 10.101=19,2 GP

456 453 6n.16 211-12 6 n. 16, 260, 461 447 n. 15, 460 335 177 n. 5, 400 324 217, 335, 367, 372 n. 17, 465 6n. 16 386

Bion Borysthenites fr. 64 Kindstrand

469

Index of Ancient Authors Bion Smyrnaeus Epitaphius Adonis Ad. 31-9 Ad. 40 Ad. 49

Ad. 66 Ad. 68 Ad. 73 Ad. 88

202 232 461 98, 99 256 62 100

Fragments

fr. 2,1 fr. 11,5-6 fr. 8.8-14

97 205, 309 474, 475

Boethus AP 9,248=1; 1,3f. GP

277, 389, 391, 395

Callimachus

AP 5,6=11,6 HE 5.23=63,2; 63,5-6 HE 5.146=15

6.146=23; 23,2 HE 6.148=16; 16,5 HE 6.149=25,3-4 HE 6.301=28,3 HE 6,310=26; 26,1; 26,3 HE 6.311=27; 27,2 HE 6.347=21,2 HE 6.351=22 HE 7.80=34,1; 34,6 HE 7.89=54,7 HE 7.271=45,4 HE 7.277=50 HE 7.317=51,2 HE 7.415=30; 30,1f. HE 7.451=41,1-2 HE 7.458=49 HE 7.460=47,2-4 HE 7.519=44; 44,1 HE 7.520=33,2 HE 7,523=39,2 HE 7.525=29,4-5 HE 7.725=42,2 HE 9.336=60,4 HE 9,507=56,3f. HE 9.565=57,1f. HE 12.71=12,3f, HE 12.102=1,3f. HE 12.150=3; 3,9 HE

186 n. 12 127, 248, 359, 371 171 123, 146, 151 277, 472 430, 465 119 79, 89, 430 304, 465, 481 126 89 175, 452 428 469 442 356 76, 109 63, 237 174 413 182, 308 267 469 193, 363 400 247, 401 58 331 455 472 286, 474

Hymns

H.1.6f. H. 111,

H.1,18 H.1.32

146 170,171n.12 127 304

533

H.1.35f. H.1.40f, H.1.47 H.1.48 A.1.48-50 H.1.50 H.1.60 H.1.65 H. 1.68 H.1.70-2 H.1.74 Η.1.84- 6 Η.1.95 Η.1.96 Η. 2.{. Η.2.2 H.2.7 H. 2.8. H. 2.14 H. 2,25 H. 2.36f. H. 2.,39f. H. 2.40 H. 2.81 and 94 H. 2.106 H. 2.108-12 H. 2.110f., H.2.112 Η. 3.31. Η. 3.21-5 Η, 3.33 H. 3.478. Η. 3.52 Η. 3.64 Η. 3.78 H. 3.80 Η. 3.114 Η. 3.124 H.3.130 H. 3.160 H. 3.171 H. 3,180 H. 3.214 H. 3.235 Η. 4,4.

21 289 422 n. 10 244, 246, 249 385 422 n. 10 90 21 21 63 333 217 363 477 146 406 14 68, 321 128 258 286 495 495 340 141 77n.12 63 78 211 149 63 170, 191 435 193 410 287 345, 346 496 388 153 324 321 386 274 6, 16 n. 60, 17 n. 64, 166 n. 8, 475-6

Η. Η, Η. H. Η. Η. Η. Η. Η. Η.

331

4.3 4.33 4.35 4,37 4.41-4 4.40 4.48 4.49 4.118 4.119

240

375 191

297 191

386 191

443 andn,4 259

534

Index of Ancient Authors

Callimachus (cont.)

H. 4.173 Η, 4.174

427 143, 191, 324 301 315 267 296 131, 149 276

fr. fr. fr. fr. fr. fr. fr. fr. fr.

131, 186

frr. 106-7

H. 4.185 H. 4.201

218 288

fr. 112,1 fr. 178,32-4

H. 4.207f.

265

fr. 186,31

H. H. Η. H, H.

4.208 4.20%, 4.258 4.274 4.298

264 470 158

fr. 191,29 fr. 192,3 fr. 192,11

246, 386

fr. 194,82

125-7

fr. 202,9 and 18

H. H. H. H.

4.311 4,325 5.19 5.27-8

435

fr. 203,55

443 and π, 4

fr. 228,40-2

90 n.3

fr. 379

97 338 376 496 143

fr. fr. fr. fr. fr.

453 255

fr. 757

HY, 4.125 H, 4.156

H. 4.161 H. 4.164

H. 4.166-8 H. 4.169 H. 4,171

H. 5.60-3 H. 5.60 H. 5.83 H. 5.90

H. 5.93f, H. 5.116

H. 5.131-3 H. 5.134f. H. 6.27 FH. 6.40

H. H. H. H. H. H.

6.59 6.90 6.92 6.95 6.121 6.135

H. 13.24

149

75,12 75,31 75,35 75,44 75,62 75,73 75,76 80,14 103

380,1f. 388,9 398 602,2 676,2

427

2

AP 7.720 and 721=2 and 3 HE

480

Christodorus

393

AP 2,43

386 353 n. 10

AP 2.1194, 272 AP 2.1272

402

AP 2.1,322f.

34{ n. 114

AP 2.382,1

436

Paed. 3.3.24,2

Hec. 69,2 Hollis

232

Hec. Hec. Hec. Hec. Hec. Hec. Hec.

Paed. 3.9.46,4

290

Protrepticus 4.55,1

290

Stromata 1.15,69,5

fr. 7,12-14

440 410 117 254 83 150

374 346 131 86 286 138 n. 4,139 188 n. 17 75 162

228 157 125 126 490 107 n. 10

Clemens of Alexandria

Paedagogus

fr. 1,31

442

Chaeremon

140-1, 143

fr. 1,25

7 191

Callinus

Hec. fr. 9 Hollis fr. 69,11 Hollis 69,12 Hollis 80,3 Hollis fr. 98 Hollis fr. 99 Hollis fr. 119,2 Hollis fr. 145 Hollis

443andn.4

475

Fragments Hecale

412 91 323 353 461 421,438 108 246

309 403 193 388

142

386

Colluthus

500 274

193-4 205

xr 9] 495

Cornelius Longus AP 6.191=1,6 FGE API 117=2; 2,2 FGE

fr 7,13£. fr. 41,3 fr. 67,1

127 493

1

fr. 74,25

141 n. 12

1,1

495

340 350 462 150, 228

Crinagoras 243, 247, 287, 432 282, 301

Index of Ancient Authors

10,2 10,4

11,2 11,3 11,4 11,6 12,1 12,2 12,3 12,4 12,6 13 13,1

179, 459, 496 168, 204 359 360 104, 110 n. 15, 112, 137, 336, 431-2, 481 194 n.10 362, 399, 413, 419, 434, 439 179, 320 112, 178, 336, 431-2, 474 114 n. 8 202, 232 99 430 150 116, 320, 343, 400 172, 179, 194 n. 10 104, 110, 112, 243, 431-2 101, 157, 161, 187, 263, 353, 368 n. 4, 478 114 ἢ. 8 361 100 150, 152, 179, 343 130, 146, 165 194 109 123, 387, 477 11 481 139 171, 482 73,123,126 100, 168 n. 11, 169, 413 431-2 469 257 192 130, 173, 178 100, 109 119 133 133, 248 and n. 5, 332, 371, 439, 479 178 231, 329, 438 289 104, 173 186 ἢ. 12, 482 187 n. 14, 211 πη. 8, 436 275, 345 194 n. 10, 257 76, 123, 175 332 192, 310 n. 3, 352, 439 495, 499 312, 385 222, 343, 371 260

14 14,1 14,3 14,4 14,5 14,6 15 15,1 15,2 15,3 15,4 15,6 16 16,1 16,3 16,4 16,5 16,6 17 17,1, 17,2 17,3 17,4 17,5-6 17,6 17,7 18 18,1 18,2 18,3 18,4 18,5 19,3

535

173, 182, 189, 196, 204, 216, 397, 482 182, 212, 217, 369, 460 109, 111, 162, 183, 231 229, 482 202, 289 106, 276, 482 146, 189, 190, 208, 442 98, 321 400, 401, 453 211, 330 497 246, 411 163, 166, 174, 190, 208, 223 166, 212, 217, 369, 462 467 169

177, 302 143, 177, 402, 405, 448 204, 250 n. 9, 315, 378 165, 203, 227, 258 119

149, 157 203, 456 203

201, 210, 493 376, 189, 170, 192,

413 262, 482 493 254, 297

168 239 n. 3, 401 111, 175, 266 166, 176, 182, 217, 240 n. 4, 285, 354 n. 13, 356 n. 18, 462, 470 n. 4

20 20,1 20,3 2l 21,1 21,8 22

182, 237, 366, 482 166, 194 n. 10, 267

22,1f. 22,2 22,3 23 23,1 23,2 23,3 23,4 23,5 23,6 24 25 25,1 25,3 25,4 29,6

166, 355, 411, 178, 176,

108, 325, 350 281, 371 191, 258

466 173, 216-17, 223, 291, 306, 451, 466, 493 322 454 452 299, 378, 439 377, 384

290, 386 310, 32]

363, 355 127, 287, 371

290, 362, 386 458

200 and n, 3 194 n. 10, 375, 388 206 372 217, 290, 294, 305

>30

Index of Ancient Authors

Crinagoras (cont.)

37,1

166, 217

26 26,1 26,3 26,4f.

263, 265, 269, 304 194 n. 10, 291, 309, 414 300, 345, 497 171,194, 266, 500

37,3 37,5 37,6 38

194 n. 10, 223, 443, 447 332, 363 282, 331, 406 306

26,5 26,6 27 27,1 27,2 27,5 28

453 231 224, 226, 271 291, 438 297-8, 372 170, 134, 249, 267 173, 300-1, 378

38,1f. 38,3 38,5 38,8-7 38,8 39,2 39,4

298, 308 153, 477 263, 362 106,

28,1

194 n. 10, 263, 309

40

178, 336, 404

28,2 28,3 28,4 28,5f. 29 29,1 29,3

375 151, 329, 355 286 284, 381 269-70, 274 219, 282, 291, 467 244, 246, 257, 363

40,1-2 40,5 40,6 40,7 al 41,1 41,3

408 247, 412 405, 407 4i1 336, 397-8 376 466

294

275

41,5

403, 466

29,5 29,6 30

276 268, 294 291, 378, 387, 482

41.6 41,7 41,8

466, 469 110, 370 n. 10, 213, 274 198

30,1 30,2

178, 294, 383 192 n. 5, 467

42 42,2f.

178, 265, 336, 403, 431-2 245

30,4

246, 275, 321, 345, 497

42,3

320

30,5f.

320,499

42,8

119

31 31,3

378 174, 246

43 43,1

178, 265, 314, 336, 404, 431, 465 194 n. 10

411 243 312 482

31,5

276

43,2

114 n. 8, 444

31,6

344, 347

43,3

142, 421

31,7

331

43,5

289

32

173, 329, 343

43,6

119 n. 20, 294, 421, 470

32,1 32,2 32,3 32,4 32,5

132, 231, 361 175,239 186f.n.12, 445 316, 376 127,148, 339, 375, 413

43,7 43,8 44,1 44,2 44,3

419 362 191 355, 373, 435 330, 436

33

265

44,4

373, 461

33,3

255,331

45

224, 230

34

329

45,1

239, 355, 369

34,1 34,2 34,3 34,4 35 35,1ff. 35,2

337,353 143,275, 311, 324, 497 355 447 216, 288, 322, 368 398 460

45,2 45,3 45,4 45,5 46 46,4 46,5

277 175, 238, 195, 398 166, 312,

35,3 35,4 35,5

320, 466 150, 344 238, 454

47 47,1 47,2

265, 314, 410, 432 166 408

36

293, 474

47,3

234, 402

36,4

330

47,4

116, 411

36,5 36,6 37

250, 254, 393 246, 249, 296 182, 217, 237, 453

47,5 47,6 48,1

437 254 182, 413

177, 401 355 362 182, 447 363

Index of Ancient Authors 48,2 48,3 48,4 48,5 49,1f. 49,2 50,5 50,8 51,1 51,2 51,3 51,4 51,7.

100, 387 499 127, 108 141, 360 312, 196, 151 416 275, 312

387 186f. n. 12, 332, 482 186 n. 12 401 201 345

Critias

fr. 2,1 IEG Damagetus AP 277=1 HE AP7.355=8,3 HE AP7.432=3 HE AP7.497=9,6 HE

90

De falsa legatione De fals. leg. 130 De fals. leg. 147.8 In Meidiam Meid, 139

Olynthiaca Olynth. 2 20

109, 140

60.8,7

228

68,9

187

72.17,3

75-7 493

354

7.393=1 GP

297 135

9.109=3,5 GP

421

370 n. 13

99f.n. 9

n.5 394 n. 8 η.]

n. 14

n. 19 n. 19

186 n. 12, 439, 459 198, 442 286 239, 460 231

Diodorus

AP

6.243=3,1; 3,6 GP 421

266 137 144 225 350 390, 225 270 309 270 336 272 273 223 224 92 273 273 224 381 92 92 363 285

Diocles

7,393,4=1,4 GP 7.393=1,4-5 GP

6.245=4,1f. GP

7.74=14,1 GP 7.235=11,1GP 7.624=5,2; 5,6 GP 7.627=6,2; 6,5 GP

7.632=7 GP

308 363 478

7.701=10,5 GP 9,60=17 GP 9.219=1; 1,5 GP 9.405=8,3 GP 9.776=18 GP

367

Diodorus Siculus

Dio Cassius

4.20 5,39 9.40,37 11.43,11 43,50,3 44.17 48.45,1-3 50.5,3 50.25,4 51.4,1 51.8,3 51.15,6 51.21,8 53.25,7

74.5,1 74.13,5t. 75.13,4 AP 6.186=2,3; 2,6 GP

Demetrius De Elocutione Eloc. 127 Eloc. 188

5921-2 59.25,5a

Demosthenes Contra Eubulidem Eubul. 3

59.173

122

Damocharis

AP 6.63,3-5 API 310,1f.

53.26,2f. 53,28 53.30 54,5,4-6 54.9,10 54.17 54.20 54.22,1-4 54.24 55.2,3 55,22 55,29-32 56.17,2 56.18-22 56.18,5

476

1.11

300 n. 3

3,33,6

200 200 350

4.40,1 5,33,2 5,73,2

237

7.9

262 200 300

11.40.1 14.1,2 15.43,4

122, 267, 437 345 177 400 14, 150, 411 14, 411, 452 6n.16 71

315 12, 116, 129, 227 116 91 171 184 399 384 147 376 339 220 265

Diodorus Siculus (cont.) 20.55,4 32.27,3

Diogenes Laertius 3.29 6.43,3 757,2 8.91

7.16=33; 33,2; 33,5 HE 266 367 204 157 n.6 79 51

‘Diog. Laert. AP7.97,1£. AP7.98,3

AP7126,3 AP7.127,4

AP7.135,1 AP7.706,2£.

Dionysius AP6.3=5; 5,2 HE AP7.78=1,6 HE

359 143 134 247 239 472 432, 435 303

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates Romanae AR131-2 AR 2,34,4 AR 9.25,3 AR 10.36,6 AR 11.28,5 AR 14.2,2

433 n.3

131 463 227 68

De Com 25,204-6

De Thucydide De Thuc. 24.19f.

138

455, 472 182 277

Dosiadas AP 15.26,2 AP 15.26,11

240 202

AP 9.424=1; 1,2f. HE

Empedocles fr. 16,5 and 97,5 Wright fr. 33 Wright fr. 97,4 Wright

150, 367, 374 263 427 343

Epiphanius

Dionysius Tragicus fr.1 TrGrF

434

Dionysius Periegetes 202 212 286 288

284 303 301-2 274

Dioscorides

7.31=19,3; 19,5; 19,7£. HE

Diotimus AP7.261=4,1-2 HE AP7.420=3,]) HE API158=9 HE

Duris

86 146n.3 107 138

5,52=6,3 HE AP 5.53=3,4 HE 5.55=5,]; 5,6 HE 5.138=2; 2,1-2 HE 5.193=4,4 HE 6.220=16,5; 16,11£.; 16,15 HE

7.166=39,4 HE 7.167=40 HE 7.178=38 HE 7.229=30,1; 30,5f. HE 7.351=17,1; 17,5 HE 7.410=20,1f. HE 7.411=21,3-4; 21,6 HE 7.430=31; 31,6; 31,9 HE 7.434=32,1f; 32,3 HE 7.456=29 HE 7.707=23,3-4 HE 7.708=24,4; 24,5 HE 9.568=34; 34,5; 34,8 HE 11.195=36; 36,1 HE 11.363=37 HE 12.37=10,2 HE

429

De Compositione Verborum De Com 14.91 De Com 17 De Com 25.64

7.162=28; 28,1; 28,3-4 HE

177, 414, 460f., 462 18 n. 68, 174, 178, 453, 460 21} 455 174 204, 453-4 338, 381 184, 395 138, 376 228, 232 135, 453 397 140 109, 402 359, 451, 461 65, 389-90 113 490

65 247 60, 245 n.1 65, 66, 68 247, 332 65, 157, 206 109, 202, 394, 478

Panarion 1.300,9 Holl

Epitaphios Threnos Stasis 1.30 Epitaphios Threnos Stasis 2.25 Epitaphios Threnos Stasis 3.16

498 204 205n.12 205n.12

Erycius

AP 6.96=1,3 GP 6.255=5,5 GP 7.230=12,1 GP 7.368=6,2 GP 7.377=13 GP 7.397=8,1; 8,4; 8,6 GP

9.233=9; 9,1; 9,3f. GP 6.234=10 GP

428 381 135 230f., 277 397-8, 410 182, 345, 442 6 n. 16, 290, 412, 437 122

Index of Ancient Authors Etruscus AP7.381=1,4 GP

Etymologicum Magnum s.v. Ἤπιος 8.V. μόρος S.VV. até, alyis, Alyioxos

S.v. 5.V. S.v. S.V.

πλημμυρίς τέρενα ὀλιγηπελέων σκίπων

Alc. 808

247

151 239 251 284 387 402 428

Eudocia Homerocentones Homeroc. 2.1017

Eugenes AP! 308=1,1 FGE API 308=1,2 FGE n. 10

277 6n.16 277

109 107

Euphorion AP 6.279=1; L1 1,2 HE

6.279=] HE 7.651=2,2; 2,4 HE

88,122, 125, 131 122 142, 459

Fragments

fr. 30 Powell and Van Groningen fr. 40 Powell=44 Van Groningen fr. 40,3 Powell=44,3 Van Groningen

fr. 50 Powell=56,3 Van Groningen

221 445 97 221

fr. 98,4 Powell=102,4 Van

Groningen fr. 132 Powell=133 Van Groningen

212 75 422 487

Euripides

Alc, 144 Alc. 253 Alc. 353

Alc. 463f. Alc. 532 Alc, 544 Alc. 5761.

Alc. 591

Andromache Andr. 5

Andr. 215 Andr. 319

Andy, 353 Andr. 414 Andr. 749 Andr. 1132

Bacchae Ba. 142f. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba.

168 327 337 3431, 350 495 527 561-4 565 585 639 691 708 737 748 861 951f. 1048 1252f. 1281 1349

Cyclops Cycl. 45 Cycl. 56

Cyel. 201f. Cycl. 207 Cycl. 400

312 100 60 493 339

158 448 144 183 452 351 324 232 415 n. 1, 422 408 363 238, 452 496 480 118 153 259 442 337 248 387 245 243 257 344 432, 438 443 439 238 125 443 249 386 144 249 487

Electra

Alcestis Ale. 151

Alc. 1020

Cycl. 55

Eupolis fr. 271,1 K-A fr. 339 K-A

Alc. 945 Alc. 969-72

Andr. 457

Euenus

AP 9.602=4 GP AP! 165=10 GP

Alc, 885f.

539

239 368 500 477 198 220 362 423 ἢ, 13, 446 337

EI. 617 El. 907 EI. 1273f.

260 231 477 117 257 59 238 434

Hecuba Hec. 18

125

Εἰ. 71

EI. 152 EI. 175-8

EI. 472 EI. 596

540

Index of Ancient Authors

Euripides (cont.) Hec. Hec. Hec. Hec. Hec. Hec. Hec. Hec.

285 661 690 701 829 963 1046 1164

Ion 454 and π, 5 217 238 460 257 219 and n.5 455 408

Helena

Ion lon Ion Ion Ion Ion Ion Ion

10 482 492-4 960 996f. 1051 1077 1087f.

266 217 435 217 251 241n.5 353 454

Ton 1199

83

Hel.1-3 Hel, 1498.

264 n.4 326

Ion 1225 fon 1359

375 260

Hel.

240

217

Ton

500

Hel, 322

472

Iphigenia Aulidensis

Hel. 348 Hel. 623

229 123

IA 210 IA 461

459 413

Hel, 820

301

IA 548f.

488

Hel. 851-3

198, 402

IA 566

144

Hel, Hel. Hel, Hel. Hel, Hel.

478 69 194 247 408 158

IA IA IA IA IA IA

243 247 219 n.5 370 476 477

903 1126-31 1186f. 1207 1301f. 1308

1599

579 666 713 950-4 987 1014

Hel. 1337

456

IA 1067f.

150

Hel. 1341-5

483

IA 1124

238

TA 1137

160

120

IA

1358

160

Heraclid. 329f.

134

IA 1378

370

Heraclid.540

343

IphigeniaTaurica

120

17205

IT 194

200

125

IT 266

500

Heraclidae Heraclid.

115

Hercules Furens

Herc. 31

Herc. 50

353

Herc. 416, Herc. 584

135 266

IT 376 IT735£

257 500

Herc. 837 Herc. 1238

140 238

IT 982 IT10860

363 248

Herc. 613

Hippolytus Hi 25 Hi 77

352

and

IT 936

1Τ1125.

>00

423

352

175

101

IT1339 Medea

Hi 255

420

Med.

343

Hi 554

217

Med.478

117

Hi969,1419

343

Med. 635

489

Hi 1108

388

Med.

455

266

803f.

Hi1205-17

285πι6

Med. 8313

332

Hi 1295

478

Med.

100

999

Med.1265

165f.

n.12

Index of Ancient Authors Orestes Or. 68-9 Or. 706f. Or. 777 Or. 993 Or. 1086 Or. 1244

fr. 803a,3 TrGrF

476 n.7 447 421

66 322 160

Phoenissae

487 362 229 452 231 266 423 157 117, 383 408 370 176 353

Ph. 42

Ph. 441

Ph. 491 Ph. 595

Ph. Ph. Ph. Ph.

793 829 844 1102

Ph, 1121f.

Ph. 1185 Ph. 1296

Ph. 1456 Ph. 1675 Rhesus Rh. 66

101 329

Rh. 493

Supplices 31 168 277 458 590

322

Su 658 Su 968-70 Su 1158

369

Su Su Su Su Su

339 332 135 80n.1

Troades Tr. 26f.

355

393 374 345 69 238 125 332 370 257 330

Tr. 88 Tr. 90

Tr. 919 Tr. 987 Tr. 1081

Tr. 1115 Tr. 1187 Tr. 1264

Fragments

fr. 195 TrGrF fr. 228,1-4 TrGrF fr. 316,2 TrGrF fr. 360,28f. TrGrF

fr. 376,1 TrGrF fr. 381 TrGrF

fr. fr. fr. fr.

439,3 453,1 467,3 553,1

TrGrF TrGrF TrGrF TrGrF

fr. 580,1£. TrGrF

321 264, 265 324 135 360 303 77 360 387 360 360

fr. 828 TrGrF fr. 839,12 TrGrF fr. 1053,2 TrGrF Schol, on Eur, Hec. 1145

541 468 374 149 360 239

Eustathius Macrembolites

Hysmine and Hysminias 10.10,34

205n.12

Eustathius

Comments on Iliad

on II, 1.35 (32,15)

on Il, 4.293f, (474,16)

on Il, 6.378 (648,49) on Il, 774.60

on Il. 15.389 (1021,40ff.) on Il, 24.93. on Il. 5.586

on Il, 24.247 on Il. 24.763

430 438 152 423 229 204 467 345 152

Comments on Odyssey on on on Od.

Od. 1.204 (1.50,13) Od. 6.227 (1561,1f.) Od. 14.529 (1767.43) 16.471

257 310 324 438

Flaccus

AP 5,5=1,1; 1,5 GP 6.196=2,5 GP 7.290=3,2; 3,6 GP 7542-4 GP 9.98=5,4-5 GP 9.117=6 GP 12.25=11 GP

63, 333 430 213 n. 10, 374 6.n.16, 451, 453-4, 461 105, 234 452 135

API API 211=14,3f. GP

463

Galen Hi Aphor. Comm. 17b.602, 723, 872

497

Gaetulicus AP 5.17=1,5 FGE AP 6.190=2 FGE

AP7.71=4,1; 4,3 FGE AP 7.275=6,5 FGE Geminus AP 9.288=2,6 GP API103=7 GP

127 105, 123, 419, 424, 430, 462 297,447 69 355 482 π, 2

Glaucus

AP7.285=2,4 HE AP 12.44=1,1ff. HE

258 98

>42

Index of Ancient Authors

Gregory of Nazianzus AP 8.79,6 8.93,2 8.1081 8.127,1 8.139,1 8.152 8.179-254 8.184,4 8.209,6

Heracleitus AP7,465=1,1

79 169 184 126 167 193 236 241 171

Carmina

Carm. 491,4f. PG Carm. 1455,2 PG Carm. 37.1259,11 PG

Carm. 37.1533,8 PG

287 287 142 140

Gregory of Nyssa De Oratione dominica orationes v De Orat. Dom. 204,30 363

Epistulae

Epist, 20.10-11

302

Hegesippus AP 13.12,2; 13.12,8 =6,5 HE

AP 7.276=7,4 HE AP 7,446=4,2 HE

10.30,5

Heracleides AP 7,281=1,1 GP

AP 7,392=2,2; 2,4; 2,6 GP

388 195

Gr. Gr, 3.1,393,29 Gr. Gr. 3.2,109,26

206 n. 16

206 425 133 157 30 n, 103 345, 400, 461

133

Gr. Gr. 3.2,281,13

206 n. 16

Gr. Gr. 3.2,319,27 Gr. Gr. 3.2,361,18ff. Gr. Gr. 3.2,424,35

388 83 388 428 196 83 414 388 83

Gr. Gr. 3.2,581,21 Gr. Gr. 3.2,683

Herodotus

1.84 1.98 1.172 1191 1.216 2.9.1 2.12 2.19

Heliodorus 3.6,17 3,10,3 7.10

Gr. Gr. 3.1,283,29 Gr. Gr. 3.1,286,5

304, 489 109 418, 429

191

218 78

Herodian Gram.

1,82

Hellanicus FGrHist 4877

2.9.1 8.4.1

60 n.7

34-35 nn, 114-15, 460 195, 414 402

434

Herodian Hist.

427

Hedylus AP 3,3f. HE 5,5-6 HE 5.199=2,4-5f. HE 6,3 HE 6.292=]; 1,5 HE

AP 9.327=2,1-2 HE

1.32 1,47 1.66 1.68,2 1.72 1,73.1,2

375

79 263 424

Hermocreon

Gr. Gr. 3.2,687,2-10 Gr. Gr. 3.2,912,9, Gr. Gr. 4.1-2,166f.

Hadrian (or Tiberius) AP 9,387=Tiberius 1,6 FGE

fr. 61

Gr. Gr. 3.2,682,10-15 426

Hanno

Periplus Peripl. 3

HE

fr. 30

2.32

2.331. 2.36 2.38 2.55 2.97 2.123 2.125,7 3.16 3.29 3.40 3.65 3.104 3.105

237 374 ἢ. 24 116 308 265 135 227 245 256 354 255 237 218 374 265 266, 302 and n. 5, 374 186, 264, 276 141 105 289 500 170 308 236 232 105, 217 234 176 312 n. 7

Index of Ancient Authors

543

3.113

378, 379

O 202

144, 187

3.130 3.138 4,42 4,43 4.49 4.97,4

427 329 266 302 and n. 5 186, 276 268

0232 Ο 234 O 237 0291 0305 O 314

388 384 388 169 220 455

4.172 4.173 4,189 4.195,2 4.198 5.92 5.97 6.37 6.67 6.86 6.114 7.21 7.49,2 7.51 7.69 7.118 7.140 7.162 7.183,2 7.186 7.220 7.239

403, 428 263 251 308 388 376 238 183 362 192 228 284 284 237 84 167 339 126 69 501 369 86

O 349 O 374 O 406 O 414{, O 443 O 455 O 483 Ο 498f. O 521 052 O 545f. O 585 O 587f. Ο 607 O 614 Ο 630 Ο 648 O 654-7 0 656-9 0753 0792 O 815

76 211, 330 478 176 32] 360 388 476 340 387 381 246 176 186 479 n. 12 101 294, 350 n. 6 118 113 304 333 499

8.22

424

Theogonia Th. 5

387

9.3,4

69

Th. 61

355

Th. 78

209

8.129

Herondas

1.52

284

126-7

Th. 82

149

150

Th. 86

399

4.6

151, 495

4174. 5.25

150 487

411

733

286

7.84

427

Hesiod

Opera et Dies

Th. 83

Th. 97

104

Th. 102-3

104 479

Th. 201

109

Th, 247

6

Th. 275

303

Th, 296

499

Th. 301

177

O14

278

Th. 338

264

032 O 36 038 O41

388 399 266 250

Th. Th. Th. Th.

359 494 124 153

O5tf.

117

Th. 467

456

058

203

Th. 518

303

0 656.

490

Th. 555

232

O12

355

Th, 5666.

117

ONE.

218, 478

Th. 569

232

0170

355

Th. 599

220

0173

388

Th. 602

238

360 377 406 460

and n. 12

544

Index of Ancient Authors

Hesiod (cont.)

Th. Th. Th. Th. Ih.

759-60 763 767 814 849

Th. 910f. Th. 914 Th. 922

295 124 435 204 338 489 175 147

5... ψεδνὴ ἡ θρίξ

Scutum Herculis Sc. 78 Sc. 351

Sc, 405

443 333 82

Fragments

frr.122, 123 fr. 142,4 fr, 233,2

fr. 286,2

493 206 359 490

Hesychius 8.0. ον, S.V. 5.v. S.V. 5.v.

ἀδούλευτος ἀμυγδαλη ἄρηρεν γέλγιθες γεράνδρυες διαγλάψας

S.V. διακοιρανέοντα 5.0, S.v. S.V. 8... s.v. 5.0. 8ιν. S.v. S.v. S.V.

δίφρις δουλέκδουλος ἐάριον ἐπελάνθανεν Ἕρμαιος λόφος θρύμματα ἴτρια καλιαί κάλυξ κνάπτειν κελεύω γλῶσσαν

S.v. κόρρη 8ιν. Koupearis

S.V. S.V. S.V. S.V. s.v. s.v. s.v. S.V. S.V. 8.0, S.V. 5.0.

κοῦρος κροκάλαι κύρτος λαμπάς λιθολόγημα, λιθολόγοι λύγδος Maipa μηλοσόη νεοσμήκτων VEOTEUKTOU νηοῦχος ὀκριόεν

s.v. Πανίας βήσσας $.V. S.V. S.v. S.V.

πέπανα περίοπτον πῖαρ πόπανα

8... πορφύρεος θάνατος S.V, πρέμον S.VV, ῥοιβδεῖ, ῥοῖβδος s.v. Σολουντίς S.V. σπάτος s.v. στίβος S.V. σόος S.V. ὑαλόεν S.V. χερνῆτις

374 422 364 425 437 76 345 350 409 97 257 438 420 423 436 44 86 410 122 115 459 255 116 438 399 323 440 75 339 448 407 436 423 220 310 423

8... Ψψιλοκόρρης

85 437 448 302 382 312 440 426 459 384 410

Hippocrates De Articulis Art. 48.10-12

407

De semine De sem. 22,6

264

Epidemiae Epid. 5.1,4 Epid. 3.3,12

59 412 497

De Morbis t-iii Morb. 2.17, 2.69, 3.1

59

Prorrheticon Prorrh. 1.99

412

Epid. 4.1,31

Hipponax fr. 26,6 IEG fr. 28,5 IEG fr. 115,8 IEG fr. 118,1 IEG fr. 147 IEG

409 409

409 405n.4 409

Homer

liad 2.11

204

1.1.30 Il. 1.34 1.1.73

185 197 233

Il. 1.95

282

Il. 1.103 Il. 1.108 2.1111

401n.2 167 204 175 373 123 151 127 501

Il. 1.114

2.1117 Il.1.147

2. 1.179 Il. 1.210 11.1.225

II. 1.230 Il. 1.254

233

Il. 1.274

192

Il. I. Il, 11.

197 178 197 346

1.316 1.321 1.327 1.351

456

Index of Ancient Authors Il. 1,362 Il. 1.366 Il, 1.393 Il. 1.396 Il. 1.410 Il, 1.432 Il, 1.440 Tl. 1.445 11, 1.459f. Il. 1.475 I], 1.493 I], 1524-7 11. 1.543 1], 1.544 Tl, 1,559 11. 1.583 7, 1.593 I}, 1.600 Il, 2.4 Il. 2.207 Il, 2.210 H, 2.215 II, 2.219 Il. 2.220 Il. 2.224 Il, 2.248 7}, 2.250 I}, 2.277 Il. 2.289 11. 2.294 11. 2.298 Il, 2.338 Il. 2.361 I}, 2.382 I], 2.420 11.2.479 Il, 2.527-9 11. 2.599 N. 2.824f. Tl, 2.851 Il. 2,852 Il, 2.860 Il. 2,873 N, 2.875 1.3.34 I. 3.61 Il. 3.142 Tl, 3.153 Il. 3.180 Tl, 3.182 IL, 3.197 2. 3.201 I], 3.204 Ii, 3,232 Il, 3.2766. I. 3.278

456 110 453 158 185 86 331 213 151 206 123 149 167 148 186 150 78 232 186 345 188 405 382, 384, 410, 467 406 177 175, 405 266 266 143 338 193 229 167 76 126 278 250 267 437 343 384 296 500 233 436 494 387 445 170 442 384 132 167 158 148, 203 238

Il. Hi, 11. Il, Il, Il. IL Il. Il. Tl, 11. Il. Il, Tl. It, Il. IL, 1. Il. Il. Il. Il, N. I. Il. Il. Il. Il. I. Tl. Il, II. Il. Ht. Il. Il, Tl, Il. II, Il. Il. I. Il. I. II, I. Il. Tl, 11, Il. Il. Il. Tl. I I. Il.

3.322 3.338 3.352 3.392 4.44 4.68 4,101f. 4.189 4.190f. 4.191 4.218f. 4.230 4.237 4.254 4.323 4,356 4.360f. 4.392 4.393 4.396 4.441 4.461 4.503 4.51 4.518 4,522 4.524 5.23 5,48 5.61 5.83 5.87 5.193. 5.219 5.228 5.252-3 5.265 5.267 5.302 5.326 5.333 5.401 5.426 5.428f. 5.429 5.507 5.532 5,536 5.586 5.592 5.682 5.696 5.703 5.721 5.739 5.777

545 205 364 296 205 239, 324 148 125 148, 332, 443 498 493 499 345 387 302 184 99 344 131 445 213 230, 231 204 204 498 177 127 468 203 178 111 85 386 339 151 414 468 379 239 177 184 277 493, 499 148 229, 479 479 203 496 170 467 276-7 339 202 ἢ. 7, 468 166 109 101 275

Index of Ancient Authors Homer (cont.) Il. Il. IL IL Il. Il. Il. Il.

5.785 5.865 5.900 6.11 6.15 6.53 6.86 6.118

Il. 6.124f. Il. 6.125

1. 9.186

87

161 176 499 204 339 178 277,479 302

Il. Tl. Il. TL. Il. Il. 11. Il.

9.200 9.207

84 246

9.236 9.357 9.362 9.379-87 9.382 9.407

287 123 346 283 286 478

98,99 98

Il. 9.408f. Il. 9.440

468 340

1l. 6.139

267

Il. 9.483

267

Il, 6.146-9

466

Il. 9.490

158

Il. 6.147

290

Il. 6.148

169

Il. 9.492 Il. 9.542

139, 453 290

Il. 6.153

170

Il. 9.662

101

Il. 6.181 Il. 6.222

384 125

11.10.10 210.71

87 149

Il. 6.2308.

471

Il. 10.135

80n.1

Il. 6.295

205

Il. 10.145

374

Il. 6.357 Il. 6.387 Il. 6.395 Il. 6.488 1.7.25 1.7.04 1.7122 Il. 7.124

239 297 416 212 78 237 178 456

II. Il. Il. 11. Il. Il. Il. Tl.

445 3831 498 412 99 186 370 η. 13 296

1.7131

205

Il. 10.475

302

11. 7.203 2.7.221 11.7.236 Il. 7.401

143 339 229 233

Il, 11. 2. Il.

232 167 85 101

Il. 7.445

343

Tl. 11.84

110

11. 7.482 Il. 8.38

479 n.12 99

Il. 11.86 Il. 11.87

304 246

Il. 8.66

110

Il. 8.192

303

Il. 11.105 Tl, 11.194

387 206

Il. 11,241

63

10.181 10.265 10.304 10.376 10.400 10.434 10.437 10.452 10.516 10.534 11.24f. 11.36-7

Il. 8.221

84

1l. 8.223 Il, 8.227 118.246

170

Il. 11.270-1

147,149

158

11. 11.275

158

149

Il. 11.298

338

1. Il. Il. Il.

8.298 8.320 8.321 8.360

488 233 177 125

Il. Il. Il. Tl,

166 288 182 n, 2 200

Il. 8.453

229

Tf, 11.514

500

Il. Il, Il. Il Il.

123 94 101 338 266

121. I. Il. Il. Il.

499 194 310 n. 3 246 238

8.529 8,559 8.565 9.4 9,59

11.299 11.305f. 11.441 11.453 11.515 11.547 11.550 11.562 11.604

Il. 9.98

249

N. 11.611

127

Il. 9.158 Il, 9.182

212 197

Il. 11.622 Tl. 1.639

197 86

I. 9.184

78

Il. 11.669

170

Index of Ancient Authors Tl. 11.706 2. 11.719 Tl. 11.727 I. 11.738 7], 11.739 21.11.741 7], 11.753 2.11.759 2.11.773 Il. 11.816 I}, 11.828 2.11.830 If, 11.833 I. 11.846 I], 12.24-9 N. 12.132-4 Ti, 12.146 Il. 12.168 Il, 12.270 TI, 12,282 Tl, 12.287 Il, 12.302f. 11.12.376 Il, 12.393 Il, 12.407 11. 12.448 21.13.13 2.13.34 11.13.89 21. 13.105 2.13.11 Il, 13.137-45 Il, 13.140 Tl, 13,171 21. 13.180 TI, 13.215 Il, 13.234 I], 13.282 Il. 13.334-7 Il, 13.340 IL, 13.342 Tl 13.424f. N. 13.495 H,13.501 II, 13.553 11. 13.555 Il, 13.575 11, 13.637 Tl, 13.654 Il. 13.683 N. 13.707 Il, 13.733 11.14.84 11.14.92 Il, 14.206 Tl, 14.245f.

448 229 123 233 230 499 297 302 310 475 331 499 500 290 285 288-9 384 339 175 435 476 309 445 246 143 240 375 343 343 98 171 288 233 230 387 343 123 407-8 288 498 75 204 232 498 387 232 204 68, 104 468 373 n. 21 133 185 373 184 175, 330 338

Il. 14.287f. Il. 14.305 Tl, 14.315f. Tl. 14.364 Il. 14.394 Il. 14.397 21. 14.412 2. 15.4 N. 15.17 11.15.24 Il. 15.153 I}, 15,191 Il. 15.193 Tl, 15.245 2. 15.251£. 215.371 Il. 15.389 Il, 15.393 N. 15.394 Tl, 15.410 N. 15.461-5 Il, 15.465 Il. 15.573 I. 15.580 Tl. 15.634 11. 15.668 Il. 15.677 Il. 16.87f. Tl, 16.139 Tl, 16.262 Tl. 16.299 Il. 16.324 Tl. 16.334 IL. 16.387 11. 16.389 Il. 16.391 Il. 16.428 Il. 16.633 Il. 16.634 TI, 16.655 Il, 16.692 Il, 16.747 Il, 16.761 Il, 16.787 Il. 16.837 Il. 16.857 N. 16.861 11. 16.1068 1.17.5 2.17.16 Il, 17.83 11.17.158 11. 17.263 Il. 17.361 Il. 17.434 Il, 17.455

547 294 175, 330 490 480 351 436 324 412 185 402 101 204 149 402 454 346 228 356 494, 499 399 501 501 233 233 186 202n.7 228 143 364 149 435 127 85 435 386 85 82, 83 and n.7 304 436 187 166 330 498 237 475 185 258 n.11 82 340 143 401n.2 143 275 84 290 206

Homer (cont.) Il. IL TL. Il. Il. Il. Il.

17.499 17.573 17,584 17.596 17.599 17.636 17.659

Il. 17.671 Il. 17.675 Il. 17.677 Il 17.747 2.18.25 Il. 18.48 Il. 18.64 Il. 18.73 Il. 18.88 TI. 18.89f. 2. 18.908. Il. 18.106 2.18.21

I], 18.219-23 N. 18.222 Il. 18.228 11. 18.309 IL, 18,400 Il. 18.415 Il. 18.485 Il. 18.491 ZI. 18.501 Il. 18.508 Il. 18.544 Il. 18.547 11. 18.575 Il, 18.580 Il, 18.606 H, 18.610 1.19.31 11.19.47 71. 19,5] TI. 19.105 ZI. 19.110 2.19.11 7}. 19.131 IL. 19.180 Il, 19.300 Il. 19.379 I. 20.13 Il, 20.30 N. 20.57f. IL 20.59 IL, 20.250 21. 20.258 Il. 20.282 21. 20.291 21. 20.319£. 11. 20.405

401 n.2 401 n. 2 170 213 127 330 310 n. 3 124 312 309 435 414 323 456 456 362 135 454 238 69 157-8 161 158 149 21] 467 101 266 333 399 133 133 387 177 68 370 n. 13 233 230 167 153 454 153 294 490 124 276 343 239 339 437 167 245 362 343 362 343

Il. 21.435 Il. 20.477 I. 20.478f. Il. 20.490f. II. 20.502 Il. 21.60-2 Il. 21,61 I. 21.103 N. 21.123f. I], 21.133 2. 21,1578, I. 21.158 Il. 21.204 Ti, 21.234-50 Il. 21,326 N. 21.485 Il. 21,517 Il. 21.524-5 Il. 21,585 Il. 21.598 Il, 22.29-31 N. 22.31 Il. 22.77 Il. 22.83 Il. 22,102 Il. 22.348 N. 22.352£. Tl, 22.363 Il. 22.382 I. 22.387. Il, 22.402f. 11, 22.450 Il. 22.482-4 11. 23.19 Il. 23.46 11.23.72 Il. 23.104 Il. 23.114 Il. 23.131 Il. 23.135f, Il. 23.202 Il. 23.232 Il. 23.251 I. 23.262 Il. 23.280f. Il, 23.295 Il. 23.315 Il, 23.345 Il, 23.406 Il. 23.413 Il. 23.469 Il. 23.486 I. 23,524f. Tl, 23,561 Il. 23.619 Il. 23.620 Il. 23.640

343

85 487

274 143 245 340n.7 487 177, 454 239 378 285

310-11 285 n. 6 85 259

239 143, 213 139 198 176

497 128 493 69 487 177, 454 185 471 454 467 340 ἢ. 7 455 247 134 479 479

186 496 134 232 62 414

117 233 203 304 487 346 117 192 333 278 231 17 117 117

ITI

Il. Il, IL. Il. Il,

23.651-2 23.702 23.762 23.795 23.803

Il, Il, Il. Il. Il. Il. Il. Il, Il, N. Il. Il. Il, Il. Il. Il. Il. Il. Il, Il. I], Il,

24,4f., 10f. 24.3] 24.75 24.105 24.128 24.129 24.158 24.187 24,247 24,261 24.382 24.415 24.438 24.482 24,496 24.523 24.562-4 24.566f. 24.664 24,708 24.739 24,796

Scholia on Il. 3.1 on 13.707 on Il. 18.219

Schol. A on Il, 24.247

144 119 324 144 498 59 123 167 456 475 360 187 187 345 69 86 233 462 93 153 351 351 240 177, 454 456 124 84 263 133 162 345

Odyssey Od. Od. Od, Od. Od. Od.

1.23 1.61 1.74 1.152 1.162 1.166

Od, 1.234

Od. 1.247 Od, 1.286 Od. 1.394 Od. 1.421f.

Od. 2.12 Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od.

2.59 2.185 2.195 2.243 2.285 2.397

Od. 3.5 Od. Od. Od, Od.

3.71 3.73 3.118 3.159

186 123 343 88 268 239 313 132 167 238 395 490 170 285 93 480 330 496 123 350 309 211 123

Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od, Od. Od. Od, Od. Od, Od. Od, Od. Od. Od. Od, Od. Od, Od. Od. Od, Od, Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od.

3.169 3.179 3.263 3.323f. 3.329 3.406 3.433 3.466 4.31-2 4.49 4,72 4.83 4.85 4.86 4.88 4.89 4,115 4.124 4.140 4.194 4.198 4.206 4.220f. 4.229 4.339 4.417 4.438 4.473 4.507 4.523 4.584 4.611 4.824 4.835 4.844-7 5.34 5.102 5.136 5.182 5.211 5.225 5.240 5,245 5.260 5.282 5.322f. 5.331f. 5.339 5.361 5.366f. 5.375 5.397 5.415f. 5.438 5.453 5.457 5.471f.

329 320 301 462 206

399 494 310 98-9

310 435 286 266 385 246 386 84 383 167 86 134 445 493 388 213 149 76 123 436 347 144 153

479 479 315 331 123 267 406 175 206 290 399 141 343 447 346 343, 346 364 285n.6 343 347 460 268 275 402 62

σσυ

Index of Ancient AuInors

Homer (cont.)

Od. 5.483

Od. 5.487 Od, 6.41-2

Od. Od, Od. Od. Od.

290

290 339 n.4

6.53 6.54 6.79 6.94 6.95

85 266 93 197 351

Od. 6.107

244

Od. 6.96 Od. 6.101

Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od.

6.121 6.133 6.169 6.204. 6.207-8 6.215

Od. Od, Od. Od. Od, Od.

205, 395

Od. Od, Od. Od.

7.34 7.35 7.49 7.56

186 343 266 343

Od 7.120 Od. 7.130

427 285

04.7191

9.168 9.176 9.199 9.246 9.252

143 384, 428 456 186 78 93

Od. 6.237

Od. 7.87 Od. 7.115

Od. Od. Od. Od. Od.

Od. 9.356 Od. 9.357

494

Od. 6.318

Od. 9.131 Od, 9.135

310 68

Od, 6.232-4 Od. 6.235

oa ἊΝ

Od, 9.364

9.365 9.366 9.375 9.390 9.392 9.425

Od. 9.439f.

490

Od. 9.4471.

76

Od. 9.464

Od. 9.447-60

Od. Od. Od, Od,

9.466 9.484 9.485 9.486

93 388

192

93 170 403 250 447 384, 444

244

444

445

310

347 297 268 283

123

Od. 10.1748.

205

Od. 10.195 Od. 10.225

101 93

Od. 10.131 Od. 10.132

Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od.

144 490 130 238 139 330 462 482 184 395 230 232 167 443 427 308 143 175 166 248 303

Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od, Od, Od. Od. Od.

346

Od. 11.560

Od. 9.27

206 143 453 386 350

Od, 9.541 Od. 10.52

135

7.332f. 8.19 8.29 8.81 8.91 8.150 8.197 8.232 8.240 8.248 8.267 8.286 8.397 8,408 8.456 8.508 8.576 8.585 9.14 9.198. 9.20

322 321

85 420, 426

0d.7.254-6

04.7.278 Od.7.311-14

499

110

460 373

0d.10.194f.

10.304 10.521 10.536 11.15-18 11.41 11.49 11.58 11.172 11.194 11.210 11.217-21 11.239 11.319 11.326 11.359 11.393 11.394 11.426 11.476 11.483 11.532

297 454

347 277

318

170 403 403 295 233 403 462 496 373 n. 21 453 403 285 127 323 151, 162 267 170 200 238 443 Rn

Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od, Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od, Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od.

11.575 11.588f. 11.611 11.614 11.618 12.4 12.21f. 12.22 12.101 12.106 12.150 12.182 12.187 12.197 12.265f. 12.281 12.290 12.383 12.406 13.98f. 13.101 13.103f. 13.162 13.192 13.202 13.220 13.223 13.246 13.352 13.364 14.65 14.97 14.105 14.304 14.327f. 14.327-8 14.417 14.419 14.434 14.435f. 14.464 14.465 14.468 14.487 14.503 14.529 15.70 15.108 15.126 15.175 15.281 15.299 15.403 15.405, 15.510 16.231.

209

420n.7 384 494 182 n.2

245, 294 241 241 373 ἢ, 21 448 256 346 n.3 255 256 387 62 267 205 202 324 294 324, 434 346 n.3 240 143 197 267 315 263 86 363 268 123 202 289 289 220 310 220 433 480 285 143 454 143 324 111 205 117 379 233 194 175 315, 320 132 454n,6

Od. Od, Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od, Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od.

16.124 16.150. 16.172-4 16.176 16.220f. 16.274f. 16.276 16.426 16.471 17.508. 17.88 17.176 17.221 17.295 17.366 17.519-20 17.572 18.68f. 18.194 18.299f. 18.304f. 18.309 18.358 18.370 18.374 18.378 18.389 19.91 19.110 19.111 19,112 19.112-13 19,113 19.183 19.192 19.207 19.248 19.356 19.406 19.443 19.506 19.510 19.515-17 19.538 19.550 20.4 20.18 20.70£. 20.76 20.180 20.296 20.351-7 20.356f. 21.40 21.43f. 21.280

132 351 496 133 500 286 286 309

438 125

310 175 375

384 346 139,142 387

407 n. 6 395 92 n.10 395 290

498 127f., 206 n. 16

195 101 182 n. 2 213

482 388 322 315

323 192

123 386 184 402

148 and n.7 290

387 169 62 82 212 63 475 n.5 111,168 n.11

369 213

93 200 202 117 399 297

21.282 21.304 21.3908. 21.423 21.430 22.12 22.88 22.102 22.221-3 22.302

143 313 105 501 88 462 202n.7 101 282 82

h. Cer. 70 . Cer, 104 . Cer. 174

τ᾿

Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od.

SFP SS Ye

Homer (cont.)

Cer. 211

. . . .

Cer, Cer. Cer. Cer, Cer.

232 282 293 455 480-2

203 435 169 303 94 175 339 321 354-5

Hymnus in Mercurium

Od. 24.14

479

Od. 24.46 Od. 24.78

134 iil

h. Merc. 514

362 84 75 210 186 309 205 63 482 309 313 395 313

Od. 24.50f. Od. 24.296

500 200

Hymnus in Neptunum h. Nept. 2

337

Od. 24.306

170

Od. 24.312

135

Hymnus in Pana h, Pan.1

Od. 24.376-80 Od. 24.462

373 313

h. Pan 2f.

Od. 24.496 Schol. on Od. 9.486

496 284

Hymnus in Venerem

Od. 22.368 Od. 22.371

402 99

Od. 22.373

471

Od. 23.83

351

Od. Od. Od. Od. Od. Od.

494 240 456 63 167 494

23.159-61 23.187f. 23.224 23.254f, 23.342 23.351

Hymni Homerici Hymnus in Apollinem

ἢ. h. h. h. h. h. h.

Mere. Merc, Merc. Merc. Merc. Merc. Merc.

24 41 47 52 113 136 141

h. Merc. 289 h. Merc, 351 h. Merc. 385 h. Merc. 405

h. Merc. 451

μι Ven. 7

h. h. h. h. h.

Ven, Ven. Ven, Ven. Ven,

18 19 89f. 216 249

h, Al4 h. A 22

442 and n.3 435

h. A 26 h.A3l

231 66

h. A 60

321 and n. 11

h. A 92

149

Batrachomyomachia

h. A 118

99f. and n. 9

Batr. 294

h. A144 h. A149

435 395

h. A 219 h. A536

66 218

Hymnus in Aesculapium h. Ascle If. h, Ascle 4

493 494

Hymnus in Cererem h. Cer. 2f. h. Cer.5 h. Cer. 6 ἢ. Cer.9 h. Cer. 14 h. Cer. 29 h. Cer. 42

175 150 97 356 99n.9 127 204

Hymnus in Tellurem h, Tell. 31.

433 432 359 259 158 205 94 313 498 ἢ, 8 83

Honestus

AP7.274=22,1;, 22,4 GP AP 9.216=3,6 GP AP 9,230=5 GP AP 9,250=6,3; 6,5 GP AP 9.292=7 GP

138, 461 455 134, 474 332, 374 6n.16

Isidorus

AP7.293=3,2 GP AP 9,94=5,2 GP

30 n. 103 410

Isocrates

De Pace 20

350

Panegericus Paneg. 28

356

Johannes Chrysostomus PG51.88,28

6.328=7; 7,1 FGE

285

Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae AJ 3.166,5 AJ 13.364 AJ 17,350

AJ 18.180 AJ 19.119 Bellum Judaicum BJ15 BJ 2.115

BJ 5.414,3f.

478 372n.18 266 111

271 and ἢ. 7 271 and n. 7 266 258

Julianus Aegyptius AP 6.19,4 6.25,5; 25,6 6.28,2 6.29,1 6.68,4; 68,7 7.58,1ff. 7.361,3 7.577,4 7.584 7.585,2; 585,8 7.585,2 7.590,4 7.592,6 7.599 7.600,2 7.601,1f.; 601,3; 601,6 7.603,1f. 9.654,2 9.739,3 API API87,1 API 113,2; 113,4 API139,4 API 173,2

9.353=30,1f. FGE 9.355=32 FGE

439 78, 170 197 494 76, 84 398 164 452 171 247, 500 500 452 60 n, 10 164, 168, 172, 176, 462 172 126, 171-2, 176, 482 176 125

193

117 203, 384

244f. 439

Leonidas of Tarentum

AP 6.4=52; 52,4; 52,8 HE

6.13=46,1; 46,6 HE 6.35=47,1-2 HE 6.120=91,1-6 HE 6.131=35,4 HE 6.154=97 HE 6.188=4,1 HE 6.200=38,1; 38,4 HE 6.204=7,2 HE 6.205=8,2 HE 6.211=2,3 HE 6.262=48; 48,4 HE AP 6.263=49,3 HE 6.286=40,2; 40,6 HE 6.289=42; 42,1; 42,3 HE 6.293=54,1-4 HE 6.296=50,5 HE 6.298=55; 55,5-6 HE 6.300=36,1; 36,3; 36,7f. HE

Laurea

AP7,17=1,6; 1,8 GP AP7.294=2,5f, AP12.24-27

6.329=8 FGE 7.547=9,2; 9,4 FGE 7.550=12,3 FGE 9.78=17,3f. FGE 9.344=21,2 FGE 9.345=22,3 FGE 9.347=24,1f. FGE 9.349=26 FGE 9.350=27,1 FGE 9.352=29 FGE

105 462 135

Leo Philosophus AP 9.202,2 AP 9.361,6

106 152

Leonidas of Alexandria AP 6.321=1; 1,4 FGE 6.322=2 FGE 6.32453; 3,2 FGE 6.325=4; 4,3f, FGE

13, 13, 98, 13,

87, 110, 137, 218 81,10 n. 15 419 79, 110, 137

11 η, 37, 13, 105, 136 13, 110, 137 213 n. 10, 413 231 498 n. 8 13 93 359 13, 93, 300 105 13, 125, 218, 249, 300 13, 79 n. 14, 93, 110, 218 13, 74, 93, 100, 218, 249

6.302=37; 37,8 HE 6.305=56,4-5 HE 6.309=45,2 HE 6.334=3; 3,1; 3,3; 3,5 HE 7.13=98,4 HE 7.19=57,1f.; 57,4 HE 7.35=99,1 HE 7,67=59,3f.; 59,7-8 HE 7.198=21,1-3 HE 7.266=61 7.273=62,1; 62,5-6 HE 7.283=63 HE

20 n. 72, 255, 417, 432, 439, 469 125, 256 437 322, 359 143 429, 432 429 297, 454 408 417 426 20 n, 72, 435 243 116, 247 20 η. 72, 98, 381, 417, 432 197, 386, 428, 439, 440 439 20 n. 72, 424, 440 381, 417, 424, 462 355, 474 417, 419 424 17, 424, 432-4 167 107 n. 10,167 240 324, 355, 501 398 442 69, 167, 449 198, 449

Index of Ancient Authors

554 Leonidas of Tarentum (cont.)

Lucian

7.295=20,1=HE 7.440=11 HE 7.448=12,2 HE 7.455=68 HE 7.463=69,1 HE 7.466=71; 71,1; 71,3; 71,8 HE

255, 323 178 229

7.472=77, 77,13 HE

465, 468, 474

7.478=73; 73,1-3; 73,6 HE

117 n. 18, 466, 469, 471

7.480=74; 74,2; 74,4 HE

399, 402, 414,

397-8 67 185, 453-4, 500

and n. 2

7.506=65,11 HE 7.648=10 HE 7.652=15,6 HE 7.655=17; 17,1-2 HE 7.656=18,1 HE 7.657=19,1; 19,11 HE 7.665=14,1; 14,7f. HE 7.715=93; 93,1-2; 93,5f. HE 7.726=72,7 HE 7.73=78,6 HE 7.736=33 HE 7.740=75,6 HE 9.24=30,1-2 HE 9.25=101; 101,5f. HE 9.318=80,1-2f. HE 9.322=25,8; 25,10 HE 9.507=56; 56,3 HE API API182=23; 23,5f. HE AP! 190=81,3 HE API 230=86,3-5 HE AP! 306=31 HE AP! 307=90; 90,1 HE

466, 468 175

7,575,3 283,36. 287 364,3

Alexander Alex. 16,36.

218, 476

Dialogi Deorum

376, 406, 414 414 400, 443 187, 449, 462

D. Deor. 10.4,10

246

Dialogi Marini D. Mar. 10.2,7f.

247

479 and n. 12

Dialogi Mortuorum Dial. Mort. 24,2

406

498 356

D. Mer. 13

208

De Domo Dom. 11

126

187, 460, 474,

474

368 119, 201

Dialogi Meretricti

137-8, 250

Hesiodus

332, 435, 437 100, 125 138, 459

Hes. 7,3

76, 277 444 308, 434-5, 444, 459 104, 108, 398 104, 108, 398 61 395 66, 391 171

79

De Mercede Conductis Merc. Cond, 271-4 394n.8 Merc. Cond. 39 403

Nigrinus Nigrin. 31

96

De Saltatione Salt, 2 Salt. 9.5 Salt. 29f.

394 ῃ, 8 482 391

Salt. 37-61 Salt. 46 Salt. 62

391 66, 392 392

Salt. 63 Salt. 66

391-2, 394-5 392

Salt. 74 Salt. 78

393 394

Timon

283 391

Longinus 275

Longus

AP 6.191=1 FGE

393 408 411

204

Orationes

API39

1.5 11.427 11.434

Calumniae non temere credendum Cal. 6 392

Libanius Or. 59.127 Or. 64.88,8-10

36-7 and n. 125 122 176, 212, 355 461 490 360

187, 188 n. 17,

453

Leontius Scholasticus

AP API API API

AP 6.17 6.164 7.308,1-2 9.367,12 10.29,1 10.41,1

Tim. 5,6 Tim. 32

218 403

Tim. 36,10f.

218

Tragodopodagra Trag. 295

302

Lucillius 424

AP

Index of Ancient Authors 9,572 11.83 111011 11.107,1 11.141,3 11.159,3 11.185 11.194,1 11.253 11.254 11.259,3f.

11 n. 37, 482 140, 335f. 63 290 228 212 66-7 428 67 389 500

11.264,1

63

Magnus

11.2771

63

AP!

ΩΨ

5

Lycophron

5.247,2 6.69,2 6.70 6.73,3 7.566,1 9,645,8 9,649 1f. 10.70,3-4£. 11.59,8 11.374,3f., 374,7

555 460 267 430 428 147, 174 420 127 182, 476 427 101, 408

Medicus

270,31.

Marcus Argentarius AP

499

5.105=7,4 GP

62

240

5.110=8; 8,6 GP 5.127=13,4 GP

191

6.201=17 GP

122

334

323

7.374=19,3£.;19,5£.;19,7£. GP

402

345

418

263

511

232

2899 156

219.

519

277

550

232

and

203, 288 304 69, 204, 345, 455, 501

7.395=20,1; 20,4; 20,6 GP

60 n. 10, 400, 448

7.403=32,3-5f, GP

18 n. 68, 111, 402

627

240

9,161=15,1; 15,3-4 GP

105, 109

7791. 957 1054

427 427 151

9,221=35,1; 35,5 GP 9.246=25,1 GP 10.18=29,2 GP

489-90 427 104

1095f. 1226-60,1435-45

70 7

1314

117

1328

243, 386

1060

322

Lysias

Marcus Aurelius 4,18 and 4.28 Matro

fr, 534,51 SH

401

256

Maximus

In Andocidem And, 19

n, 12

Περὶ καταρχῶν 205-7 350

Maccius

150

Meleager AP

AP 5.133=5,3 GP 6.33=6; 6,5f. GP 6.89=7; 7,3f.,7,7 GP

70-1 418, 432, 424, 425 323, 418, 439

9.249=9 GP AP]

418

API198=11 GP

70, 463, 485 and n. 1,

API199

485 n.1

486-7

Macedonius Consul

AP 5.229,3 5.231

486 171

5.243,1

244

5.245,7f.

238

4.1=1,40; 1,44; 1,49;158 HE

85, 186 n. 12,

5.8=69,1 HE 5,136=42,4-5 HE

297, 333 333 97

5.139=29,4; 29,6 HE 5.143=45 HE

68, 286 97

5.144=31,3; 31,5 HE

99, 101

5.147=46; 46,2; 46,4 HE

97, 99, 101

5.155=48 HE

196

5.166=52,3 HE

84, 469

5.172=27,5f. HE

259

5.177=37, 37,7 HE 5.178=38; 38,2; 38,9 HE

360, 485 69, 485,

5.160=26,2 HE

172, 486

487-8 5.179=7;7,6,7,7 HE

117, 485-6

ATIC APTI

Lorn}

5.180=8,1f. HE 5.190=64,1 HE 5.214=53,3f, HE 5.215=54,3; 54,5f. HE 7.182=123,1 HE 7.196=13,3; 13,5-6 HE 7.207=65,7 HE 7.417=2,3 HE 7.418=3,3 HE 7.419=4,1-2 7,428=122,19 7.461=124,2 HE 7.468=125,1; 125,6 7.470=130,7 HE 7.476=56 HE

9.16=74,1 HE 9.331=127,1, HE 12.23=99,4 HE 12.57=111,4 HE 12.65=101,3 HE 12.68=112,7 HE 12.72=92,3; 92,5 HE 12.80=17,5f. HE 12.81=86,5 HE 12.82=67 HE 12.86=18,2 HE 12.109=61,3 HE 12.117=19,2 HE 12.122=85,1f. HE 12.125=117 HE 12.127=79,5-8 HE 12.132=21,3f. 12.132b=22,7f. HE 12.133=84 HE 12.144=106; 106,1; 106,4 HE 12.157=119,2 HE 12.158=93,3 HE 12.164=80,1 GP 12.257=129,8 HE

490 461 60 60 413 260, 332, 408 453 483 249 109, 483 142 198 60 n. 10, 166 109 60 n. 10, 76, 166-7, 176, 217 359 116 440 487 345 84 71 486 486 120 58 488 501 495f. 475-6 62 36 n. 119, 486 490 461 486-7, 489-90 448 486 422-3 79

Melinno

Hymn to Rome SH 541

9 andn. 22

Menander

Epitrepontes fr. 83 K-A frr. 362-71 K-A fr. fr. fr. fr.

508,2f. K-A 663 K-A 715,2 Κα 755,1 K-A

208 422 208 17 356 256 487

Menander Rhetor 345,1-15

346,6f. 387,10

432.

315 321 323 328

369,13-17 423,14-21 Menecrates AP 9.390=1 HE

166 ἢ. 8 366

6 n. 16, 451, 472

Mesomedes 5.12 GD 821 GD

Metrodorus AP 9,360=1,7 FGE

109 66 170

Mnasalcas

AP 6.9=3,4, HE 6.128=5 HE 6.264=6,5-6 HE 7.242=7,2 HE 7.488=9,1-2 HE 9.324=16 HE 9.333=15,3-4 HE

Moeris 5.0, aiuaoıd Ἀττικοί 8.5. ψεδνὸς Ἀττικοί Moero AP 6.119=1,1; 1,3 HE

AP 6,189=2; 2,16; 2,4 HE

93 417 150, 234 402 167, 414 118, 119, 417 83, 355 438 384 118, 177, 386, 417, 465 432, 434-5

Moschus 1 2.8

2.31 2.110

3.276.

fr.1.10

485 305 275, 304 116 419 323

[Moschus] Bion 1-7

90 Megara 43} 65

202 107 276 167

Mundus AP 9,103=1,5 GP

172, 374

Musaeus 90 237 246

69 86 ἢ, 14 68, 70

Myrinus AP 6.108=1,4 GP AP 6.254=2 GP

439 418, 432

Nicander

Alexipharmaca ΑΙ. 71

Al. 90 Al. 93

122 Al. AL 141

220

386 402

496 246

API188=7,1-3 HE

437

API189=8 HE

423

Nicodemus of Heraclea

AP 6.318=5 and 6.319=6 FGE

AP 9.53=9 FGE

262

499

Al, 180

323

220

Nicomachus

Al. 203

424

Nicostratus

m 55

309

ΑΙ. 358 Al, 410

386 467

Al. 470 Al 488

197 224

D. 114 D.1.288

152 337

Al. 628

498

D. 1.357

101

202 408

D. 2.687 D. 3.45

D. 2.41

337

D.3.144

427

Al. 144

Al. 416

Theriaca

Th, 25 Th, 52

Th. 1751.

153

265

AP7.299=1;1,3-4 HE fr. 38 K-A

335, 400, 402 158

Nonnus aa

Dionysiaca

D.1,502f.

258

360 501

Th, Th, Th, Th, Th.

219 285 319 346 408

467 246 402 494 374

D, D, D. D. D.

3.250 3.282 3.344 3.348 3.362

290 286 127 133 220

Th. Th, Ih. Th. Th. Th. Th. Th. Th.

425 427 487 502 508 513 546 565 584

197 496 376 246 495, 498 426-7 133 495 437

D. 5.2206 D.5.274-6 D. 5.276 D. 5.487 15581 D.6.113 D.6.275 D.6.285 Ρ. 711

324 324 497 206 191 256 428 461 204

Th. 7668 Th, 741

423 496

D.9.139 Ῥ 9 284

257 136

Th. 768

212

D. 10.179

127

Th. 418

Ih. 685

470

495

D. 5.2188.

D.9.76

494

238

Ih. 7891. In. 818 Th, 837 Th, 878 Th. 917 Fragments

407 209 498 402 471

D.10.389 D. 10.420 D. 11.197 D. 11.296 D.11.510 D.11.514

118 459 116 259 410 290

fr. 31,4

443

D. 12.7

322

Schol. on Nic, Al. 548

420

Nicarchus

AP 11.124,1 AP11.239-42

127 408

Nicias

AP 6.270=3; 3,1-2 HE

146-7, 465

D, 12.24

419

D.12.137

290

D. 12.256

427

D.12.286-9 D.13.5 D.13.279-85

324 228. 324

D. 13.282

497

D. 13.300

440

Nonnus (cont.)

D. 13.385 D.15.31 D. 15.155 D, 15.188 D. 15.402 D.17.122 D.18.115 D. 18.159

228. 409 409 379 69 409 206 469

D. 41,97

D. 42.33 D. 45.22 D.47.171and204 D. 47.326 48.194 D. 48.795 D. 48.885

92

488, 490 339 238 100 346 147 152

D. 18.348

410

ἢ. 19.140f.

494

AP5.170=11-2 HE

171,423

D.19.216f.

395

AP 6.273=12 HE

146

D.19.303

259

AP 9.604=7,3 HE

310

D. 21.290

D. 22.116 D. 22.247,

337

257 157

D. 24.10

339

D, 25.513

337

Nossis

Oenomaus

AP 9.749=1,1£, FGE

183

Oppian Halieutica

D. 26.159 D, 27.198 D. 27.201-3 D. 27.215 D. 27.261 27.290-5 D, 28.147 D, 29.65 D. 29.119 D. 29.352 D. 30.75 D. 32.199 D, 33.212 D, 33.247 D. 33,347 D. 34.166 D, 34.206 D. 34.248 D. 35.195 D, 35.326 D. 35.358 D. 35.382 D. 36.109 D. 36.246 D. 36.457 D. 36.461 D. 37.122 D. 37.138 D. 37.320 D. 37.622 D. 37.764 D. 38.117 D. 38.152

410 409 152 309 329 251 469 456 177 329 339 469 459 69 448 409 409 469 476 386 420 177 160 476 469 228f. 256 158 440 257 230 69 192

Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal, Hal. Hal. Hal, Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal, Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal, Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal. Hal.

1.25 1.104 1.246 1.273-6 1.409 1.458f. 1.682 1.767 2.26 2.85 2.88 2.194 2,235 2.289f, 2.373 2.400 2.433 2.502 2.580 2.603 3.91. 3.28 3.147 3.194 3.247 3,341f. 3.413 3.562 4.198£. 4.274-6 4.316 4.323 4.357

373 n. 21 171 188 490 259 99 111 402 479 409 n.9 313 246 323 312 383 308 374 496 153 501 250 439 383 388 83 255 439 233 149 312 387 79 495n,6

D. 38.329

133

Hal. 4.376

160 and n. 12

D. 39.4f. D. 39.214 D. 40.238

130 228f. 420

Hal. 4.384 Hal, 4.607 Hal. 5.70

276 494 445

D. 40.417

133 n.5

Hal. 5.95

11

Hal. 5.99

Hal. 5.224 Hal. 5.250 Hal. 5.301 Hal. 5.305

Hal, 5.346 Hal. 5.411 Hal. 5.617

Schol. on O Hal, 3.10

445 436 304 228 171 468 290 255 251

[Oppian] Cynegetica Cyn.1.20 Cyn. 1.30 Cyn, 1.46 Cyn. 1.119 Cyn. 1.149 Cyn. 1.508

Cyn. 1.523 Cyn. 2.82 Cyn. Cyn, Cyn. Cyn.

2.190 2.198 2.379 2.379-81

Cyn. 2.408 Cyn. 2.436f. Cyn. 2.606 Cyn, 3.121 Cyn, 3.517

Cyn, 4.127 Cyn. 4.139

Cyn. 4,287 Cyn. 4.302f. Cyn. Cyn. Cyn, Cyn.

4.337 4.347 4.372 4.398

351 229 439 477 439 386 116 286 256 373n.21 101 381 254 339 374 233 153 83 408 117 341 221 125 356 157

Orphica Hymnt

Η. H. H. HA. H. H. H. H. H. H.

3.12 16.8 17.6 17.9 18.19 23.8 29.18 35.6 36.4 40,16

H. 51.5

HA. 51.12 H.75.2 H. 84.8 Lithica Lith. 280

442 339 339 344 150 150 150 150 124 303 434 440 66 150 426

Palladas

AP 9.165,7 9.171,2 9.183,5 9.394 10.52,2 10.54,2 10.63 10.77,1 10.84,2-3 11.62,4 11.263 11.302 11.303 11,349,1 11.383,6 11.385

298 479 203 474 483 247 474 349 468, 482 183 481 474 474 294 320 349

Parmenion

AP 5.34=2 GP 7.183=3,2 GP 9.114=9 9.304=10,1; 10,3 GP

9,342=11 GP 1.65=13,1f.

21n.76 413 6n.16 277, 456 21 218 n. 68

Parthenius

fr. 13 Lightfoot fr. 35 Lightfoot

49,57 301

Paulus Silentiarius

AP 5.227 5.228 5.230,6 5.244,6 5.252,1 5.254,3 5.260,6 5.266,1-4 5,268,4 5.274,1-2 5.275,1 5.279,3 5.290,3-4 5.300,1 6.57,3 6.64,2-3 6.65,5; 65,12 6.66,8 6.71,4 6.75,1f. 6.84,4 771,4 7.560,1-3; 560,8

304 60 410 423 6 71 70 488--9 488 69, 360 61 70 69, 206 68 435 75-6 75-6, 496 75 440 453 177 n.5 465 71,185-7, 398

Paulus Silentiarius (cont.) 7.604,1 9.396,5f. 9,443,2-3; 443,5 10.74,4; 74,6

210 153, 429 197, 343, 360 244, 462

Descriptio Sanctae Sophiae Descr. 149 Descr. 520

133 309

Phaénnus AP 7197=2,2 HE

Phalaecus AP 7.650=5 HE AP 13,6=3 HE

AP 13.27=4; 4,8 HE

271 n. 6, 276 143 147 114 ‚143 264 432 356 143 367 367 376 124 151 151 92n.9 359 246 92 157 n. 6 156-7 155, 159 367 289 257 124 353 n, 10 433 433 419, 433 429 290, 354 n, 14

Perses AP 6.112=1 HE 6.272=2,274=3 HE 6.274=3,3 HE 7.487=6,3-4 HE 7.501=4; 4,2 HE 7.539=9,6 HE 7.730=7,1 HE 14.54,4

77,440 146 147 211, 453 442-3, 448 60 n, 10, 453 166, 182 453

Phaedimus AP 6.271=1 HE

94, 146, 149-50

442 481 187, 212

[Phalaecus] AP 6.165,3

Pausanias 14,1 115,3 1.18,5 1,30,2 1,32,4 1.33,6 1.34,3 1.43.3 2.11 2.2,2 2.3,1 2.4 2.9,6-7 2.27,5 2.29.1 3.12,4 4.30,4 4,35,11 52,1 5,22,1 6.13,3; 13,9 6.15,3-5 7.16,7f. 721 723,2 8,30,10-8.31,1 8.31,2 8.38,3 and 5 8.41,4; 41.7-10 8.42, 11-12 9,40,3 10.311; 31,11

63

157

Phanias

AP 6.295=3; 3,1; 3,3 HE 6.294=2,1 HE 6.299=5,3-4; 5,8 HE 6.297=4,3 HE 6.304=6,2 HE 12.31=1,2 HE

75-6, 78 428 421, 459 410 419 158

Pherecrates

fr. 113,6 and 137,3 K-A

478

Philip AP 4,2=1; 1,4; 1,7 GP

6.5=8 GP 6.36=9,1-2 GP 6.38=10 GP 6.62=11 GP 6.90=12 GP 6.92=13,4 GP 6.94=14; 14,2 GP 6.9915; 15,2; 15,5 GP 6.101=16; 16,2; 16,5 GP 6.102=17 GP 6.103=18; 18,7-8 GP 6.104=19 GP 6.107=20 GP 6.203=76,1 GP 6.231=21,3; 21,8 GP 6.236=2,1f.; 2,3 GP 6.240=3,2 GP 6.247=22; 22,4, GP 6.251=7,3; 7,7 GP 6.259=23 GP 7.234=31 GP 7.362=78,1; 78,3 GP 7,382=25 GP 7.383=32 GP 7.394=26,5 GP 7,554=27 GP 9.22=36,5 GP

15 n. 58, 49, 116 183, 417 429, 439 87, 118, 417, 432, 439, 447 n.15 75-76, 78, 119 255, 417, 438 438 30 n. 103, 417 81, 385, 417, 430 117, 417, 438 20 πη. 72, 417-418, 422, 429, 432 20n. 72, 88, 258, 417,432 20 ἢ. 72, 417, 432 89, 417 459, 461 n. 5 20 n. 72, 423, 462 423, 304 437 20 n. 72,245 n. 1, 417, 432 346, 430, 439 113, 125 230 170, 406 175, 198, 442 13 n. 52, 410, 465, 467-8 30 n. 104 198, 400, 452, 472 124

Index of Ancient Authors 9.56=37 GP 9.85=39,1 GP

9.88=40 GP

6n. 16 455

Heroicus Her. 53.11

6n. 16, 243, 324,

Imagines

447

Im.

n.

15,

500

1.20.1

9.89=41 GP

176, 458

Im. 2.30,2

9.280=21,1 GP 9,285=4,4; 4,6 GP

230 231, 257

Vita Apollonii

9,290=48,4 GP

258

VA 2.13,1f

9.307=5,3f, GP

249, 254

Vitae Sophistarum

9,311=51 GP 9.438=53,6 GP 9,561=55,3; 55,5-6 GP 9.708=57,7f. GP

6n.16 245 n, 1 274, 419 462-3

VS15 VS 1.25,5 VS 2.602 VS 490

9,778=6; 6,2; 6,6 GP 11,33=58,4 GP

91, 249, 254, 257 101

Π 321-60 GP

11.347=61 GP 13.1=62 GP

307, 464

307

103 n3

Photius ἊΝ

Bibliotheca 150a,20-4

Lexicon

s.v. πάντα κάλων σείειν

561 276 425

487

266 216 140 117 210

49

140

"

8.0. πλήμμυρα

284

Philitas

S.V. σκῆπτρον

428

fr. 7,3 Spanoudakis

496

fr. 19 Spanoudakis

444

Philo De Ebrietate Ebr. 36.7

Preparatio Sophistica Pre Soph. 59.1 476

De Mutatione Nominum Mut. 94.4{.

386

Phrynichus Comicus

a „ Ἰ ἕ Fi A 476

De Specialibus Legibus Spec. Leg. 1.62,3

Phrynichus Att.

155

coo

Pindar 183 n. 3

,

Isthmia 1.1.3{.

Philodemus

132

1147

387

AP 5.4=1 GP

333

1.1.67-8 1.3/4.4

358 388

5.13=2 GP 5.25=3,1f.; 3,6 GP

399, 490 18 n. 68, 477

1. 3/4.19 I. 3/4.76

362 250

5.107=5 GP

164

175

5.121=8 GP

387

18.32

267

5.123=9 GP

68

1. 8.62f.

117,157

5.126=25,6 GP

62

275

5.131=11 GP

»

65, 68, 70, 71

N 1313

N

358

5.132=12; 7.222=26 10.21=15 11.30=27

12,7 GP GP GP GP

62, 259, 465 63, 234, 402, 482 147, 465 232

N. 132 N.21¢ N36 Δ, N. 3,11.

361 139 387

358 n. 3, 361

N. 35 Af

150

N. 3.76

332

153

N. 4.1-3

474

334

N. 4.51

N. 4.36f.

351

11.44=23 GP API API 234=29 GP

Περὶ Ποιημάτων

Po. 5.5,24f.

N. 4,54

Philostratus De Gymnastica Gymn. 14,22

498

206

268 437

N. 4.81

370 n. 13

N.5.51 N. 7.2

140 147

Pindar (cont,)

4.64

97

N. 8.11 N. 8.24 N. 8.45 N. 10.18 N. 10.62f. N. 10.67 N. 11.12 N. 11.34 Olympia

132 467 476 147 312 399 324 153

4.161 4.271£. 5.24 5.101 5.107 6.33 6.52 6.54 8.25f.

384 150 297 343 106 232 343 220 n. 7 297

0.19

157

8,78-80

160

0. 1.18 O. 1.50 0.1.92 O. 2.83

158 167 414 232

8.90 10.68 11.10 11.36

476 399 202 437

O. 2.98-100

374 n. 24

Fragments

0.318 0. 3.20 0.6.22 0. 6.42

149 203 127 150

fr. fr. fr. fr.

0. 6.85f.

289

Ö, 7.54-74

296

0. 7.671.

0.7.83, 13.38

ἢ. 11

149

132

152 133,3 106,2f. 137a

104 170 244 354

fr. 302

401

fr. 123,5

401

Schol. Pind. 0,13.la_

159

0.7.95

388

0.81

443

O. 8.24

343, 399

0.10.94£.

106

0. 13.29-31

O. 13.38f,

154

160

Euthydemus

0.13.95 O. 13.115 0.14.9

232 123 395

Gorg. 475e, 4720, 472c Gorg. 497c Gorg. 508a Gorg. 516b

333

111

87

Hippias Major 286d

256

1.67

123

Laches 190d

497

1,69

445

1.87

138n. 4

Leges

1.92

361

0. 10.746.

Pythia

1.911.

1.92-4

205

140 358

Pinytus AP7.16=11

400

Plato

Cratylus Gorgias

160 n. 12 353 263

Leg. 665a

468

Leg. 6990

476 n.7

Leg. 715c

178

Leg. 715e

237

2.41

409 n.9

Leg. 716a

2.57 2.65

343 440

68

Leg. 77le Leg. 890c

266 178

2.85

351, 435

Leg. 9374

490

2.92

203

Meno 82b,4

210

un 3 46

a 494

Parmenides Parm. 137d

237

35 0 3.94

176 266

Phaedo 66c Phaedo 69c

479 354 n. 14

3.104

388

Phaedrus

4.12

230

Phaedr. 234e

139

Index of Ancient Authors Phaedr. Phaedr. Phaedr. Phaedr. Pheadr.

237a 243d 246a 250d 265c

Phaedr. 270b1

Phaedr, 271d Phaedr. 275b

Politicus Polit. 280b Polit. 285a-b

332 425 58n.3

Mor. 433a, 437£ Mor. 469c Mor. 568a

209 70 494 178 289

Mor. Mor. Mor. Mer. Mor.

265 183 n. 3

365a 369c 400d,7 402d 470b

Re 500e Re 579b

354 n. 14 477 170 209 220 477 167

Symposium

Sym 175b

Sym 177¢ Sym 197d Sym 210b

248 361 478 172 n. 16

Theaetetus Theaet. 149d

150

Timaeus Tim. 49a

479

‘Plato’

AP 5.80=5 FGE 7.99=10,5 FGE 7.256=12,4 FGE 7.268=18,4 FGE 7,.670=2 FGE 9.823=16,2 FGE API API160=23,3f. FGE

4n.12

240 359 369 200, 355, 482 387 472

Plutarch Moralia Mor. 12e

Mor. 26a

Mor. 46b and 46d Mor. 1514 Mor. 233a Mor. 267a Mor. 278c

Mor. 322d Mor. 331d Mor. 394b Mor. 395c Mor. 398a

401 106 68, 468 425 421 204 171 362 468 107 90n.4 361

388

424 167

425 428

Mor. 1034a, 1054a Mor. 1129d

150 388 428 392 27n.95 437 263 338 421 322 276 350

Aemilius Paulus Aem. 37.4

139

Antonius Ant, 36.5 Ant, 49.3 Ant. 54.6-7 Ant. 59.8 Ant. 79.4 Ant. 80 Ant. 87.3

200 381 217 210 453 216 111,137, 262

Caesar (πος. 55.2. Caes. 57.8

266 367

Cato Minor Cat. Min. 57 Cat. Min, 60.1

216 362

Cicero Οἷς. 32.4

337

Demetrius Demetr. 26.1

354

Galba Galb. 14.5

256

Marcellus Marc, 6-8 Marc. 10.6,2

131 399

Pelopidas Pel. 29.4

307

Mor. 7lle-f.

Respublica Re Re Re Re Re

600d 629¢ 6586. 695e 710d

563

Mor. Mor. Mor. Mor. Mor.

747f. 796b 886b 896c 939c

Mor. 994b

Pompetus

Pom 34.2f. Pyrrhus Pyrrh. 16.11

220

Romulus Rom. 14.8

165 n.5

Solon Sol. 1.7

116

381

Plutarch (cont.) Theseus

Thes. 14.2 Thes. 32.1

143 477

Polemon AP 11.38=2,4-6 GP

465, 468

Pollux 1.232

2.40 2.180,7

3,49 3.125

4,89 10.160

426 n. 21 410 444 385 374 156 255

Polybius 2.14,8 3.53,5 4,49,1f. 8.26,10 8.28,7 9,8,13 9.40,1 10.30,5 20,511 34.9,5

320 443 257 206 n. 16 356 362 134 443 284 424

Polystratus AP7.297=2,1; 2,3f. HE AP12.91=11HE Pompeius AP7.219=1,1-2 GP AP 9.28=2,1-2 GP

88, 205 n. 12, 366 297 234 374

8.1f.

Posidippus AP 5.186=2 HE=125,3 5.213=4,4 HE

61 69

7170=21 HE 7.267=15 HE

442

Austin-Bastianini 8,4 Austin-Bastianini 19,10 Austin-Bastianini 32,33, 57 Austin-Bastianini

50,1f. Austin-Bastianini 58,1 Austin-Bastianini 75,3 Austin-Bastianini

87,1f. Austin-Bastianini SH 705

6η. 16

8ά 69 6 n. 16 200 170 156 160 348

Ptolemy 2.7,8

Quintus Smyrnaeus 1.36-41

1.472 1.597, 1.663 1.720 2.32 2.118f. 2.261 2.490 2.496 2.569 2.617 2.642 3.69f. 3.94f. 3.325 3.396 3.463 3.492 4.129f, 4,399f. 4,404 4.431 5.534, 5,540f. 5.616 6,5 6.334 6.431 6.472-4 6.488. 7.64 7197 7,254 7.357 7.413 7.569

300 206

8.31 8.53 8.132 8.229 8.301 8.487 9.349 9.402 9.503 10.141f. 10.277-80 10.451 11.34, 11.381 11.471 12.120 12.143 12.332 13.8 13.46f.

496 202 471 496 265 293 456 276 341 459 127 265 152 498 n.8 290 471 210 183 169 499 496 125 456 186 304 388 188 47) 498 n.8 351 456 364 496 125 197 323 296 176 386 471 386 459 304 496 188 290 135 183 69 459 459 309 232 309 167 445 309

13.155 13.291 13,341 13.524 14.203 14,289 14.346 14,475f. 14,488 14.569f. 14.597 14.,621f. 14,635

467 388 293 152 344 166 329 436 496 436 448 66 283

Rhianus

AP 6.173=7 HE 6.278=8,3f. HE 12.38=1,1f. HE 12.58=2,3-4 HE 12.121=4; 4,3f. HE

122 122, 128, 150, 363 495 97, 100f. 288, 496 454

5.19=6,3-4 Page

5.21=7,3 Page 5.27=9,1 Page 5.28=10,1-2 Page 5.35=11,6 Page 5.36,7=12 Page 5,48=19,1-2 Page 5,62=23,2 Page 5.74=38,2 Page 5.75=29,1-2 Page 5.87=31,6 Page 5,103=37,1 Page

Satyrus API195=5 FGE

127 428 403 220 258, 399 99 426 98, 197, 426 469 323 68, 359 68 475

AP9.36=1,3 GP AP 9.301=3,6 GP

AP 6.158=2,3

719

Samius

AP 6.116=1,3; 1,5 HE

77, 363

26,5 L-P 31,14 L-P 34 L-P 47 L-P 48,2 L-P 55,4 L-P 96,6-9 L-P 98,8 L-P

fr. 98a,4; 98a,7 L-P fr. 108 L-P fr. 156 L-P

284

AP 6.113=3 HE 721=4 HE 7.22=5,5 HE 7.60=6,2 HE 7.193=2,4 HE 7.203=1,4 HE

81 400 483 402 467 167

Simonides 88 PMG

356, 466, 471 420 324 400

‘Simonides’ AP 6.2=19,1f. FGE

7.24=66,5 FGE 7.24=66,5 FGE 7.25=67,3-4 FGE 7.25=67,6 FGE 7.249=22b,1f. FGE

7.296=45,7f. FGE 7.300=73,2 FGE 7.344b=83b FGE 7,348=37 FGE 7.431=65 FGE

7.515=70 FGE 13.14=35,3f. FGE 13.19=43 FGE

465 109 501 106, 109 184 402 297 185 500 397 228 127 453 212 34{. n. 114, 35 ἡ. 115 34f. n. 114, 113

Solon

Sappho fr. fr. fr. fr. fr. fr. fr. fr.

449, 460 435

Simias

7.513=74,1 FGE

126, 432, 434

485, 486 and ἢ. 5

Sextus Empiricus

7.512=53,1 FGE

Sabinus

123, 150

Secundus

3.1,4 PMG 37.1,1-3 PMG

Rufinus

AP 5.9=1,7 Page

AP 6.11=1,1; 1,5 FGE

20 IEG

Romanos Kontakion 19,11

Maas-Trypanis

Satyrius

479 370 n. 13, 373, 412 205-6 288 68 401 203, 206 101 99, 370 n. 13 61 370

5, 1IEG 13,19 IEG 13,51 JEG 27,6 IEG 33,5 IEG 37,8 IEG

500 101 187, 479 194 218 246

Sophocles Ajax

Aj. 15-17

Aj. 23

157, 161 183

Sophocles (cont.)

Aj. 90 Aj. 121f.

185 35]

Aj., 197

436

Aj.. BIE,

Aj., 282 Aj. 328 Aj, 382

Aj." Aj. Aj.. Aj."

395 4148 478 499

Aj.‘ 503 Aj. 557 "

238

OC 150-1 OC350 OC390

116, 117 ἢ. 16 322 176 362

OC 673

436

329

257

443 175 476 408

368, 370 368

ΑἹ.. 954/5

401

Aj.. 1064

Aj. Aj. 1219 1284

476

Oedipus Coloneus 0C55

454 452

Aj. 966

El. 1460

259

454 and n.5

Aj.ἢ 756 Aj., 848

Aj.. 923

EL 1445

368 373

448

66 260

Antigone

OC 563f,

160 πη. 12

0C728

369

OC 1145f. OC 1164 OC 1220f.

312 192 462

OC 1238

336

OC 1240-4 Oc 1411

288 2331.

OC 1423

325

OC 1510

452

OC 733f.

OC 1479

OC 1701 :

286

158

332

Oedipus Tyrannus

Ant. 26 Ant. 56

453 452

Ant. 3321. Ant. 424f.

306 60

Ant, 5121. Ant, 539

125 206

Ant. 594 Ant, 650 Ant. 668f.

153 477 287

Ant. 769

452

Ant. 942 Ant. 981f. Ant, 1119

368 376 329

Ant. 1268

461

Ant. 1293

301

Ant. 1300 Ant. 1314

370 461

Ant. 1320

167

OT9

360

OT 102 OT 302 OT 438

360 351 454

OT 465 OT 487

336 476

OT OT OT OT

528 1094 1123 1157

399 297 210 360

OT OT OT OT

1391 1399 1403 1527

143 256 266 460

Philoctetes Ph. 105

489

Ph.115 Ph. 738

363 344

Electra

Ph. 797£.

462

Εἰ.12

172 ἡ. 16

297 221 125

Ph. 806 Ph. 838 Ph. 1168 Ph. 1224

158

329

Ph. 1428

440

El. 566

125

Trachiniae

EI. 681f. El. 7116.

118 140, 157

Tr 13 Tr. 27-30

133 59

Εἰ. 999

455

Tr. 101

305

EI. 1137

186

Tr. 229

76

EI. 1254f.

360

Tr. 265

489

EI. 1306

455

Tr. 546

266

EI. EI. EI. El,

84-85 246 325 404

EI. 1138. El. 1133

125

41] 234

Tr 102 Tr. 171£.

297 362

200 289

Tr. Tr. Tr. Tr. Tr.

550f. 686 7361, 740 802

Tr. 1025f. Tr. 1045 Tr. 1060

Tr. Tr. Tr. Tr.

1103 1140 1166 1248

152 301 194 454 500 333 368 467 403 361 289 229

Fragments

fr. 314,325f. TrGrF

275 289

Strabo 2.5,28 4.1,14

4.21 4.3,3 4.6,1 4.6,2 4,6,9 5.1,3

5.1,10 5.2,5 5.2,7 6.1,9 6.3,9 6.4,2 7.21 7.5,2

77,5 7.76 8.2,3 8.3,26 8.3,31

8.4,8 8.6,2 8.6,20

8.6,23 10.2,19 10.5,1 11.13,9

11.14,4 12.3,6

12.3,35 12,8,16

13.1,56 13.2,3 13.4,9

302

236 7 n, 24 265 372 n. 18

226 225-6 266 264n.5 135 317 266

Strato

474

Stephanus Byzantius s.v. Aorepovaia s.v. Βῆσσα s.v. Δωδώνη

14.1,39 14.2,19 14.5,14 15.1,24 16.2,30 17.112 17.1,54 17.3,2 17.3,4 17.3,13 17.3,16 17.3,20

AP 12.3=3,1f. Floridi 12.4=4,4 Floridi 12.10=10,2 Floridi 12.179=20,6 Floridi 12.182=23,1f. 12.187=28,3 Floridi

132, 271 n. 5, 307£. 276 300 270 132, 307f. 312 n. 6 270 n.1 132 307f. 312 382 67 191 266 281n.2 273 316 and n. 3 376 192 194 158 367 69 92 367, 372 194 331 381 381 451 451 383 90 η.3 49 417

12.190=31 Floridi 12.209=50,1f. 12.210=52,1 12,220=63,1 Floridi 12.221=64,2 Floridi 12.234=74,1 Floridi 12.249=91,2 Floridi

12.250=92,1 Floridi

98 n. 4 105 133, 256 148 69 70 100 61 60 117 256 98 426 86

Suda

s.v. 8.V. 5.v. S.V. s.v.

ἀθρεῖν ἀμυγδαλῆ Ἀνακρέων ἀρτιδαεῖ yeAyıdes

S.V. Δωδώνη

5.0, S.V. S.V. S.V, s.v. s.v. S.V. S.V. S.V. S.V. S.V. 8:0. S.V. 5.0. S.V, S.V.

εἴβεσθαι ἐπεισόδιον ἐπινεφρίδιον ἐπόπται Ἑξρκύνιοι δρυμοί Θέσπις καλιά κνέφας κνέφει κουρεώτης νεόσμηκτον οἴδακες οἰνοπέπαντον ὄλπη ὀρείχαλκος περίοπτον

S.V. πίτυς S.V. ποπάδες $.V. πόπανα

S.V. πρεών

238 415, 422 104, 109 72, 74, 79 415, 425 289 431, 436 415, 428 311 352 301 310 n. 2 431 206 206 122 75 425 415 89, 93 90 220 431, 436 415 423 431

mex of Ancient Authors Suda (cont.) s.v. Πρίαπος S.V. mpaives

s.v. Πυλάδης S.V. σκῆπτρον S.v. σκῦλα

8.0. σπήλυγγες 8.0. στρόβιλος Synesius Epistulae E 146,43

416 431 391 428 129 431, 436 415

493

Telecleides fr.13K-A

Thallus AP 6.235=2; 2,2f. GP AP7.188=3,1; 3,5 GP

478 74, 295, 300 127, 166

Theaetetus AP7.499=4,1,4,4 HE

Theaetetus Scholasticus AP 6.27,1 AP10.16,11 AP] 221,2 API 233,1

67 n. 2, 345 323, 439 416 400 428

Theocritus, [Theocritus] AP 6.35=47,3 HE 6.336=5,1f. HE 7,658=7,4 HE 7.660=12 HE 7.662=9,1; 9,3 HE 7.664=14 HE 9,338=19,2-3 HE 9.598=16,1-4 HE 9.600=17,1-2 HE

429 465 406 398 n, 1, 402 166-7, 182 103, 486 419, 444 140 140

Idylls 1.6

113 1.21 1.27f., 1,41 1.87 1.117 1.132, 1,133 2.19

2.24-6 2.78-9 2,79 2.82 2.121 2.156

3.2

384 444 418 339 108 445 n. 10 256 202 437 477 134 133 206 232 289 93 444

3.6 3.15 3.16 4.38 4.59 4.63 5.14 5.18 5.33 5.50f. 5,56f. 5.97 5.98 5.101 5.131 5.136 5.145-8 6.11 7.15 7.41 7.52 7,53 7.77 7.84 7.86 7.97 7.110 7111 7.113 7.115--18,8.67 7.361. 7.142 7.144 7,145 8.3 8.49 8.43 9.20 10.25 10.34 10.42 111-3 11.6 11.30 11.37 11.51 11.72 12.30 12.31 13.26 13.43-5 14.8 15.4 15,24 15.85 15.100-44

168 63 386 168 192 258 419 150 435 383 384 437 383 444 98 258 445 98n. 4

309 142, 258 328 130 185 423 454 97 86 98 265, 302 192 434 476 427 427 133 444 337 250, 286 496 97,99 322 474 209 168 202 403 477 98n.5

169 97 434 258 480 217 126 66

569

Index of Ancient Authors 26.21 26.29

387 211

27.9

245

27.65 28.12 28.24f. 29.12 29.31 30.6 Schol. on Theocr. 1.25

135 383 78 436 424 250 244

15.112 15.116

322 256

15.142

229

16.3 16.5-7 16.22-4 16,221. 16.37 16.41 16.53

142 474 358 361-2 387 501 434

ware ;

330

16.107 17.11 17.34 17.326. 17.49 17.56 17.75 17.79 17.82-4 17.86f. 17.88 17.95 17.99-101

150 166 ἢ. 8 111 496 238, 500 230 217 372 and n, 20 359 265 230 266 462 and n. 6

a n 17.16£

361

us Theodor AP 6.282=1,5f. HE

17.132

266

Theognis

18.15

168

112

117

18.36

142

129f.

363

18.37

109

18.38

168

250

18.42

386

18.45

93

20,22 21.2-5 21.6 21,11 22,32

470 62 323 255 188 n. 17

22.40

324

Theodoridas AP 6.155=1; 1,2 HE 6.156=2; 2,1; 2,3 HE 6.157=3,3 ΠΕ 6.224=5,3; 5,5 ΗΕ 7.282=19 HE 7.479=16,2 HE 7.527=8,1 HE 7.529=10,2 HE 7.722=11 HE 7.738=13,2-3 HE 9,743=17,2 HE 13.21=15 HE

213

341

351 532 537 607 649 695

701f. 705

22.173

125

24.3

386

748

24.8

76, 362

761

115, 122-3 123, 131, 493 384 434-5 442 406 469 439 187 152, 166 290 397 439

475

479 and n. 12 123

475 158 98 237 475 475 and n.5

283 184

308

158

371n.15

323

783-8

24.77

142, 202

828

99

24.88 24.135 25.241. 25.47

403 324 217 108

8450 8474. 877 884

76 86 475 356

25.49

265

1029

25.219 25.255

321 410

25.257

309

1155f.

24.14

1047f. 1053

25.279

498

1251

26.7

423

1357f.

475

466 477

474 n. 4

58

117

570

Index of Ancient Authors

Theognis (cont.) 1370 1375£.

313 442

Theon AP9.41,6

123

Theophrastus CP1.4,5

425 424 425

Historia Plantarum HP 1.2,6 HP 3,5,6 HAP 3.11,4 HP 3.13,4 HP 4,11,1-4, 4.11,10 HP59,1 HP7.4,12 HP9.5,7

De Lapidibus De la 31 De la 55 Metaphysica Metaph. 5

420 420 274 437 75 437 425 495 85

85 and ἢ. 11]

1.107,4 2.39,4

3.80,2 4,46,3 4.117,2 5,64,3 6.64,1 755,1 8,35,4 8.105

268 363 316 316 316 363 126 454 192

69 317 n. 6

363 434 69 167 69 460

Tiberius or Hadrian AP 9.387=Tiberius 1,6 FGE

375

AP 9.372=4,2 FGE AP 9.373=5,1 FGE

Timocreon LIf, PMG

104 n.5

Triphiodorus

30 80 96 98 148 383 514-21 524 615 665 676

Tymnes AP 6.151=1,3 HE AP7.211=5,1f. HE

69 and n.10 346 461 99 90 and n. 3 356 69, 276

206 and n. 14 258 69 353 339

157 309

10,15 IEG 10,24 IEG 12,8 IEG

127 468 255

Tzetzes

Chiliades 13.300 Scholia in Lycophronem 1054

409 151

Vitae Homeri Vita Herodotea 251

346, 405

Xenocritus AP 7.291=1; 1,6 FGE API186=2 FGE

187, 383 429

Xenophon Agesilaus Ag. 7,5

370

Anabasis

An. 5.2,14

248 158 158

Cynegeticus 8.2

307

An. 2.5,34

An. 4.2,7

Cyropaedia

Tiberius Ilus AP 9.2=1,4 FGE

Trichas Grammaticus Libellus de Novem Metris 369

Tyrtaeus 260

Thucydides 15,1 1.10,3 1.47.1 1,52,1 1.54,1 1.88,1 1.89,3

339

29

De Causis Plantarum CP 4.4,12 CP 6,10,7

Timotheus fr. 15,col5, 202f. PMG

Cyr. 1.6.27

461 435 443

Cyr. 2.3,6

229, 286

Cyr. 3.2,13 Cyr. 4.2,15 Cyr. 6.4,6

Cyr. 2.1,21

487 257 337 n.1 61 206 402

Index of Ancient Authors Cyr. 8.3,7

308

Cyr. 8.4,31

308

Hellenica Hell. 4.6,8

303

Hell. 7.1,15

206

Memorabilia Mem. 1.2,44

497

Mem. 2.1,23 Mem. 3.3,10

331 361

Mem. 4.2,5

494

Symposium Sym 4.17 Sym 7.5 Sym 9

135 395 390

AP7.315=3 HE Zonaras S.Vv. γέλγιθες

571 221, 240, 414, 435 425

Zonas

AP 6.22=1 GP

6.98=2,6 GP 6,106=3,1-2 GP 7.404=5; 5,4 GP 7.365=4,2 GP 9.226=6; 6,6 GP 9.556=8 GP

79, 119, 412, 416-19, 422, 425, 429 444 437 442, 468 501 422, 440 326

Zosimus

Zenobius 1,80

374 ἢ, 24

Zenodotus AP717=1,1HE

255

AP 6.183=2,2; 2,5-6 FGE AP 6,185=4; 4,4 FGE AP 9.40=5,1-3 FGE

256, 323, 439 429, 439 359

126 78

Latin Ausonius 11.22,19 Green

188

Ad Att. 6.1,12 Ad Att. 7.16,2

ep. 76,3 Green

470

Epistulae ad Familiares

Caesar

De BG BG BG

Bello Gallico 3.27 6.24 6.25

Catullus 1.5 1.5-7 4 330 7.3 7.71. 8.1

300 301, 302 301

88

De Inventione Inv. 1.55,107

366

De Legibus Leg. 2.14,36

355-6

Pro Milone

329 331 374 203 60

11.2

302

11.5£. 11.11f. 52.1,4 64,31 66.398. 68.112 68.135 76.5 79.2 95.5f.

301 and πη, 4 186 60 123 100 245 60n.9 60 60 304

Cicero

Mil. 13.33

411

Orator Or. 55.183

105

Tusculanae Disputationes Tusc. 1.18

316

308

Florus

1,19,4 1.38 2.15 2.30,31-9 2.30,38

308 281 n. 2 227 223

224 and n. 3

Horace

Epistulae

Epist. 1.3,2 Epist. 1.3,6-8 Epist. 1.3,26 Epist.1.4,1

Epistulae ad Atticum Ad Att. 5.9,1

Fam. 15.7

Epist. 1.12,26f, Epist. 2.2,91f.

379 379 477 399 292, 296 139

Horace (cont.)

Epodes Epod. 2.198.

Epod. 2.20 Epod. 4

Epod. 11.118, Epod. 12.6

Epod. 16.25-35 Epod. 16.25-6 Odes Od. 1.2,45 Od. 1.4,15

Od. 1.12,50 Od. 1.12,51

Od. 1.12,53f. Od. 1.12,53-6

Od. 1.12,56 Od. 1.32.14f. Od. 1.35.12

Od. 1.38,4 Od. 2.2 Od. 2.5,19 Od. 2.11,5-10

Od, 2.13,26 Od. 2.20,20

Od, 3.3.11-12 Od. 3.5,20.

Od. 3.8,1 Od. 3.14,14-16

Od. 4.4,1 Od. 4.4,17-18 Od. 4.5,25-7

Lucretius

427 419 409 399 312 287 n. 8 287 ἢ, 8

248 and n. 2 182 249 249-50

296 291, 301 292 474 andn.1 99n.8

96 358, 359 206 n, 14 126 162 298

249 249 110 280 271, 275 270 280

Od, 4.14,11-13 Od. 4.14,14

270 271 292

Od. 4.14,32

271

Od, 4.14,45-52 Od. 4.15,14-16 Od. 4.15,21,

297

Od. 4.14.7-19

295 297,298

Satires Sat. 1.3,91

Sat.14,0

209 n.3 77 n, 12

Sat. 1.7,32

399 231

Juvenal 3 328n.2 3.279-82 7.87 9.53 13.218 14.169

59 391 110 59 210

Sat, 1.5,41

Lucan

7.188

298

3.1034 4.1059f. 4.586-9 5.673-4

275 490 435 133

Macrobius Saturnalia Sat. 111,17 Sat. 2,4,29 Sat. 2.7,12 Sat. 2.7,13

Sat. 2.7,17

160 253 390-1 393 392

Martial 1.31; 1.31,2; 1.31,8 1,62,6

1.88 1,101,5 2.2,3

2.61,1 2.91,1 3.118,

3.4,7f. 3,58,14 3,82,9

4,45; 4,45,41,

4.87,1f 5.1,7 5.34

5.34,9-10. 5.37; 5.37,5 5,37,14-17 5.37.17; 5.37,20 5.41 6.11 6.8,5 6.18,2 6.28; 6.28,3

6.28,4 6.28,6f. 6.29,1; 6.29,5/6 6.38,9 6.52; 6.52,5/6 6.68,12 6.71,6 6.76 6.80,1-2; 6.80,10 7.7,4£. 714,2 7.17 7.73,1 7.80,4; 7.80,11 7,84,3-4

122, 130, 135, 190, 197 135 174 205 298 126 280 94, 188 135 82 82, 85 122, 128 210 94 174, 196, 208, 397 198, 413 174, 178, 196, 208, 397 178 210 62 94 249 205 174, 185, 190, 208, 210, 397 178, 197 185 174, 178, 190, 210, 397 152 197-8 197 135 178 96-7, 135 298 210 137 82 94, 297 297-8

7.87,6 7.88,6 7.89 8.2,6 8.111 8.50,5f. 8.65,8 9.1,1-5; 9.1,3 9.5,1 9,7.2,6 9.17 9.29,11 9.51,3 9.54,11 9.56, 11f. 9.60; 9.60,1 9,71,7f. 9.77,2 9.86 10.26; 10.26,4 10.29,3, 10.61 10.63,1f. 11.13,4 11.84,1 11.91 12.52,12 13.127; 13.127,2 14.21 14.38 14,43 14.52-3 14.73 14.93 14,97 14.116-18 14.120 14.172 14.177 14.183-96

253 298

96 and n. 1, 100 249 298 91 298

283, 298 297 249 122

198, 413 205 87 135 59, 96 243 77 181 187, 216 110 196, 174, 208 400 210, 395 205 174, 208 205 96-7 74 73 9 90 253 74, 81 74 96 74 91 91 137

Ars Amatoria Ars Am. 1.236

Ars Am. 1.326 Ars Am. 2.520

E Ε F E F F. F.

3.60 3.771 3.852 4.685f. 4.715 4.944 5.557.

Ibis Ib. 147 Ib. 633

133 126 243 320 444 188 295 188 411

Metamorphoses Met. 1.96 Met. 1.139, 10.13

Met. 1.699 Met. 6.195 Met, 6.718

Met. 7.246 Met. 7.623 Met, 7.806f. Met. 8.743-4 Met. 8.36-7

Met. 8.81f. Met. 9.522 Met. Met. Met. Met.

10.511 12.395 13.762 15.829-31

188 205 435 362 133 246 289 312 288-9 100 62 74 150 133 63 292

Epistulae ex Ponto Pont. 1.4,29f.

Pont. 4.8

295 272, 273 295 272

Tristia Tr. 1.2,39 Tr. 191 Tr. 2.464 Tr. 4.10,118

188 237 304 n. 10 474

Pont, 2.1

Pont. 3.1,127f.

[Ovid]

Ovid Amores Am. 1.2,1-4 Am. 1.8,103f. Am. 2.6,57-62 Am. 2.13,21 Am. 2.16,1-10 Am, 3,5,42 Am. 3.13,17

Fasti

Cons. Ad Liv. 385-91 59 489 n. 11 254 150 320 60 444

270

Petronius

28.9-29.1 42.5

255 356

Plautus Cistellaria Cist. 69

489 and n, 10

Pseudolus

489 n. 11 74n.4

444 489 n. 11

Trinummus Trin, 291

356

Pliny

Seneca

Historia Naturalis

Medea

NH 3.1,3 NH 3.20,135

268 n. 10 309

Med. 373-4 Med. 713

284, 298 301

NH 4.12,54 NH 4.19,109

191 283

Oed. 504

283

264

Phaedra

NH 5.20

380

Phaed. 58

298

444

NH 4.12,53

NH 5.10,51;,5.10,53

317

Oedipus

NH 6.33,166

372 n. 20

Phaed. 116

NH 6.35,181-2

225

Epistulae morales ad Lucilium

NH 7.52,178f. NH 8.72 NH 8.73

233 385 382

E Mor. 78.16 E Mor. 122.8

NH 10.58; 10.60

253

NH 15.9,36 NH 25.11

42] 495 n.3

Anth. Lat. 412,2 Anth. Lat. 419

401 292

NH 28.38,143-4

310

Anth. Lat.448-9,7

62

NH 28.42,150

310

NH 34.3

90 and n. 4, 91

NH 37.12,49

90

NH 33.55 and 34.19

NH 36.4,32

397

209

Priapea

157 96

[Seneca]

Silius Italicus 13.331

435

Suetonius Augustus

Pria 16 Parker

418

ye 7

305 n. 6

Pria 21.2 Parker ' Pria 42.2 Parker

418 418

ug. 10 Aug. 1323 Aug.

224 n, 4, 452 223.225,

Pria. 60.1 Parker

Pria 80.10 Parker

418 418

wiug.

81

208

350 113£.n.2

59

Aug. 93 Aug. 98,3

2.1,46

308

Julius

2.8,17

60

Caes. 45

2.9,16

60

,

2.17. 3£

489 n.11

ees

Aug. 83

Propertius 1.114,21

> 2,12,19

300

227 281

411

Gaius

59

Cal. 26,1

2.22b,47f.

59

Nero

2.34,43 3.5,6

139 368 n. 4

Nero 12 Nero 39

3.7.1-12

442 n.1

3,7,67

69

Annales

310

74

Ann. 1.10

225, 249

3.18

137

Ann, 1.35

2722.8

3.21,17-23

330

Ann. 1,54

390, 394 n. 8

4.1,89 4,1,95-6

225 225

Ann. 1.55 Ann. 1,60

223 224

41,115 4.5,1f.

69 413

Ann. 1.61 Ann. 1,63ff.

232 281, 283

4.7,6

60

Ann. 1,65

226

3.7,56

un

447

Quintilianus

130 66-7

Tacitus

Ann. 1.70

Ann. 2.23-5

Institutio Oratoria

200

281

280-2

Ann. 2.25

224

Inst. 5.11,9

235

Ann. 2.41

137

Inst. 11,3,66

391

Ann. 3.30

358

Germania Germ. 34

283

Aen. 6.757

Historiae

Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist.

2,43 3.82 4.12 5.23

232 358 283 283

Tibullus 11,17

1.3,45f, 17 17,11£. 1.7,9-10 2.1,58 2.2 2.5,57-8 3.5,8

Aen. 6.860-85

Aen. Aen, Aen. Aen.

6.878-80 8.727f. 11.260 11.701, 715f.

Ecl. 1.62 Ecl, 4.21f. Ecl, 7.7

352 n. 9

Ecl. 7.33

223 225

Ecl. 1.6f. Ecl. 1.61-3

Ecl, 7.33-4

62 489 n. 11 461

249 284 298 385 n. 8 444 424 418

Georgica

Georg. 2.103-8 Georg. 3.125 Georg. 4.560f

Aeneid

288-9 187 231 275 132 137 130 298 66, 698. 313

Eclogues

Georg. 3.332

Virgil Aen. 1.662 Aen. 1.688 Aen. 1.749

Aen. 6,842. Aen, 6.855-9

418 385 n. 8 74 297 303 444 74 292

Velleius Paterculus 2.117-20 2.97

Aen, 4,441-9 Aen. 5.871

374 444 289 275

Vitruvius

3.2,2 8.2,6-7

358, 360 264

General Index The numbers refer to pages Achilles

59, 158, 161, 234, 370, 406, 443

Adriatic Sea 317, 330 Adiatorix (Galatian prince) 224, 451-2 adynata 283, 287 n.8 Aegean Sea 113, 120, 315, 329, 342, 345, 430 Alps 9, 269-70, 272-5, 307-8 Antonia Minor 3-5, 12, 58 n. 4, 73, 87, 95-7, 102-4, 106, 109-11, 139, 145-6, 151-2, 169, 271, 281

Aphrodite

95, 97-8, 100, 109, 124, 343, 348,

418 n. 3, 424, 465, 479, 488 Apollo

113, 122, 130, 135, 150, 258, 285, 343-4,

374 n. 24, 423 n. 14, 430, 433, 495

Apostoles, Michael 47, 286, 296-7 Araxes

21, 284, 291, 298, 377, 379-81

Arcadia

433, 437

Armenia Artaxata

Antonia

Athena

149, 161, 346, 454, 458

Athens

74, 114, 132, 195, 208, 231, 264 n. 4,

277, 330, 403, 411 Attica 147, 348, 351-2, 368, 433

378

Bathyllus of Alexandria, pantomimist 67 n. 5,

146

Cleopatra of Egypt 10, 216-17, 219 Cleopatra-Selene 3-5, 16, 61, 111, 164, 189, 200-1, 203, 206, 262, 264, 267, 294

Constantinople 31, 205 n. 12, 369 n. 8, 371 n. 14, 375 n. 26 Corcyra

191, 316, 321, 324, 327, 331, 376;

see also Corfu Corfu 314, 316-17; see also Corcyra Corinth

3, 5, 17, 278, 365-9, 371-2, 376;

see also Ephyra Corinthian Bronze 82, 90-3 Corinthian Gulf 192, 194 Cos

3, 5, 291-2, 296, 298, 378-81 380

Artemis 121-2, 124-5, 130, 146, 147 ἢ, 4, 149-51, 211, 244, 423 n. 14, 430, 440 Asclepius 151, 237, 344, 491-6, 500

Axius

Clades Variana 223, 224-5, 281 Claudius, son of Nero Claudius Drusus and

3, 5, 114, 236-7, 315, 491, 493

Crispus, Gaius Sallustius 6, 17, 357-62 Cyclades 327, 330-1 Cynegeirus

222, 228-9

dedications to gods 76, 88, 112-15, 118-20, 122-5, 130-1, 146, 343, 415-19, 422, 423 n. 14, 425, 430, 431-4, 437, 439-40,

444, 465, 481 Delos 115, 132, 191, 196, 297, 331 Demeter 289, 303, 348, 350, 352-3, 419

depositio barbae 96,122, 129-30, 134, 288 Diapontia islands 317 Drusus (Nero Claudius Drusus), son of

106, 389-94

beard 121-2, 126, 133-4; see also depositio

Tiberius Claudius Nero and Livia

barbae Berenice of Cyrenaica 122, 262 birthday 4, 10-12, 72-4, 89-90, 95-6, 99-100,

Drusilla

103, 109-10, 122, 137, 262, 303 books 4, 10 n, 36, 11 n. 37, 17, 73, 87, 91, 97, 102-3, 105-6, 137, 139, 142, 330, 333, 479

Cantabrian War

96, 130, 137-8, 300

Cavafy, Constantinos 1 Cecropia, see Attica Cephalas, Constantinos 231, 349-50

Circe

274, 292

Dyteutus, son of Adiatorix 451-2 earthquakes 5, 16, 140, 217, 335-40, 372 n.17 Egypt 216, 218-19, 221, 226, 231, 240, 261-6, 294, 365, 370-3 Eileithyia / Eileithyiai 145-7, 149

Eleusinian Mysteries 5, 9-10, 348-50, 352-4, 356, 368 5 ἢ. 14, 31, 46, 130,

change of islands’ names, see names of islands Christina of Sweden

12, 58 n. 4, 96, 146, 152, 253, 270-1,

32 n. 109, 40

241

cities, lamented for their fate 205 n. 12, 365~7, 369, 370-2, 374-5 Clades Lolliana 225, 280-1, 284

Elytis, Odysseas 1 ephebes 115 Ephesus 367, 374 Ephyra 297; see also Corinth epicedion 163, 173, 181, 190, 208 Epione 51, 6 Eros 4, 6, 49, 57, 68-70, 95, 97, 164, 189, 193, 196, 313, 463, 484-90

General Index Eros (as aname)

etymology

189-90, 195-6, 204

82, 84, 105, 120, 147, 165, 167, 184,

577

Leto 124, 470 Libya 135, 261-6, 293-4, 302, 370-4, 385

Euphrates 275, 298, 380

Ligurians 3,5, 306-13, 318, 378 Lipara 191 Livia Augusta 12,146, 152 Livilla, daughter of Drusus and Antonia

146

festivals 66, 110, 113-16, 156 flood(s), surge 279-84, 372 n. 17, 374, 457, 463

Maecenas 8 n. 27, 390, 394 Marcellus, son of Marcellus and Octavia

3-4,

190-2, 194, 250-1, 327, 382, 388, 423, 428, 439

Euboea

64, 66

Fortuna

15, 358-62

96-7, 104, 129-32, 134, 136-7, 141, 144, 288

medicine Gaul

271, 273, 280, 292, 309

Gaulmin, Gilbert 35, 38-40 Gaza

264, 270-1, 273, 291-3, 296, 318,

327-9, 333-4, 434

Germanicus, son of Nero Claudius Drusus and Antonia Minor 5, 12, 16, 21,58 n. 4, 146, 226, 253, 271-3, 278, 280 n. 1, 281, 287

Germany

Menander, comic poet 10, 51, 208, 481, 483

Menippus of Pergamon

372

geography

492-5, 499

3, 5, 224, 272-3, 278 n. 23, 279-80,

282-3, 291-2, 296, 298, 301 gifts 4,9 n. 34, 72-4, 81-2, 88, 89-90, 94, 95-7, 100, 102, 104, 109-10, 137, 431

Glaphyra, daughter of Archelaus of Macedonia

201

17, 327-8, 330, 332-4,

434

Miletus moon

154-6, 159-61, 277 199-203, 205-6, 411

names of islands

191, 315, 443

names of people after rivers 178 Nauplius 10, 64-7, 69 Necrocorinthia 368, 375 Nicias, tyrant of Cos 3, 5, 216-17, 235-7, 239, 241, 451, 466, 493

Nicolaus of Damascus 8 n. 27, 219

gnome 20,100, 181-2, 235, 291, 306, 308, 312, 387, 490

Nile

graves, see violation of graves Guyet, Frangois 33, 40-2

nymphs 122, 244, 418 n. 3, 419, 422 n. 10, 424,

hair 73 n. 2, 101, 121-6, 128, 130, 134, 140, 309, 381-4, 464, 495; see also beard

Octavian Augustus 2 n. 3, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 58, 91, 97, 113 n. 2, 134, 136-7, 144, 146, 153, 182,

Hecale Hera

136-7, 141, 143 16, 122-3, 145, 147-9, 339

Heracles 119, 191, 303, 344, 482 n. 2 Hermes 112-14, 118-19, 210, 313, 421, 423 n. 14, 424, 431-3, 438, 440

Italy 3, 5, 113, 129, 132, 134-5, 307, 316, 327-30, 333, 367 Ithaca 132, 263, 318

215-16, 218, 225, 261, 263-5, 283,

372 n. 20, 414, 463 427 πῃ, 22, 431-5, 438, 440

186, 200, 208, 216-17, 227, 237, 243, 246, 248-51, 253-4, 257, 264-5, 269, 272 n. 9, 280, 287-8, 290, 292, 294-6, 298-301,

303-4, 307, 329, 350, 357-8, 363, 451-2 Odysseus 132, 231, 248, 321, 346, 403, 406, 410, 443, 444, 447, 453

Olympia 154-6, 158, 161 Olympic Games 154-6, 159, 161 oracle(s) 233, 287, 289, 356, 369

Othryades

222, 227-9, 232

Juba II of Mauretania 5, 16, 200-1, 262, 264-6, 294, 302 Judaea 9, 215-16, 218-19, 372

Palamedes

Julia Major, daughter of Octavian and Scribonia 97, 130, 137, 160

Pan 10, 113 n. 1,150, 251, 260, 415-24, 427 n. 22, 429-30, 431-3, 435, 437, 440, 469

Justinian

pantomime 6, 66-7, 389-95, 482-3 parrot 5, 252-6 patronage 8-10, 12-13, 358 pen(s) 4, 72-7, 81-2, 87, 104, 107, 139 Penelope 62, 479

293

Lascaris, Janus 47, 141, 193, 197, 211, 233, 259, 274, 286, 296-7, 475

Lazareto

317

legions 222-7, 231-2, 281 Eagle of the legion 5, 222-7, 232, 234 Lesbonax of Mytilene 50 Lesbos

1, 113, 119, 174, 180, 191, 195, 329, 349,

368, 442-4, 451, 458

Oxeiai (islets)

peripli

189, 191, 194, 315

66

302, 328, 330, 332-3

Persephone / Kore 151, 175, 350, 352 n. 9, 353, 359

Philaras, Leonard 33-40 Philostratus Sophist 3, 215-21, 237 Planudes, Maximus 46-8 and passim

Poseidon 3, 16, 87, 118, 285, 336-7, 339, 341, 342-4, 346, 423 n. 14

Scaliger, Joseph

Potamon of Mytilene 9, 49-50,

sheep (strange kind of) 377-86 shepherds 210, 441-3, 445-7, 449 Soloeis 299-300, 302

165,195

poverty (of the poet, as a poetic convention)

8 n. 28, 358, 474, 479

Praxagoras of Cos 6,16, 491-3, 495-6, 499 Priapus 343, 415-22, 424-5, 427, 429-30, 432

Prometheus 112, 114, 116-17 propemptikon 328 Ptolemy, son of Juba IT and Cleopatra-Selene 201, 262 n. 3 Ptolemy III Euergetes 122, 262

Ptolemy Philadelphus 249, 331, 361

45, 48, 183, 193, 211, 230, 260,

303 n. 7, 311, 352, 437

Spain

3, 104, 129, 137, 180, 182, 186, 307, 329;

see also Tarragona surge, see flood(s) Sybota 316 Syene

225-6

Tarragona

Thasos

3, 9, 137, 182, 300, 307

191

Theophanes of Mytilene 9, 49 Thersites

381, 384, 405-7, 410, 467

Praxagoras of Cos 6, 16, 491-3, 495-6, 499

Thesprotia 316

Ptychia (Vido)

Pylades of Cilicia, pantomimist 389-91, 394

Tiberius 3, 5, 12, 129-30, 137, 243, 249, 253-4, 270-3, 292, 296, 358, 378-9

Pyrenees

toothpicks 80-3, 85-8

317

3, 269-74, 299-300, 303-4

Rhea 303, 479 Rhine 21, 222, 224-5, 231, 269-75, 279-85, 288, 291-2, 298 Rhodes 243, 277, 296 n. 11, 315, 330 Richelieu 39-40 ring composition 20, 96, 155, 314, 336, 343 roses 4, 17, 82, 85, 95-100

torch race 112-19 Triclinius, Demetrius trumpet

46-7, 51

154-8, 160-2, 430

Vido, see Ptychia violation of graves 235-6, 366 Vossius, Isaac 31-3, 39-40

Zacynthos 191 Saumaise (Salmasius), Claude

31-3, 38-41,

75, 82, 120, 147, 183, 211, 259, 311, 375, 379, 382-3, 424, 436, 449

Zeus 16, 21 n. 76, 58, 80, 117, 121-4, 130, 145, 147-9, 242-3, 246-5], 267, 271, 279-80, 285, 287-90, 303, 336, 344, 418 n. 3, 422, 437, 479