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

Relatively little is known of the life of Crinagoras of Mytilene: a Greek epigrammatist and diplomat who lived between t

256 84 28MB

English Pages 592 [590] Year 2018

Report DMCA / Copyright


Recommend Papers

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

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

The Epigrams of Crinagoras of Mytilene Introduction, Text, Commentary







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


List of Abbreviations Introduction Life and Work

Language and Style Metre

Manuscript Tradition Testimonia Matters of Ascription About this Edition


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)


Anthologia Palatina


Anthologia Planudea


British Library


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


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)


Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin 1863-1959)


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


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


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

Gr. Gr.

Grammatici Graeci, 6 vols. (Leipzig 1965)


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


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


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


Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin 1873- )


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


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)


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)


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)


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







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.



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


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.



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


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.



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


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,


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


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


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.



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


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,



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.


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


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.



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.



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.


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


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.



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.



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.


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.


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.


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



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.


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.



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.


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 -|


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.


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


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



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.



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.



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


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).


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


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).


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


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.


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


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




to belong

to the manuscripts



(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.



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.


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





Reiske’s obvious


of the


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



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




165. Lightfoot’s translation.







166 Translation of Gow-Page.

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

for Book

14 are Diodorus,





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] =













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












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, >













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


τὸ τέταρτον,












καὶ ἐρρῶσθαι

| vos


[ὑγιαίνειν | κτλ, (14-23)

Περὶ ὧν π]ρεσβευταὶ





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


codicis P corrector


codicis P partim librarius, alibi lemmatista


Codex Anthologiae Planudeae (Ven. Marc. 481)


British Library Manuscript BM Add. 16409


ante correctionem

Sigla pe

post correctionem


sine auctoris nomine



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


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. >












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






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



the trochaic



«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


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.


















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















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



Schol. API


κτορα μέν τις ἄεισε. 7


* M. Plastira-Valkanou, Athenion

and the Horse, in ντιφίλησις:

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



in Honour

Studies on Classical,

of John-Theophanes


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),


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








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).


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










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


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.


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)





OF 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


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



fr. 676,2




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








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,


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


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









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.



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


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.


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


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;


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,




(of the housewife's




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.












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


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






Kaddtorns στεφθῆναι ἐπὶ κροτάφοισι γυναικός

λώιον ἢ μίμνειν ἠρινὸν ἠέλιον. —

AP 6.345 rot αὐτοῦ [sc. Kpıvayöpov] caret Pl


γενεθλίῃ Ap. L.: γενέθληι


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


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,


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.




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,


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,




(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


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




ἔγραψεν ἢ παρ᾽ οἶνον ἢ σὺν




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- |

- - -). 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-


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



‘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.


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




see also Henriksén

2.133), while


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


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








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


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


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.


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.



IIpoumBeins ... πυρικλοπίης: in poetry, cf, for instance, Nic. Al. 273 Προμηθείοιο κλοπὴν



Strato AP


Floridi τὸ πῦρ


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.


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


Mnasalcas AP 9.324-:|6, ΗΕ & σῦριγξ...! τίπτ᾽ ἀπὸ ποιμενίου χείλεος ὧδε


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








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


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.


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










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


(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.




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


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.


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


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.


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:








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




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,





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.


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


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




AP 6.350 Κριναγόρου caret Pl 2 πεδίων C:-iovP 4 εἷς Bothe: ei P




5 ἀστοῖς scripsi: ἀστὸς


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











πεντάθλῳ ἅμα σταδίου νικῶν δρόμον: ἀντεβόλησεν 7







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


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.


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


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,


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,


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


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


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.


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










__— 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.


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


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










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


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.


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.


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


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


Language and Style, Dialect.

to Kptvaydpeos


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













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



(15,5), κεῖται





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


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


Kaibel (Rome,


I-II); cf. also CEG


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


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





ἐν τῇ


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





311 in Brodaeus-Obsopoeus)


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.


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.





χθὼν γθὼν σηματόεσσα σημ





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).


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).


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,


(1917, 134 and

151) accepts


(>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










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).


/,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


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


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.








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



° 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



























__— 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


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,


Alex. AP 9.352=29,1 Νεῖλος

Νειλαιεύς... ἀοιδοπόλος,



(=the Egyptians), 9.353=30,4





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 /














ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἂψ ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἀπ᾿ οὐρανόθεν προτράπηται, we












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.



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


(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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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





pntrepa i











“ιγύων μήτιες ἢ ἀγαθόν. £





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


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


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,









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






ἱστάμενοι δὲ μάλ᾽ ἐγγὺς ὑλάκτεον ἔκ τ᾿ ἀλέοντο. e











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


λάθρῃ ἐυρρίνων τε κυνῶν αὐτῶν τε νομήων, κτλ. a






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


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


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.


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,







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







is no



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).



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.


AP 9,555 = 31

verse-end), are difficult to explain palaeographically. Brunck, Jacobs, Geist (35),












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


'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


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.


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


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


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


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).


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


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.


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),


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 -










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).


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. \






° 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


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.


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“








αἶσαν ἔχει φθίμενός περ ὑπὸ ζόφῳ εὐρώεντι. »





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


** 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.


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}









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: /
























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).


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


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




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


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


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.


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


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’





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.


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



καὶ πόντου


by Jacobs'), Jacobs’


(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


is to be preferred.




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


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).


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.


“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






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


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


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) .


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














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.


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


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



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.


AP 9.430 = 38


the need

for a local adverb,




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


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





For the epic genitive,


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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




in Latin





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.





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


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









/ 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,