The epigrams ascribed to Theocritus: a method of approach 9789042909922, 9042909927

Citation preview

TIIE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO TIIEOCRITUS: A METHOD OF APPROACH

HELLENISTICA GRONINGANA MONOGRAPHS

F.ditorial Board:

M.A. Harder R.F. Regtuit

G.C. Willer Advisory Board:

K. Gutzwiller, Cincinatti, OH R.L. Hunter, Cambridge A. Kohnken, Munster R.F. Thomas, Cambridge, Mass. F. Williams, Belfast

I. 2. 3. 4. 5.

M.A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, G.C. Wakker, Callimachus, 1993. M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Wakker, Theocritus, 1996. M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Wailer, Genre in Hellenistic Poetry, 1998. M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Wakker, Apollonius Rhodius, 2000. L. Roai, The Epigrams Ascribed to Theocritus: A Method of Approach, 2001.

HELLENISTICA GRONINGANA

THE EPIGRAMSASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS: A METHODOF APPROACH

Laura Rossi

PEETERS LEUVEN - PARIS - STERLING, VIRGINIA

2001

Libnuy of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Rossi, Laura. The epigrams ascribed to Theocritus: a method of approach / Laura Rossi. p. cm. -- (Hellenistica Groningana; V) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes. ISBN 9042909927 I. Theocritus. Epigrams. 2. Epigrams, Greek--History and criticism. I. Title. II. Series. PA4442.E7 R67 200 I 884'.0l--dc21 2001016368

C 2001 - Peeters - Bondgenotenlaan 153 - B-3000 Leuven - Belgium ISBN 90-429-0992- 7 D.2001,u602/15

PREFACE

In this book. the revision of my doctoral dissertation submitted in 1998, the twenty-six epigrams transmitted by the bucolic and anthological traditions under the name of 'Ibeocritus are examined. In the introduction, the two distinctive criteria (one 'vertical' and the other 'horizontal') according to which I have regrouped the epigrams are explained. Every classification turns out to be highly formalised and respects its own internal 'code'. Using a convenient terminology, I defined as epigrammatic 'genres' those same ancient groupings of epigrams on which the subdivision of the Palatine Anthology into books is based; hereonly the votive, funerary (eh. 1) and ekphrastic (eh. 2) genres are present. Further sub-divisions within these genres have been defined as 'sub-genres', since they proceed from the general to the specific. For example, within the votive genre it is possible to identify as a homogeneous group the dedications by 'rustic' figures who, when they retire from their activity, usually dedicate their tools of trade to the protective deity of their trade (cf. epigram 2). Or else, within the broader funerary genre, there are epitaphs 'specialised' in particular categories of defunct people, such as the 'sub-genre' of epitaphs for those lost at sea (cf. epigram 26) or for animals (cf. epigram 6). This classification that follows a clearly 'vertical' pattern is not however valid in those cases in which the typology of the epigram disregards the form (votive, funerary or ekphrastic) of the epigram, namely its 'genre', in order to base itself instead on content. Thus, for example, epigrams with bucolic themes or on poets are indifferently dedications or epitaphs since the element that characterises them is no longer their framework, but rather their theme. Since the basic criterion of the grouping of these texts is 'horizontal', oblique with respect to genres, I have considered it appropriate to stress this difference from the terminological point of view as well. Thus, I have defined this second classificatory method as 'type', that concerns not only the already cited bucolic epigrams (eh. 3) and the epigrams on poets (eh. 5), but also 'narrative' epigrams (cf. ep. 3), epigrams that provide 'street directions' (cf. ep. 4), epigrams/'signs' (cf. ep. 14) or epigrams/'invitation cards' (cf. ep. 5). A final typology is that of epigrams in various metres (eh. 4), that for obvious reasons cannot be considered either a 'genre' or a 'type', since in the Anthology their grouping in book 13 derives from grammatical interests and certainly not from their genre

VI

1lfE EPIGRAM ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

or content. With the use of this terminology, I absolutely do not intend to propose to treat epigram in a schematic manner as a literary genre that should be approached solely through the application of labels. Rather, I would simply like to draw attention to formal features within the genre that, although well codified, do not seem to have aroused the requisite attention of scholars. In the second part, I have reproduced the text of Gallavotti 's third edition, to which I also refer the reader for the complete apparatus criticus. I have inserted brief annotations of apparatus only where I diverge from the text adopted, so as to render immediately comprehensible the genesis of the modifications introduced in the text and especially to signal them visually for the reader. The translation, immediately following the individual compositions, in many cases already clarifies and anticipates the interpretation of the entire epigram (and/or of single words) proposed in the commentary. The third part is the commentary on individual epigrams. It is not traditionally structured as a line-by-line commentary; rather, it aims at integrating in a complementary manner the model already offered by existing commentaries, seeking to demonstrate a possible methodological approach to epigram as a literary genre, taking the Epigrams of Theocritus as the starting point. Every epigram as such, in order to be understood in its true significance and function, should be examined first of all in terms of its manner of relating to and dealing with not only the epigrammatic tradition, but also with its epigraphic model. Modem commentators on Hellenistic epigram have paid little or insufficient attention to both epigrammatic typology and especially to epigraphic patterns. On the one hand, they have limited themselves, for example, to labelling an epigram as 'an epitaph for one lost at sea' or as 'a dedication of a hunter', without however investigating and analysing systematically the 'generic signs' (on the thematic, stylistic and lexical level) of these as well as of many other epigrammatic 'sub-genres' or 'types'. On the other hand, sometimes they have adduced an epigraphic parallel, but without undertaking more detailed formal studies, both comparative and related to content. From a more in-depth analysis of Hellenistic epigrams, in contrast, it is evident that the conventions of genre that governed the composition were much better defined and respected than one could imagine. Moreover, the allusive play of the epigrammatists concerned 'generic signs' no less than stylistic or lexical allusions to earlier or contemporary poets. But in order to approach epigram, it is necessary to bear in mind a third kind of 'context', in addition to the literary and epigraphic, namely

PREFACE

vu

the examination of the Realien that could have provided the poet with the inspiration for the composition of an epigram, for example, on a wet nurse (ep. 20) or a physiognomist (ep. 11). It is extremely likely that epigrammatists did not choose the subjects of their compositions completely by chance, without any plausibility, without any link with the world in which they lived. Poetic and literary stylisation naturally played a role, but there must also have been some element that was derived directly from 'reality' and that provided them with at least an initial stimulus. These stimuli could be of various sorts, cultural, political, religious, even learned and erudite, but in any case they deserve greater attention than that which has been paid to them to date. In the fourth part, the final two chapters focus, respectively, on the dating and authenticity of the poems (eh. 6) and on the composition and possible dating of the collection of epigrams 1-22 transmitted in the bucolic manuscripts (eh. 7) 1• 1be original contribution of this work should therefore be sought both in the exploitation of the epigraphic material and the Realien of every kind.as well as in the attempt to outline the characteristics of the various epigrammatic typologies identifiable within or alongside the broader (and insufficient) 'canonical' labelling commonly used. My approach to epigram, that bears strictly in mind the context within which they were composed, was suggested and stimulated by three works that, in different manners and fields, have stressed how important it is to reconstruct the 'setting' in which a poetic work is created. The article by Peter Parsons, Poesia ellenistica: testi e contesti, first of all, demonstrated, in just a few pages and with few but incisive examples, that even the most refined Hellenistic poetry of Callimachus, Theocritus and Apollonius Rhodius could be understood in depth only if the epigraphic and documentary 'context' is also considered alongside that literary, practically the only one to have been studied systematically by classical scholars. The same emphasis on the erroneous conception that sees the Alexandrian poets as living and composing within and through an 'ivory tower' has been strongly set out by Alan Cameron in his controversial book, Callimachus and His Critics. Finally, Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, in her 'Reading' Greek Death, has amply shown that in order to gain a correct understanding of ancient texts and their true significance it is necessary to 'read' the documentation in our possession through the 'eyes' of the ancient Greeks and not through our own. Only after having reconstructed I. I have not devoted specific treatment to dialectal issues and the manuscript tradition. but mentionthem only when they are useful to the approach I have followed.

VIII

TIIE EPIGRAM ASCRIBFD TO 11il'.OCRmJS

the context that determined their creation can one hope to understand ancient production, with its true intention and function, and above all in the same manner in which the Greeks 'read' it and expected it to be composed. Many people have helped me with invaluable advice and constant encouragement during the writing of this work. Luigi Enrico Rossi, my professor from my first day at university and the supervisor of my doctorate, opened the world of Greek literature to me and over the years, with his stimulating teaching, has continued to guide me affectionately in discovering my interests. From Albio Cesare Cassio I learned to analyse literary phenomena without underestimating the importance of epigraphic texts, a methodology that plays a considerable role in the general approach proposed in this book. Richard Hunter has followed the development of this study in two extremely useful and unforgettable stays in Cambridge. On many occasions he has discussed the arguments treated, saving me from many errors. I received extremely valuable suggestions from Marco Fantuzzi, who placed at my disposal his immense knowledge of Hellenistic poetry with the helpfulness and modesty of which only he is capable. A thank-you is also owed to Roberto Pretagostini, for his helpful criticism above all on the question of the authenticity of the epigrams. I would also like to thank Eleonora Tagliaferro, who patiently followed the various versions of this work, spending entire afternoons talking with me and teaching me the importance of stylistic/lexical analyses. Lorenzo Argentieri, an extremely attentive and very critical reader with whom I had many lively discussions, deserves my thanks as well. I am very grateful to the editors of the series Hellenistica Groningana for accepting this work, and above all to Professor Annette Harder for having considered this work worthy of publication when it was still in progress. Special thanks are also due to Lori-Ann Touchette, who performed the difficult task of translating the text into English. The role played by my mother in all these years is known only to her, and it is to her that this book is dedicated. As far as regards the editions used, Theocritus and the authors of the corpus bucolicum, unless otherwise specified, are normally quoted from Gallavotti's third edition. The epigrams of the Anthology are generally cited from the Bude edition; otherwise, the editor is specified. All the other ancient authors are usually cited from the normal reference editions. In the case of fragments, the abbreviated title of the collection or the initials of the editor from which it is cited are always specified. The abbreviations used to indicate authors and their works are largely based

PREFACE

IX

on the OCD. Papyri are cited according to the abbreviations of LSJ. For the epigraphic texts, I always reproduce the original text as published by the editor, with the same diacritic conventions. Finally, all the translations are mine, with the exception of the cases specified. Rome, January 2000

ABBREVIATIONS

Agora 17 [Funerary Monuments]

Anthologie grecque CEG CIG CIL

Conze Cougny

Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire

DNP EGF FD FGE Friedllinder-Hoffleit

Gallavotti 1993 Geffcken

Gow Gow-Page Gow-Page.Garland GVI IC

D.W. Bradeen, The Athenian Agora 17, Inscriptions. The Funerary Monuments, Princeton 1974 P. Waltz et alii, Anthologie grecque, Paris 1928-94 P.A. Hansen, Carmina epigraphica Graeca, Bcrolini et Novi Eboraci 1983-89 Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum, Berolini 1828-77 Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, Berolini 1863A. Conze, Die attischen Grabreliefs, Berlin 1893-1906 E. Cougny, Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina cum Planudea et appendix nova epigrammatum veterum ex libris et marmoribus ductorum, Parisiis 1890 Ch. Daremberg-E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines, Paris 18771907 H. Cancik-H. Schneider, Der Neue Pauly. Enzy/clopiidie der Antilce, Stuttgart 1996M. Davies, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Gottingen 1988 Fouilles de Delphes, Paris, 1902see Page, FGE P. Friedllinder-H.B. Hoffleit, Epigrammata. Greek Inscriptions in Verses. From the Beginnings to the Persian Wars, Berkeley & Los Angeles 1948 C. Gallavotti, Theocritus quique feruntur bucolici Graeci, Romae 19933 J. Geffcken, Griechische Epigramme, Heidelberg 1916 A.S.F. Gow, Theocritus, Cambridge 19522 A.S.F. Gow-D.L. Page, The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams, Cambridge 1965 A.S.F. Gow-D.L. Page, The Greek Anthology. The Garland of Philip, Cambridge 1968 W. Peek, Griechische Vers-lnschriften I. Grab-Epigramme, Berlin 1955 M. Guarducci, lnscriptiones Creticae, Roma 1935-50

XII

ID IG IG2

Kaibel WPN UMC LSJ

Olympia V

Pack2 Page, FGE

PHl1

PMG

RAC RE

Roscher SEG SGDI SH SW Spazio letterario

TWD

1llE EPIGRAM ASCtllBFD TO llfEOCRITUS

Inscriptions de Dilos, Paris 1926lnscriptiones Graecae, Berolini 1873 Inscriptiones Graecae (ed. minor), Berolini 1913G. Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibu.s con/ecta, Hildesheim 1965 (= Berolini 1878) A Lexicon o/Greelc Personal Names, Oxford 1981Lexicon lconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, Zilrich und DOsseldorf 1981H.G. Liddell-R. Scott-H.S. Jones, A GreelcEnglish Lexicon, Oxford 19409 (with supplement 1996) W. Dittenberger-K. Purgold, Die lnschriften von Olympia, Berlin 1896R.A. Pack, The Greek and Latin literary Texts from Graeco-Roman Egypt, Chicago 19652 D.L. Page, Further Greelc Epigrams, Cambridge 1981 Tite Packard Humanities Institute, Greek Documentary Texts CD ROM # 7, Los Altos 1996 D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford 1962 Reallexilcon fur Antilce und Christentum, Stuttgart 1950A. Pauly-O. Wissowa-W. Kroll, RealEncyclopiidie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart 1893W.H. Roscher, Ausfuhrliches Lexilcon tier griechischen und romischen Mythologie, Leipzig 1884-1937 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Lugduni 1923H. Collitz, Sammlung tier griechischen Dialekt-lnschriften II, Gottingen 1899 H. Uoyd-Jones - P. Parsons, Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berolini et Novi Eboraci 1983 D. Page, Supplementum Lyricis Graecis, Oxford 1974 Lo spazio lenerario delta Grecia anlica, a c. di G. Cambiano, L. Canfora,D. Lanz.a. Roma 1992-96 Thesaurus Unguae Graecae CD ROM # D, Irvine 1992

INTRODUCTION

EPIGRAMMATIC GENRES AND TYPES 1 IN THEOCRITUS' EPIGRAMS.

I. On this terminology, see supra, Preface, p. v.

CHAYTERl VOTIVE (1, 8, 10, 13, 24) AND FUNERARY (7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 23, 26) EPIGRAMS

1. Literary epigrams and epigraphic models: the legitimisationof a genre and the "necesary allusion" Although Hellenistic epigram, in its transition from stone to scroll, lost its original function as inscription 2 , nonetheless the epigraphic referent remains a necessary premise for a sound approach to literary epigrams, in particular to those votive and funerary. It is obvious that inscriptions, especially metrical ones, influenced at least partially the structure, motifs, conventions, formulae and vocabulary of epigram, a new literary genre in need of legitimisation. Each new literary genre requires a sort of 'patent' that allows it to assume its own autonomous features and to serve in tum as the model and prototype of a new tradition, with its own conventions and distinctive elements. In many respects, epigram inherited and reworked the themes and characteristics of literary genres that were already in decline, such as sympotic poetry, but it preferred to appear as the literary alter ego on a structural and formal level of a real 'genre', namely the epigraphs. On the other hand, epigram's insertion within the poetic literary tradition was achieved by collecting into syllogies3 epigrams significantly ascribedto renowned poets of the past, such as Simonides and even Anacreon and Sappho 4 •

2. On the evolution of the Greek term tffiypaµµa and the Latin epigramma, and in particular on the history of their use as designations of the epigrammatic literary tradition, see Puelma ( 1997). For a basic general bibliography on Greek epigram and its relationship to epigraphy, see Entretiens Hardt 14 (1968); Beckby (1957-1958 I: 11-62); Degani (1993; 1997); Ecker (1990); Keydell (1962); Kuhn (1906); Lattimore (1962); Laurens (1989: 33-155); Lausberg (1982); Lier (1914); Pfohl (1953; 1964; 1968; 1969; 1970); Preger(1889); Rasche (1910); Reitzenstein (1970); Taran (1979); Tarditi (1988); Weber (1917); Weisshliupl (1889). For basic commentaries on Greekepigrams,see the collection of Gow-Page; Gow-Page, Garland; Page, FGE. 3. On the terminology used for epigrammatic collections, see Argentieri ( 1998), who distinguishes between several types of collections on the basis of the different mannersof composition and above all on the different destinations of the 'books' that are thereby created (on the composition of syllogies of Theocritean epigrams, see infra, eh. 7). 4. On epigrams ascribed to poets of the Archaic and Classical periods, see Page, FGE: 119-30. On the Simonidean sylloge, see the recent contribution of &bse (1998).

4

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

This process was certainly facilitated by the existence of inscriptions composed by famous poets, probably already common in the time of Simonides and well attested in the Hellenistic period 5 • It is quite likely that two needs developed from this poetic activity with a 'real' setting, perhaps on the part of the epigrammatist himself. On the one hand, there was a desire to collect inscriptions 'of known authorship' on papyrus scrolls, on the other to juxtapose this 'real' production with the composition of epigrams intended for the scroll from the start. Thus, a perfect coexistence between 'epigraphic' and literary epigrams was realised, which in turn played a mutual function as models. It is not accidental that the book of Epigrams ascribed to Theocritus displays in an exemplary manner the coexistence of both fonns of composition, literary and epigraphic. Some epigrams, such as epigram 16, could perfectly well have been inscribed on stone, since they respect the conventions and distinctive motifs of the authentic epigraphic tradition for funerary inscriptions down to the smallest details. In contrast other texts, for example the 'bucolic' epigrams 2-6, are based simultaneously on epigraphic and epigrammatic models as well as on the poetic traditions of the Archaic, Classical and even Hellenistic periods. For epigrammatists, allusion to epigraphy was no less "necessary" 6 than references to literature, compared to which it was neither less refined nor sought-after. The poets did not limit themselves solely to the reproduction of the most generic distinctive elements and 'framework' of inscriptions. Rather they alluded to the highly technical terminology, phraseology and topoi of epigraphs, reusing or inverting them according to the typical Alexandrian fashion. 'These conventions were absolutely distinctive and could only have been known by someone who had the same familiarity with the epigraphic legacy as with the literary tradition7. It is precisely the reuse of these conventions and material drawn from life and 'real' practice that constitutes the best refutation of the theories that would like to see Hellenistic poetry as the product of literati shut in their 'ivory towers', interested only in the literary, erudite or scholarly aspects of poetic production. S. I am thinkingespecially of PosidippusandAsclepiades, but also of other less wellknown poets: on this, see infra, p. 92. 6. I am repeating the convincing formulation of Bonanno (1990). 7. Fantuzzi, for example, noted that the early Hellenistic epigrammatists reproduced a typology of epigraphic mise en page typical of a well-defined period of the iv century. I am referring lo the paper presented by Fantuzzi al a conference entitled Prob/emi , prospmiv, di ricerca sulla lmeratura ,11,nistica held in April 1997 at the University of Rome "Tor Vergara",the proceedings of which are forthcoming (Fantuzzi 2000a). I wish to thank Marco Fantuzzi for having given me a copy of his paper.

VOTIVE AND FUNERARY EPIGRAMS

5

No doubt, some of the epigrams collected in the Anthology were composed for a 'real' use 8 , but there is no evidence that the compositions that have come down to us as literature were actually the same ones commissioned for inscription on stone. The only certain conclusion is that literary epigrammatic production can be considered a reflection of epigraphic production, or a potentially 'real' production, or even better, a literary production that wished to appear, at least in certain respects, as possibly 'real'. It is in fact clear that Hellenistic epigrammatists reused the forms and subject-matter of inscriptions. At the same time, they reelaborated some elements with respect to their prototypes in an independent manner and introduced other elements completely foreign to the epigraphic tradition. Nevertheless, when epigrammatists composed epigrams even manifestly fictitious, they never failed to introduce at least a single epigraphic marker, perhaps only a simple 'here lies' or 'so and so dedicated it' 9 • This practice is documented down to the Late Antique period, thus testifying to the importance that the epigraphic referent had for literary epigram. The problem of the real or fictitious nature of literary epigrams arises again in connection with this premise. This question has monopolised, and continues to monopolise, the attention of scholars 10, but a more indepth examination of conscious and deliberate epigraphic reuse by epigrammatists demonstrates that it is unsatisfactory to infer the original epigraphic setting of an epigram transmitted through literary means on the basis of, for example, the presence of a deictic pronoun. The referent of these pronouns (the funerary monument, votive dedication, the place where the tomb was erected), clear to the passer-by who read the inscription inscribed on the monument, would necessarily have remained obscure to the reader of the text on papyrus. But if epigrammatists were able to reproduce the most idiosyncratic and less obvious epigraphic conventions, they were all the more able to compose an epigram for a scroll in such a way as to make it seem exactly like one commissioned for stone. In the same way, although the presence of exclusively literary elements proves the indisputable identification of a composition as a Buchepigramm, the absence of such elements does not in itself provide sufficient evidence to consider the poem a Steinepigramm. Therefore, unless, as very rarely happens, an epigram known from written texts is found inscribed on stone, it is impossible, and above all methodologically

8. On PosidippusandAsclepiades, see infra. p. 92. 9. On these 'genericsigns"borrowed from inscriptions,see infra, §2. 10. See for example Weber (1917) and Wilamowitz (1924 I: 119-23).

6

TiiE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO 11IEOCIUTUS

inconect, to try to demonsttate al all costs its real or fictitious nature. The only certain fact, I emphasise once again, is that epigrammatists alluded to the epigraphic tradition exactlyas they referred to the literary tradition, and that they composed their poems with both literary and epigraphic material. Therefore, the only enquiry that can produce objective results is an analysis of the constituent material (literary and epigraphic) of epigram and not its unattainable, alleged setting. Recently, the question has been restated in a completely different manner by Bing (1995; 1998 11), who once again focused attention on the indefiniteness which epigram necessarily underwent in its transfer from stone to scroll, setting it, however, within a completely new perspective. For example, on stone it was perfectly clear what a deictic pronoun referred to, whereas on papyrus a natural uncertainty resulted from the physical absence of an immediate referent According to Bing, this ambiguity served to trigger a sort of 'game' in which the reader was invited to guess and integrate the missing context. Thus, Bing proposes to look at the 'after' of the epigram, that is at the moment of its destination, when it was read by someone who had to imagine a 'real' context completely lacking on the scroll. The complementary type of reading proposed in this work, however, seems to me equally valid. That is, an approach to the text that looks instead at the 'before', the different stimuli and compositional material of literary epigram. For Bing, the reader 'played' at recognising the missing context, whereas in my view he also and especially 'played' al recognising the inter-textual allusions contained in the epigram, whether epigraphic or literary, according to an approach to texts dear to all of Greek literature, but particularly appreciated for cultured, learned Hellenistic poetry.

2. Epigrams and inscriptions 12 2.1. Votive epigrams The analogies between votive epigrams and dedicatory inscriptions 13 can be traced above all through vocabulary, sbUcture and themes that 11. I would like to lhanlt Peter Bing for sending me a copy of this last worlt prior to its publication. 12. Only the most general connections between epigrams and inscriptions ue treated here: for a more detailed and precise analysis, with refcrcncc to the revival and variations of specific formulae and motifs, I refer the readerto the commentaries on individual votive and funerary Thcocritcan epigrams. 13. On the characteristic formulae of Archaic votive dedications, see Lazzarini (1976: 58-178).

VOTIVE AND f'UNERARY EPIGRAMS

7

function as 'signs' that identify the epigrammatic genre to which the text belongs. Naturally, epigrams reuse the characteristic 'technical' verbs of dedication 14and terminology to indicate votive gifts 15• In addition, they take up various epigraphic structural typologies, according to which the dedicator is introduced in the third person 16, the dedicatory deity is addressed in the second person 17, the offering itself might speak in the first person 18 or the text might even be in the form of a dialogue19. Similarly, in both inscriptions and epigrams, dedications were motivated by a request for benevolence from the deity, an ex voto for a favour received, a request for a benefit in the future, or again an ex voto for having escaped a great, usually mortal, dange.-W. Not less significant are the differences, which in all probability reveal the completely literary nature of epigram in the very moment in which it reuses epigraphic material. In connection with the dedicators, for example, one immediately notices in reading book 6 of the Palatine Anthology the constant insistence on the occupation or craft of the dedicators, mostly fishermen, hunters, hetairai, farmers and weavers. In metrical inscriptions, on the other hand, this aspect 21 always remained marginal compared to the 14. n8TJ1.u, generally in the composite form dva'tl9lJµl and in the aorist; see Lazzarini (1976: 70-4). 15. The most common terms are dvci8&µa,liyalµa (on liyalµa see Bloesch 1943: esp. 12-24) or the deictic pronoun TOO& (see Lazzarini 1976: 87-104). Cf. e.g. CEG 760.l (Athens, c. 350 B.C.) C,0\6lµW'lpa1tapa npoµcixou, CZ>oij3&, -rci6&Kptµa-rat. 6'flµoo6VT)l 18. Cf. e.g. CEG 784.l (Attica, iv-iii 8.C.) 'Aµj3pomoc; Kai l\to1t&l9TJc; f1£ dvtet,Kav and in AP 6.49.lf. (anonymous) XUAK&Oc; 'Axtll&i>c;. 19. On epigrams in the form of dialogues, see Rasche (1910: esp. 6-16, on the epigraphic origin of this convention). 20. Cf. respectively CEG 367.lf. (Laconia, 490-480 8.C.) 6t~o .Fa~ Kpovi6a{l} l\&u 'Oi.uv,n& KaAOVliyalµa / hw.Fot 8uµot and AP 6.278.1-3 (Rhianus) 1taic; / ... ~oij3&, au 6' O..Uoc;;CEG 774.2-4 'AO'KA.'flJtl®&CD KCW!>KaAOVdaa-ro CZ>oij3cp (Athens, c. 350 8.C.) dvi9lJK&... / ... nµcixra xaptv oij3&, -ro A6ntov 61tAOV dytv&i; CEG 258.2 (Attica, 490-480 B.C.) 1Jcip1v dvn6i6o and AP 6.40.3f. (Macedonius) 6oc,... / ... dvn6t6oooa xaptv; CEG 762.lf. (Athens, c. 350 B.C.) am8&[i]c;ty µ&yciACl>v 1CtV6UV(l)V &lKova 'tl)V6&/ cm\O'EVAuaiµaxoc; naU.a6l 'tpt-roy&v&iand AP 6.166.lf. (Lucillius) ElKova nic; KTIA.'fl t68& aiµa andAP 1.11.l (Gaetulicus) cri\µa t68'

'Af)Xu.oxou. 29. The most frequent are K&iµai,8a1ttco,fxco, K&i>8co.KaAt'.mtco. 6txoµcn andtheir compounds:see e.g. CEG 85.1 (Attica, 440-420 8.C.) tv8a6& Aooa~ K&\'tQlUopux; avt;p 8£iff't&l. 30. Cf. the examples in the previous note. 31. Cf. e.g. CEG 49 (Athens, 520-500 B.C.) [ot]µo1 8avoo&~ dµi [ai]µa Muplv&~ and AP 1.2bis.4 (anonymous) ffOl'l't'IVtfftcov 8&iov•oµ'lpoV fXO>. 32. Cf. e.g. GVI 1831-87 for the epigraphic evidence and Rasche (1910) for the litermy eumples. 33. On this. see infra, the commentary on epigram 16. § I.

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO TifEOCRITUS

introducing the dead 34 and the narrative of the death 35 are repeatedin epigrams. Epigrammatists also borrowed other topoi from epigraphy. One example might be the revival of the invitation addressed to the passer-by to stop, speak or greet the deceased or the funerary monument. 'The presence of a similar convention, completely unjustified in a literary text, very clearly demonstrates how strong the need to recreate a patina of authentic epigraphy in literary compositions was felt. On the other hand, it also illustrates that epigraphic allusions could be reused in a completely new manner in contexts different from that original.

In inscriptions, the passer-by is usually invoked with ~EivE, 1tapooi'ta or a periphrasis such as •oh you who pass by'. This last form, as is also the case of 1tapooi'ta, owes its origin to the fact that the Greeks were accustomed to burying their dead along (1tapa) the roads into the city, travelled precisely by people passing through or foreigners (~tvot). 'Therefore the presence of the preposition 1tapa either with substantives or verbs is characteristic: cf. e.g. CEG 80.1 (Aegina, 475-450 B.C.) xaipE'tE o\ 1tapt6V'tE; 36• This convention, dictated by a 'real' motive is also respected by epigrammatists in their compositions: AP 7.249.1 ('Simonides') 1''2~Eiv', liyyEtlov Aa1CEOatµovi0t;; 247.l (Alcaeus of Messene) ..A1CMIOO't0l1Caili9a7t't0l, ooom6pE, 'tQ)O't1ti ruµfxp; 260.1 (Carphyllides) µiJ µtµvn 1tapu:i>v't(l µVllµa'ta µou, 1tapoOi'ta. The literary stylisation of Callimachus is extremely high in AP 7.415.1 Ba't'tlCIOE©1tapci pa (Chalcis, iii B.C.), Kaibel 258.5 (Alexandria. iii-ii B.C.) li8p&I, 855.2 (Locris, Macedonian period) 6tp1CEO(cf. also GVI 1252-83); and not even the case of 'come and loot· is lacking, wµpav bpciv Kpo[a&AO& (Kaibel 85.2). In later centuries, obviously, the examples of 6£p1CEO, MU,tu1toco, 1tMiaaw, tpyai;oµa1, yA.\llt'tU>,uxvaoµa1, xapaaaw, etc. er. e.g. AP 9.752.lf. (Asclepiades or Antipater of Thessalonica; for the attribution see Gow-Page 2: 148) tv 6' dµ£9ixnq> / yty>..uµµa1; 757.l ('Sirnonides') 1q,iU>Vtoo' fypa11fE Koplv&i~; Pl. 112.4 (anonymous) tv XCIA.Kq, ... £lpyaaa'to; 203.2 (Julianus of Egypt) XEPG\ µ£ A.TJi6ia1c;f1t1,.aa£ TTpa~l'tt>..ric;; ibid. 4 XaA.KEooac;.In epigraphy, one passes from well-known Archaic 'signatures' of the type 'ExaEKiac; fypaq>aE ted1t6EaE tµt (CEG 436) to the frequent use of tEUXWalready in the iv century B.e. (tEUXWcan also assume a meaning equivalent to that of la'tTJµl, namely, it can indicate the simple erection/dedication of a monument and not only its artistic elaboration: cf. e.g. CEG 667.2) and of ru1toco, y>..u1t'tW,xapaaaw (beginning in the iii century, but especially in the Roman period): cf. e.g. CEG 857.2 (Erythrae, 450-37S B.C.) NT)'tJ'I..xi&i,T1µoµaxou X£1pi 't\J1t(l)(Jaµtvou. For inscriptions, it is sun:ly unnecessary to cite specific examples for the extremely frequent occurrences of terms such as, for example, Elteci>v,tu1t~ and µopcpT),to indicate artistic representation. 18. ef. e.g. AP 9.777.1 (Philippus) XaA.KOOCll6cwptEX\1\1, 826.1 (anonymous) &i16CIA.trixEip, Pl. 119.2 (Posidippus) &ii£ uxvita. 19. er. e.g. AP 9.590.l (anonymous) fi 'tEXVJ'Icrovay£lp£V µit q,ucnc;, Pl. 105.l (anonymous) 8auµa ttxvric;. 20. See also Vitry (1894: 346-7); Schwan (1971: 2 and 134); G. Zanker (1987: 425; 94-5); Friedlander (1912: 30-1 and 56-7); Spivey (1995). In general, for ancient terminology on works of art, see Pollitt (1974; 1987).

a

EKPHRAS11CEPIGRAMS

19

the object represented seems alive 21• Inscriptions, in contrast, lack the specific praise of the work of art as such. Nevertheless, the adjectives 22 that usually describe the monument or dedication in epigraphs perhaps represent the epigraphic antecedents that could have contributed to the genesis of the eulogistic commentaries characteristic of ekphrastic epigrams. This epigraphic custom of praising the monument, whether a tomb for the defunct or a statue of the god, also indirectly honoured the person who had erected it; this aspect was further emphasised when the inscription was read aloud by the passer-by 23 • At any rate, it is self-evident that praise of the monument, as much as it was schematic and stilted in syntagms that were already traditional, formed part of the epigraphic conventions in use through late antiquity. Therefore, it is not perhaps unsound to hypothesise that precisely this stylistic characteristic, so ancient and well-known, would have been echoed in ekphrastic epigrams as well, first as a simple epithet, then as a more complex judgement on the artistic value of the work of art described. The possibility of an epigraphic origin for ekphrastic epigrams would also imply, however, an explanatory function of the epigram with respect to its physical support. It is indisputable that an inscription, whether funerary or votive, performs a descriptive function with respect to the monument on which it is inscribed. Thus, it clarifies to whom the dedication is offered or who is buried beneath the tomb, who dedicated 21. See, for example, the long series of epigrams on the cow of Myron (AP 9.713-42), tl;e~ato and many Olher examor Pl. 182.4 (Leonidas) 06 ypamov dll' fµ1lf\lXOV ples. The persistence through time of this last typology of technical aspects is confirmed by the h:cppamc; of Cluistodorus of Coptus (AP 2), since in his descriptions of statues (where the verb 'to see' not by chance is very frequent: II. 34, 56, 59, 99, 112, 117, 148, 165, 241, 243, 266; verb to indicate amau:ment and wonder: II. 82, 117, 148, 168, 209, 243, 288) the occurrence of the topos (by now fossilised) of life-likeness of the work of art is particularly frequent; the allusions to bronze, that seems (the favourite verb, even if not exclusive, is oodm: ll. 37, 38, 53, 59, 71, 89, 122, 123, 173, 180, 244, 292, 321) almost to have been forced by the image represented and gives the impression of speaking, moving, thinking, are continuous. Completely different, in contrast, is the case of the inscriptions of Cyzicus (AP 3), since the epigrams are almost completely lacking these 'technical' nwters, but limit themselves in fact to a description of the scene represented. 22. Typical epithets in inscriptions are KaA.OC; (cf. e.g. CEG 26, 87, 161, 165), also in the variantKai..oc;l6eiv (cf. e.g. CEG 18), and neptKallTJc;, whereas connections such as ICOAOV (cf. e.g. CEG 291, 303, 311, 334, 366,367,425) or n&pucalltc; liyaA.µa(cf. e.g. CEG 327, 335, 348, 363, 422, 423, 424) are extremely frequent; later the epigraphic form is enriched by 8TiTJtoc;(Kaibel 189.2, Melos, iii B.C., and 590.4, Aquae Sextiae, iii A.D.), ~ecnoc; (cf. Kaibel 455.2, Bostra), dpi6TJA.o..µa/dva8tµa or relief that appears on the funerary stele. Some studies on this subject have clearly revealed that, apart from sporadic exceptions, too sporadic to be significant, no descriptive relationship exists between funerary reliefs and their inscriptions 24 • A very likely explanation could be that both iconography and inscriptions have their own highly formulaic and conventional language, strongly tied to and sanctioned by tradition, as is logical given the funerary and votive context. Iconographic motifs, just like epigraphic formulae, are almost fixed, or better are open to variation, but always within certain limits in order to render them immediately recognisable. As a result, mutual 'descriptive' relationships between one element and another would not have been absolutely necessary to make possible the recognition of a monument or inscription within its votive or funerary setting. Another aspect connected to the most frequent subjects of ekphrastic epigrams is extremely relevant. As Vitry noted, the traditional gods are almost entirely absent, whereas Aphrodite, Dionysus, Eros, Bacchantes, Satyrs, Nymphs, Pan and Priapus are very common. Apollo and Artemis appear only as the protective deities of poetry and hunting. Legendary

24. See Oairmont (1970) and the review by Daux (1972); I do not however agree with Hastings (1912), but see also Pfohl (1970: 82-9). Nevertheless, if it is true that epigraphs did not perform a descriptive function in relation to the monument on which they were inscribed, this docs not mean that they could not contain some reference (but not more than a hint) to the iconographic motifs present on the monument. Since the examination of Clairmont is restricted to funerary stclai through the iv century 8.C., I would like to add some examples of later periods on which the funerary inscriptioos, although focusing their attention on the deceased, provide some detail on the ornamental decoration of the tomb: cf. e.g. GVI 264.2 (Batanaea, ii A.D.) t~i 6' tµou Ka861t£p8£ lt£A.£UWVooµv µaprupa Aritoi611v / d£V(l(l)V t£ paeuvltOtaµci>v poov, ot !t0t£ p&i0potpaa&u;. 34. The objects dedicated in the temple of the 9&apoi of Epichannus; Sophron; idyll 15 of Thcocritus and mimiambos 4 of Herodas. In particular on the verbs of seeing in the Mimiamboi of Hcrodas and on their function in relation to the problem of the performance of these poems, sec Hunter ( 1993b: 38-9). 35. 1bc mantle of Jason in the Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes, the cup of idyll I of Thcocritus, the basket of the Europa of Moschus. 36. In particular in the histories of Alexander, in Hellenistic historiography and in pcriegesis. 37. For examples, sec Friedlander (1912: 47-55). 38. On this point, sec supra, §2.

EKPHRASTIC EPIGRAMS

23

G. Zanker (1997: 45-6) attempts to explain the reason for the enorin the Hellenistic period, considering mous popularity of t1eq,pao-&1p11Kac;, 63 ilv tl>11, 68 ~At1toum, 77 6pci>p111CEV, Theoc. I. 78 li8p11aov; for the mention of the artist: Herod. I. 22 ttKtrov, 23 ol IIp11~lt£AE0>,Theoc. I. 80 fpl801, I. 81 ~cpoypacpol; for the material: Herod. I. 21 tllV ).i8ov, 62 t©P)'i>ptuv l>t 1ti>pa.ootpov, Theoc. II. 84f. t1t' dP)'uptac; ... tllaµo>;

44. Personally,I do not understandwhat is ekphrasticabout these lines. 45. On this last fragment, see Kassel (1983: 8-9). 46. Manakidou (1993: 243-53). 47. An exception could be in the realistic illusionism of the human voices and of sounds emitted by the rams emphasised in A.R. 1.763-7 (see also G. Zanter 1987: 44). In Moschus, often the various materials are emphasised, but above all to provide a colouristic note, rather than to follow the epic model of the description of the shield of Achilles. A common characteristic of true tKcppciaE~ is however the succession contiguous in space of the various scenes represented, also probably in this cases following the descriptive technique of the epic model. 48. Sec supra, §2.

EKPHRASTIC EPIGRAMS

25

for the 'poietic' verb: Herod. I. 22 t1toiE1, 58 yi..6\jlat, Theoc. l. 80 t1t6vaaav, I. 81 lypa\jlav; for the expression of amazement: Herod. I. 20f. cl 1ecwi>v... / ... dyai..µa-rmv, 26 1eai..ci>v lpymv, 39f. 1eai..ov.. ./ 1tpiiyµ', Theoc. I. 82 ..uia6oµal assume each time even within the same 1beocritean use, see Hunter (1999: 6-9). 13. On this, see Halperin (1983), who considers the entire hexametric Theocritean corpus as bucolic in opposition to epic poetty. Nauta (1990: 124-5) examines instead the possibility that Thcocritus himself might have edited an edition of his works that would justify the position of the opening of the bucolic idylls attested in the tradition as a whole. He concludes however that this organisation that privileges the bucolic idylls is due to their reception rather than to the author. Hutchinson (1988: 143-4) and GulZWiller (1996a) reach the same conclusions. A summary appears in Fantozzi (1997a: coll. 8312). For the bucolic character of the works of Dion, especially the fragments, see Reed (1997: 3-15 and 26-31). 14. See Arland (1937); Nauta(1990: 125-36); Vox (1997: 9-27). 15. For the Virgilian Eclogues, one of the most recent contributions is that of Rumpf (1996); see also Rumpf (1999). 16. On this problem, sec Halperin (1983: 1-72) and Alpers (1996) (and the review by R. Hunter, CR 41, 1997, 320-2); sec also Reed (1997: 4-6; Reed's book is also reviewed by R. Hunter, CJ 93, 1997, 105-6). For a basic bibliography on bucolic poetty, in addition to the studies already mentioned, see also Arethusa 23 (1990); Ancher (1981); Berger (1984); Boyle (1975); Cremonesi (1958); Dover (1971: liv-lxv); Effe (1977;

BUCOLIC EPIGRAMS

31

Despite all of these uncertainties, most scholars agree in considering idylls 1, 3-7 and 11 of the works of Theocritus, and idylls 8, 9, 20 and 27 among the spurious ones, 'bucolic' 17• The distinctive elements seem to be related principally to the protagonists, namely cowherds, shepherds and goatherds 18, intent on performing their duties and especially on singing in competition with their companions/adversaries. The themes of these songs or of entire poems, that revolve more or less always around (often unhappy) love 19 or motifs at any rate connected with the pastoral world, constitute another characteristic. A third is the presence or simply the invocation of deities such as Pan20 and the Nymphs21 , but sometimes also the Muses22 , Hermes23 , Priapus24, Aphrodite25 , Satyrs26 , Apollo27 , Paian28 and the Erotes29• Finally, the elements of the locus amoenus par excellence, that adapted to the song, namely the shade of a large tree, a gurgling fountain, the rustle of a fresh, gentle breeze, the presence of animals such as birds, bees and cicadas30 can mark a composition as 'bucolic'. Once the principal traits of 'bucolicity' in idylls have been identified, it is necessary to test whether it is possible to transpose them to the epigrammatic genre and thus identify a hypothetical 'bucolic' type. At the same time, one must keep in mind that idylls and epigrams are two genres well differentiated by structure and metre. Therefore, the 1986; 1989); Fantuzzi (1998); Gutzwiller (1991); Hathorn (1961); Hermann (1853); Hunter (1999); lrigoin (1975): Lawall (1967); Legrand (1898): Luisclli (1967); Masaracchia (1983-1984); Meillier (1981); Ott (1969); Perutelli (1976): Reinhardt (1988): Reitzenstein (1970: 193-263); Th. Roscnmeyer (1969); E.A. Schmidt (1987); Segal (1981a); Serrao (1971); van Sickle (1975; 1976); Stanzel (1995): Trencsenyi-Waldapfel (1966); Vox (1997: 9-42); Wendel (1900); Wojaczek (1969); Zimmerman (1994).

17. In this classification, I follow Nauta (1990: 125-6) and Fantuzzi (1997a: col. 828). Segal (1981c: 210), in contrast, adds idyll 10 and epigrams 2-6, whereas Hutchinson (1988: 143) includes idyll 10 and deliberately excludes idyll 11 and the epigrams. 18. The Polyphemus of idylls 6 and 11 is also seen as a shepherd. 19. Up to this point, I follow substantially the 'definition' of van Groningen (1958: 300-2); see also Segal (1981d: 200-6), who lists a long series of motifs typical of bucolic poetry, andE.A. Schmidt (1987: 109-12). 20. Id. 1, 4 (Panes in the plural), 5, 6, 7. 21. Id. 1, 4, 5, 7, 9. 22. Id. I, 7. 23. Id. 1. 24. Id. 1. 25. Id. 1, 7. 26. Id. 4. 27. Id. 5. 28. Id. 5, 6. 29. Id. 1. 30. See esp. Id. 1.12-4, 21-3; 5.32-4, 45-9.

32

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBEDTO THF.OCRrruS

only "elements of characterisation" that they can have in common are solely "theme or content" and "language or dialect and its stylistic level" 31 , that presumably are strictly Theocritean imitations. But it should immediately be emphasised that on the level of content, the extremely characteristic amoebaean song is completely absent in epigrammatic 'bucolic' production, just as the motif of (unhappy) love assumes a much more than marginal role 32 • It is evident therefore that it is necessary to adopt other criteria for bucolic epigram with respect to those accepted for idylls. Just as the concept of 'bucolic' is not the same for Theocritus, the authors of idylls 8 and 9 and those of poems 20 and 27, but is continually 'updated' in a diachronic sense according to its evolution and sphere of application, a comparison of literary genres renders obligatory a reformulation of terms in accordance with the specific conventions of individual genres, to which all of the rest conforms. This task will be approached on the basis of three methodological premises. First of all, it is necessary to single out the thematic elements within epigrams that can hint at analogies and affinities with traits recognised as characteristic of bucolic (§1.2). Secondly, the chronological development of bucolic epigram must be reconsbUcted, examining the epigrarnmatists who cultivated it and the various periods in which it flourished (§ 1.3). Finally, one must attempt to establish the relationship between epigrams of the bucolic type and Theocritus, so as to ascertain possible influences33 • Considering that bucolic epigrams extend well beyond the chronological limits of the authentic Theocritus, it is also necessary to take into account the spurious poems and other compositions of the corpus bucolicum. In this way, it will be possible to evaluate the thematic elements selected in a diachronic perspective and in particular to see if and how they reflect the evolution of the concept of 'bucolic' in ancient reception (§1.4). Only thus can one reconsbUct the characteristics of the epigrammatic type, with which one can then compare the bucolic epigrams specifically attributed to Theocritus (§2.1)34 • 31. This terminology is that of L.E. Rossi (1971a: 71). 32. References to love concern above all the relationship between Panand Daphnis, and play an indisputable role not in bucolic epigram in its earliest period (that contemporary with Theocritus), but in bucolic epigram in the later period. In short. the motif of the love of Pan for Daphnis occurs no longer as original, but rather as the product of reception itself: see Arland (1937: 70-1, 73-4) and esp. infra, p. 44f. 33. On this last point, see also Kehr (1880). 34. The epigrams handeddown under the name of Theocritus are excluded from the treatment of the 'bucolic epigram' type that follows; on their position in relation to the type of which they form a part, see infra, §2.1.

BUCOLIC EPIGRAMS

33

12. The subject-matter: thematic elements and distinctive motifs Although sharing many common themes, epigrams that deal with situations ascribable to the country sphere and those that instead refer more precisely to the world of shepherds are extremely dissimilar 35• Pan 36 or the Nymphs or else the locus amoenus 31, for example, are not in themselves sufficient to characterise an epigram as bucolic, but they are all markers of a generically rural setting, since not only shepherds, cowherds and goatherds, but also farmers, hunters and bee-keepers can address their prayers to Pan and the Nymphs or else act against the background of a locus amoenus. In fact, one finds oneself face to face here with the problem of the extensibility of the concept of 'bucolic', especially if one keeps in mind that both harvesters (Id. 10) and fishermen ([Id.] 21) have a place in the corpus Theocriteum. The presence of fishermen in the spurious idyll 21 is justified by the conception of the much broader notion of• bucolic poetry' that becomes popular in the period contemporary with and immediately following Bion. According to this less strict reading, poetry that deals with humble people in general and no longer only with shepherds in particular is included under this label38• On the other hand, epigrammatists had already turned their attention to fishermen from the early Hellenistic period, writing several compositions on them 39 • The case of idyll 10 is very different. The presence of harvesters should refer to a 'rustic' rather than 'bucolic' ambience. It is unknown, however, whether this differentiation can be asserted with certainty already for Theocritus, since there is no indication of how he ordered and conceived his Idylls. Nevertheless, at least in the later tradition, it seems that idyll 10 was acknowledged as not entirely bucolic, since in the manuscripts the spurious bucolic idylls 8 and 9 always follow the block of bucolic idylls 1 and 3-7 and precede idylls 10 and 11, "whose identity as Hirtengedichte is problematic""°.

35. This analysis is based particularly on books 6, 7 and 9 of the PalatiM Anthology and on the P/anudean Anthology. 36. On Pan, see Brommer (1956); Herbig (1949); Wemickc (1897-1902) and Borgcaud (1988). 37. On the locus (ltn(Wnus,sec Schonbcck (1962); Thcslcff (1981); see also Elligcr

(1975) and Pearce(1988: 293-300), as well as Kicnzlc (1936) and Arbusow (1948: 111-6). 38. Sec Arland (1937: 80). 39. In book 6 alone, there arc twenty: cf. AP 6.4 (Lconidas), 5 (Philip of Thcssalooica), 23 (anonymous), 24 (anonymous), 25 (Julianus), 26 (Julianus), 27 (Theactetus Scholasticus), 28 (Julianus), 29 (Julianus), 30 (Maccdonius), 33 (Maccius), 38 (Philip). 89 (Maccius), 90 (Philip). 105 (Apollonidas), 167 (Agathias), 192 (Archias), 193 (Aaccus), 196 (Aaccus), 230 (Quintus). 40. Nauta (1990: 125).

34

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO

THEOCRn1Js

Therefore, in my opinion, it seems necessary to insist on the distinction between 'rustic' and 'bucolic' epigrams, up to now not stressed with adequate clarity4 1• I define as 'bucolic' only those epigrams that deal with the pastoral world and that consequently have as protagonists shepherds, cowherds and goatherds; I consider 'rustic' those epigrams that speak of hunters, farmers, bee-keepers and such. In those epigrams in which human figures are totally absent, the 'generic signs' are entrusted to the animals. The presence of sheep or cows in connection with pastures or the like (and not with ploughing or with work in the fields, to be precise) renders an epigram bucolic, whereas bees naturally confine it to the limits of the rustic type. Another element that I consider distinctive is the syrinx, that occupies a role in the foreground and accompanies the contests and songs of the shepherds 42 in the bucolic poetry of the Idylls (at least of the authentic ones) 43 • In contrast, other motifs, such as the presence of a deity traditionally connected with the rural ambience or a locus amoenus, certainly concur with and contribute to the creation of a bucolic setting, but by themselves they cannot be considered exclusive and therefore distinctive of the type. In all these cases, only their contextualisation with other elements professedly bucolic can make them 'bucolic', rendering thus, for example, a locus amoenus otherwise generically rustic specifically bucolicus. An example of what has just been said is offered by the epigrams in which the Nymphs are present, since they more commonly belong to the rustic world and therefore are not in themselves characteristic enough to classify an epigram as bucolic. This is the case of AP 6.189 (Moero ), in which the ;6ava under the pine trees (I. 4 u1tai mtucov) are dedicated to the Hamadryad Nymphs, and Pl. 264b (anonymous), in which a decorative liyalµa of a fountain is dedicated always to the Nymphs. In the first text, it is clear that the setting could be bucolic, but other elements that characterise the composition further in this sense are lacking. Nymphs and pine trees are not sufficient by themselves to render an epigram bucolic. The epigram deals therefore, more simply, with a dedication that can be defined as 'rural', in the sense of 'relative to the country, to a country setting'. Similarly, in Pl. 264b, that imitates (or wishes to

41. This fact is evident for example in Kehr (1880: 22-35); Arland (1990: 69), so attentive to the distinguishing the various phases of evolution of the concept of bucolic poetry, includes among the bucolic epigrams texts such as Pl. 210 or AP 9.363 (Arland 1990: 80), on which, sec infra, pp. 40 and 44. 42. Cf. e.g. Id. 1.3, 16. 43. Sec infra, the commentary on epigram 5.

BUCOLIC EPIGRAMS

35

appearas) an inscription on a fountain 44 , the presence of a fountain or the like is not in itself capable of conferring 'bucolicity'. The same statement also holds true for Pan, for whom moreover the same distinctions are rendered necessary by the various spheres of rural life to which he is tied 45 • In several epigrams, Pan is not seen specifically as the patron god of shepherds (and therefore as a 'bucolic' deity), but in a broader sense. Once, in AP 9.142 (anonymous), Pan 'who guides the Nymphs' (I. 1 Nuµq>vfiyritopa) is the protector of a spring. Sometimes, as in AP 9.226 (Zonas) and Pl. 189 (anonymous), he is connected with bees and considered a protector/guardian of beehives. Elsewhere (AP 6.170, Thyillus), he is the addressee of a dedication of elms, willows, plane trees and a fountain, whereas in AP 6.232 (Crinagoras) he receives together with Priapus an offering of various types of fruit. None of these examples can be termed 'bucolic'. Apiculture is not necessarily tied to the pastoral ambience, just as the dedication of fruit is connected more with a generically rural context than a specifically bucolic setting-46.The dedication of constituent elements of the landscape, such as certain types of trees and the fountain, however, seems to come closer to a bucolic model because both the locus amoenus and Pan appear in the same text, but other more characteristic elements are lacking. Those epigrams in which Pan appears in the guise of a deity of hunters are naturally not more significant. In AP 9.337 (Leonidas) he is represented explicitly as patron of the hunt, of both hares and birds, with dogs as well as nets, and in AP 9.824 (Erucius) he proclaims himself expert in the various tools necessary for hunting activity. In all these cases, the setting is clearly rustic, not bucolic. These epigrams, just as those examined up to now, reflect the predilection of Hellenistic poetry for a rural ambience in the broader sense of the term, and for the activities tied to it, such as precisely the hunt, apiculture or agriculture. From 44. In the Anthology, other epigrams for a fountain or spring include AP 9.37 (Statillius flaccus), 38 (anonymous), 142 (anonymous), 257 (Apollonidas), 258 (Antiphanes of Megalopolis), 315 (Nicias), 326 (Leonidas), 327 (Hermocreon), 330 (Nicharcus), 374 (anonymous). In contrast, with regard to actual epigraphs concerning fountains and similar monuments, see E. Curtius ( 1859). 45. See Wernicke (1897-1902: coll. 1382-1406); for Pan in general, see the bibliography supra, n. 36. 46. It should be said, however, that in the epigram of Crinagoras (AP 6.232) Pan has the epithet q,1Aoari1tcov,'lover of the staff' of the shepherd. In this case, it is as if the bucolic god had been 'borrowed' in order to be inserted within a rural context, represenled in fact not so much by Priapus, as by the fruit. The same 'contextual' observations also hold true for Priapus, in fact, although to a lesser extent with respect to Pan: see infra the commentary on ep. 3, esp. pp. 147 and 151.

36

1llE EPIORAMS ASCRIBED TO TifEOCIU11.IS

this interest in the rural world naturally sprang a more conspicuous inclination towards everything that was more specifically tied to pastoral life. With respect to Pan, one can only begin to speak of bucolic epigrams when the god is explicitly connected with flocks and various grazing animals. Thus, in Pl. 231 (Anyte) Pan, as guardian of the fields, guards the flocks from the border of the wood and plays his pipes to make the heifers graze better. In AP 6.334 (Leonidas) the Pan-herd connection is set within a list of the various addressees of offerings: the grottoes, hills sacred to the Nymphs, springs, a pine tree, Hennes as protector of the flocks, and finally Pan 'who lives on the cliff where the goats graze' (I. 4 ~ t& tOV alytj36t11v,Ilav, Kattx&u; c:nc61t&AOV). In AP 6.96 (Erucius), Pan receives a sacrifice of a young bull from Glaucus and Corydon, ol tv oGptm J3ouKoA.toVt& uno 7tMitavou). Thus, it is a description of a locus 'bucolicus' (the shepherd who plays his pipes in the shade of a tree) within that of a locus amoenus (the traveller in the grove), that in its turn becomes 'bucolicus' precisely thanks to the intrusion of the shepherd who plays his syrinx ! Again, in Pl. 12 (anonymous) the traditional invitation to sit down in a locus amoenus, consisting of a pine tree, the breathof Zephyrus and the fresh spring, takes on a bucolic colour through mention of the music emitted by the 1CCLM1µ0168 that, as

67. With clear reversal with respect to Theoc. Id. 1.15: see Kehr (1880: 27). On the possession that results from waking the sleeping Pan, see 8orgcaud ( 1988: 111). 68. On the various musical instruments of the bucolic world, see infra the commei,tary on ep. S. 1C11Se of

42

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

already in Pl. 13, induces sleep (II. 3f. fv9a µEA.iv tp11µaiot~ u1tvov liym KaA.aµot~). A slightly different argument should instead be made for AP 7.196 (Meleager), in which it is said that when the rustic song of the cicada (I. 2 dypov6µav ... µoooav) resounds in response to that of Pan, then the poet, fleeing Eros, will go at noon in search of the solace of the shade of a plane tree. In this case, there is not a single element that can be certainly defined as bucolic, since the landscape setting is that of a generic locus amoenus. Nor can the reference to the music of the cicada and Pan be the same as the music intoned by the shepherd, as in the preceding case. This epigram, nevertheless, is interesting in that the rustic motif of the wayfarer who seeks rest and solace from the summer heat in a locus amoenus is reworked in the erotic genre in reference to the lover who, in the same locus amoenus seeks refuge, instead, from Eros 69 • But, it should also be said that in the time of Meleager the sphere of relevance of bucolic poetry was so heavily modified as to include as well tponuA.a, brief poems on amorous subjects 7°. There are three other epigrams that demonstrate the association of the motif of shade with that of music in a clearly bucolic context. In AP 7.174 (Erucius, who is imitating the already cited AP 7.173), death prevents Therimachus, a cowherd incinerated by a lightning bolt, from playing his pipes in the shade of a plane tree and cheering the livestock with his melodies (II. 1-4 ouKtn crupiyymv v6µiov µtA.o~ dyx69i tauta~ I apµol;n PA.ID9pa~. E>11piµaxE, 1tA.atavou· / oboe CJEUtK KaA.aµmv KEpaai P6E~ aoi> µtA.tCJµa / oe~OV'tat CJKlEp~1tap opui KEKA.tµevou).In AP 7.703 (Myrinus) Thyrsis, who pastures the flocks of the Nymphs and plays the flute as well as Pan (I. 2 o crupi~rov nav~ icrov o6vax:i), sleeps in the shade of a pine tree while Eros tends the livestock. Lastly, in AP 9.136 (Cyrus) the ideal image of pastoral life is identified with staying in the shade of a tree or cliff to play the syrinx 71• This motif of the refreshment offered by the shade of a tree (or a cliff), that occurs thirteen times between the period of 'Plato' (iv century B.C.) and that of Cyrus (v century A.O.), originated in a simple invitation to the wayfarer, that was very quickly inserted within a more specifically qualifiable bucolic context through the presence, obviously, of shepherds (and flocks), but also of the music produced by them, an 69. The mixture of descriptive and love epigram in this text had already been observed by Gow-Page 2: 616. 70. Sec Arland(1937: 79-80); Reed (1997: 11-2). The term tpom'.>MI to characterise poetic works appears in Dion (fr. 10.10 and 14. on which sec the commentary of Reed 1991, ad /occ.).

71. On the Thcocritcan model of this epigram. sec Kehr ( 1880: 29).

BUCOLIC EPIGRAMS

43

extremely central theme moreover in bucolic Theocritean idylls 72. Given the great importance that music and the song of the shepherd assumes in the poems of the Theocritean corpus, one cannot help but also consider those epigrams with bucolic context in which specific mention is made of songs and music 73• As usual, it is not the music that is in itself a distinctive feature in favour of the 'bucolicity' of an epigram, but it becomes so when it is produced by shepherds (or by Pan, provided that be is connected with grazing animals) with the typical insh1lments of the bucolic world, such as the syrinx or the flute. Moreover, actual confirmation of the correctness of interpreting the presence of the syrinx as proof of 'bucolicity' is provided precisely by one of these texts, AP 9.324 (Mnasalces): •A c:rupty~.Ti tot cf>ot1tap' 'Acppoytvttav 6poooac;; Ti1tt' d1to 7tOtµ£viouXEiA.£0ot7ttlp£t; 00 tot 1tpcov&c; f8' cf>o•o6t' U'}'K&a, 1tavta 6' fpon&c; Kai 1t68oc;·6 6' dypia Mooo' tv 6p&t vtµ&tat. Syrinx, what has carried you here near Aphrogenia? Why are you here, far from the lips of the shepherd? Here there are neither mountains nor valleys, only Erotes and Desire. The rustic Muse lives on the mountains. The syrinx is explicitly associated with shepherds (I. 2) and their ambience of mountains and valleys (cf. ll. 3f.), excluding every other use in different contexts such as, in this case, the erotic. The syrinx, therefore, emerges as a principal and exclusive instrument of the •rustic Muse' (I. 4 ), to be understood manifestly as bucolic poetry 74•

In several of these epigrams, the musician is Pan himself. This is the case of AP 9.823 ('Plato'), in which silence is enjoined from the woody cliffs, springs and sheep since Pan is playing (ll. 3f. aOtoc; tm:i (J\)p1.yy1. µs11.io-6&ta1. &01C&A.0.6q) na.v, / (yypov l⁣~&UlCtCOV xsu..oc; futtp 1eaMµrov) accompanied by the dance of the Nymphs Hydriads and Hamadryads, just as of Pl. 226 (Alcaeus of Messene), in which the god is invited persistently to play (ll. 1-3 fµ1tV&1. ... 11.apoimv... x&i11.&m µouo-av, / fµ1tV&1no1µ&viq> t&pn6µ&voc; 66va1e1/ &OK&Ait6q) (J\)Pl'Y'Yl xtrov µtloc;) and the Nymphs of the water are exhorted to dance. In Pl. 231 (Anyte) Pan plays the flute on the edge of the wood to accompany and foster the grazing of the 72. This theme is so central in Theocritus that the verb l3ou1COA.la/;oµal, significantly, does not mean 'graze' or 'play the shepherd', but rather 'sing bucolic songs': see Fantuzzi (1997a: col. 830). 73. I do not take up again here, obviously, the epigrams just cited, in which the motifs of music and shade arc combined. 74. On this epigram, see also Arland (1937: 64-6).

44

THE EPIGRAMSASCRIBEDTO 1lil!OCRITUS

heifers, a motif taken up again in Pl. 17 (anonymous), in which the sound of the sacred voice of Pan during the grazing ameliorates the quality of the milk produced by the goats. In other cases, in contrast, it is the shepherds themselves who play. In AP 7.657 (Leonidas) the dead Clitagoras wishes, among other things, that beside his tomb sheep gl'87.C and that a shepherd accompanies their pasturing with the sound of the syrinx (ll. 5f. Ptrix11aat vt' 6ie~ µoi, tn' ~&pl'Y"f\ voµEix; tv 6ptam liyaivrov / Kai nolioi~ tpiq,oi~ tmt&p1t£ta1 al1t6A~ alyci>v)77 • In the examples seen so far, the locus amoenus, which enjoys an autonomous literary life, can often enter into bucolic poetry, becoming one of its distinctive elements. In this last case, rather, the inverse process is curiously verified. 1be bucolic element (the shepherd with his song and the goatherd) serves to provide a touch of colour to a springtime description in which, naturally, an important role is played by the constituent elements of the locus amoenus. For these reasons, since the bucolic touch is purely an accessory, one cannot in fact consider the epigram belonging to the bucolic type.

In a classification of bucolic epigrams, one cannot omit those epigrams in which Daphnis is mentioned, who according to the ancients was the 'inventor' of bucolic poetry 78 • Apart from the case just mentioned of Callimachus (AP 7.518), in AP 9.341 (Glaucus) Pan asks the Nymphs if by chance they have seen Daphnis pass with his kids 79 and receives in 75. I do not consider AP 9.586 (Comctas) among the bucolic epigrams because, althoughthe motif of Pan who plays the syrinx appearsanda shepherd is mentioned, the general context of the poem does not allow it to be placed within this epigrammatic type. 76. The authenticity of this epigram is questioned: see Dain, in Anthologie grecque 8: 5 n. •; Guidorizzi (1992: 131, n. 124); Gow-Page 2: 593; Wifstrand (1926: 168-70). 77. On this epigram and its position within the bucolic tradition, see Arland (1937: 80). 78. On Daphnis, see infra the commentary on ep. 2. On other Theocritean characters taken up by bucolic epigrams, see infra, § 1.4. 79. Daphnis, the cowherd par excellence, has become a banal goatherd. For this author, the hierarchic distinctions between cowherds, shepherds and goatherds always

BUCOLIC EPIGRAMS

45

response an indication of the appointment left by the youth. In AP 9.556 (Zonas) the god asks the Nereids if they had seen Daphnis taking a bath the day before and if he was handsome. The motif of the love of Pan for the mythical cowherd 80 recurs again in AP 1 .535 (Meleager). Pan, after the deathof Daphnis, says that he no longer wishes to live with the goats and inhabit the mountaintops, since at any rate every pleasure of rustic life has disappeared with Daphnis; rather, he will go to live in the cityll 1• The figure of Daphnis, so central in Theocritus' Idylls, did not have the popularity that might have been expected in bucolic epigram. Mentioned only four times in the entire type, he is never the true protagonist of the composition, as in Theocritus. Either he is 'substituted' by another shepherd (Astacides, AP 7.518) 82 or else he is represented in terms completely foreign to authentic Theocritean poetry83, as a love object of Pan (AP 7.535, 9.341 and 556). The situation of AP 6.18 (Eratosthenes Scholasticus) is different. It consists of a votive epigram in which Daphnis dedicates his instruments to Pan following the model of epigram 2 attributed to Theocritus 84• In this case, Daphnis is again connected with love, but for women (I. 2), and the parallel with Pan is reduced to a common passion for song and shared misfortune in love. Summing up again what would seem to be the characteristic elements of bucolic epigram, it seems evident that the difference between a bucolic and a generically rustic or rural epigram consists of the presence of shepherds, cowherds, goatherds (and also of Daphnis) and/or their beasts. The motif of music is just as distinctive, as long as it is modulated on the syrinx or on other similar instruments, that are traditionally the only ones connected with the bucolic world. Onto this underlying respected in Theocritus clearly have already been obfuscated (see van Groningen 1958: 313-7). 80. On this motif within the evolution of the concept of bucolic poetry in the period following Theocritus and its reciprocal relationship with the epigram of Glaucus and that of Zonas and with the Meleagreanerotic epigram AP 12.128, see Arland (1937: 70-1). 1be erotic epigram AP 12.128, modelled on the Callimachean funerary epigram for Astacides, should not be considered strictly bucolic, since the Daphnis about whom the abtoA.ucai m,ptyyEc;(I. 1) must no longer sing is remembered as the lover of Pan in parallel to Hyacinth, loved (and sung oO by Apollo, and to Dion, loved and sung of by the poet. Daphnis therefore assumes the value of a mythical paradigm of the hero/mortal beloved by a god, without any reference to a specifically bucolic context. 8 I. On the epigraphic parallel Kaibel 27 I, see infra § 1.5. 82. The same thing also happens in AP 12.128 (on which, see supra n. 80), even if in a different context and epigrammatic genre. 83. But not to the epigrams attributed to Theocritus: see infra, the commentary on epigrams 3, 4 and 5. 84. See infra, the commentary on ep. 2, p. 132. I do not deal with AP 6.73 here, on which see infra, the commentary on ep. 2, p. 132.

46

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRI11.JS

scheme, other elements, typical of rustic epigram and not sufficient in themselves to confer •bucolicity' on a text, can also be added: the figure of Pan, the motif of quenching one's thirst at a spring or finding solace in the shade of a large tree or cliff. In all these cases, the distinctive feature is only the contextuality with at least one of the elements recognised as unequivocally bucolic. 1.3. Chronological development In order to trace the type's development through time, it is necessary to examine which poets favoured it and consequently its chronological limits and periods of greatest success 85 • On the basis of the evidence of the lemmata of the Anthology, the first author to compose bucolic epigrams was 'Plato' 86 , even if it is certain that the insertion of bucolic epigrams attributed to him in the sylloge derive from the famous passage of the Phaedrus (229b-230b) 87 • But given the uncertainty concerning both the authenticity of the epigrams transmitted under his name and especially the existence of Plato's actual epigrammatic production 88, the 'inventor' of the type seems to have been Anyte 89, who composed two bucolic epigrams 90 as well as three others of rustic type 91 • The thematic innovation of the Tegean poetess was immediately taken up by Leonidas, who composed ten epigrams with a rural setting. Eight of these can be considered bucolic 92 , and a ninth can be added if one decides to attribute AP 1.173 to Leonidas rather than

85. It is however logical to expect, in the epigrammatic production of authors who cultivate the bucolic type, epigrams that belong more generically lo the rural type as well. For every author, where possible, those epigrams belonging to both typologies will be specified, obviously only in reference to the texts examined in the preceding treatment of the various elements and motifs more or less characteristic of the bucolic type. 86. AP 9.823 and Pl. 13. AP 6.43 presents instead the rustic motif of a wayfarer who quenches his thirst at a fountain, without any further characterisation in a specifically bucolic sense. In my preceding analysis, I did nol consider bucolic the epigram attributed to Plato the Younger on Eros asleep in a grove (Pl. 210). 87. See also Aubrcton, in Anthologie grecque 13: 87, n. I, and Page, FGE: 175, in the preface to epigram 16 of 'Plato'. 88. See Page, FGE: 125-7. 89. The epigram of Moero (AP 6.189) is a simple rustic dedication to the Hamadryad Nymphs. 90. Pl. 231 and 291. 91. AP 9.313 and 745; Pl. 228. 92. AP 6.262, 263, 334; AP 1.651; AP 9.318, 326, 744; Pl. 190, 230. AP 9.337, in which Pan, in the guise of the god of the hunt, addresses a hunter, is a rustic epigram, whereas AP 6.35 is one of the cases in which the separation between the hunting and pastoral spheres is very problematic.

BUCOLIC EPIGRAMS

47

Diotimus. The path marked out by Leonidas could not be avoided by his emulator Mnasalces, who composed the epigram/'definition' of the poetic ambience pertaining to the syrinx and to bucolic poetry 93 • Anyte, Leonidas and Mnasalces are the principal representatives of the so-called Peloponnesian school. Nonetheless, the significant presence of a bucolic epigram such as the Callimachean one on Astacides 94 should suffice to shatter, by itself, the rigid (until now deep-rooted) division between the alleged Ionian epigrammatic school, characterised by erotic and sympotic themes, and a Peloponnesian one oriented towards the rustic and 'humble' 95 , with the taste for bucolic epigram traceable only to the 1atter96 • This schematisation has been weakened further by the total absence of erotic and sympotic epigrams in the Milan papyrus of the 'new' Posidippus 97• The simultaneous presence in the papyrus of epigrammatic typologies previously unknown or known only for much later periods should warn one against a too easy simplification and reductionism concerning the variety of proto-Hellenistic epigrammatic production. But even without the Milan papyrus, the epigram of Leonidas (AP 5.188=92 G.-P.), in which the assaults of Eros are lamented, or that of Nossis (AP 5.170=1 G.-P.), that proclaims that nothing is sweeter than love, already should have invited greater caution in the identification of the alleged tendencies 'of schools'. These epigrams demonstrate rather that the traits considered distinctive of a 'Ionian' or 'Peloponnesian' epigrammatic trend are in reality heaviJy conditioned by the caprice of ancient anthological selection. Maintaining the traditional reading, how can one explain the choice of the 'Ionic' CalJimachus to compose an epigram that deals precisely with bucolic poetics? In any case, in this composition Callimachus is manifestly alluding to idyll 1 of Theocritus 98 , in which Daphnis is the subject of song just like

93. AP 9.324; 7.171, in contrast, that concerns a dead hunter who will no longer frighaen the birds, is rustic. 94. AP 7.518. On this epigram see Larson (1997). 95. This distinction was proposed, as is well known, by Reitzenstein (1970: 121-80, esp. 121-2) and was enormously successful until very recently. But the latest critical trends seem finally to consider this rigid separation out-daled, that is already more difficult to delineate from the second half of the iii century B.C. (see Seelbach 1993: 162; L.E. Rossi 1995a: 637). 96. Reitzenstein (1970: 130). 97. One could presume that the erotic and sympotic epigrams were found on a part of the papyrus now lost. Nevertheless, it is highly relevant that of the 300 verses transmitled by the papyrus not a single one is ascribable to the model of epigram traditionally attested for a poet such as Posidippus. 98. Greater caution is shown by Hunter (1999: 263), who nevertheless stresses that ..whetheror not this epigram alludes to Idyll I, it shows how close are narratives of the

48

THE EPIORAMS ASCRIBED TO 111BOCRITUS

Astacides (in ll. 3f. ol>1etn Aacpvtv, / 1to1µtv&~. 'Amadoytv o• altv d&1cr6µ&8ait is difficult not to notice a reference to ll. 19f. of idyll I, «UM 't\) yap 011 0i>pm ta Aacpvt~ lU.y&. d&io&~/ Kai. t~ Pou1eoA.\1CO~ tni to nltov (1e&oµoi.cr~). and in which Daphnis dies in a manner very similar to Astacides 99 • One should perhaps think of Callimachus as proposing as well a new prototype of bucolic poetry, with a new 'founding hero' as an alternative to the by now traditional Daphnis and a new place of origin with respect to the 'canonical' Sicily 100 • Or else he is simply composing a bucolic epigram in the form of an epitaph for a goatherd who met with a 'bucolic' death par excellence. In short. either Callimachus unearthed an erudite and very obscure reference and proposed it as an alternative to the traditional version of the origins of bucolic song 'invented' by Daphnis, or else he simply wanted to compose a bucolic epigram in homage to the current fashion. 1be two hypotheses are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Proceeding from the iii to the ii century B.C., we find an epigram of Hennocreon 101, one of Alcaeus of Messene 102 and three compositions attributed to Meleager, in which however the beginnings of a true Spiel mit den Formen and a heavy intrusion of love elements are evident. In one case, the bucolic framework serves as the background for an erotic motif, thus achieving a contamination of epigrammatic genres and types 103 • In another, Pan, desperate after the death of Daphnis, decides to do nothing less than to go to live in the city 104• In the third, finally, bucolic elements are adopted to characterise the springtime locus

amoenus105• The exact position of Glaucus, who is included within the Garland of Meleager, is uncertain 106• Be that as it may, with Meleager we have already entered the i century B.C., at the beginning of which we find

Hylas type to the canonical bucolic myth". On 1beocriteanechoesin Callimachus, see Hunter (1999: 3 and n. 8). 99. On the 'watery' death of Daphnis, see Zimmerman (1994: 67-73) and Larson (1997). 100. Perhaps Crete? Larson(1997) refers instead to a tradition of the Phrygia-Bithynia-Mysia region. 101. Pl. 11. The authorship of AP 9.327, a rustic dedication, is doubtful: see supra, p. 40, n. 62. 102. Pl. 226. 103. AP 7.196. 104. AP 7.535. On the reasons as to why I have not taken into consideration the Callimachean AP 12.128, see supra n. 80. 105. AP 9.363, of uncertain authenticity. 106. AP 9.341. This Glaucus is also included in the Garland of Meleager: see GowPage 2: 286-7.

BUCOLIC BPIGRAMS

49

Erucius, the author of five bucolic epigrams 107 (and one 108 on hunters and Pan, their patron), Zonas 109 and, at Rome, Scaevola 110• Always at Rome, Crinagoras composed bucolic epigrams in the Ciceronian period 111, whereas those of Antiphilus are dated to the Augustan period 112• The dating (and the figure) of Myrinus is uncertain; at any rate, he is included in the Garland of Philip 113, and composed an epigram of clear bucolic subject 114• Philip also did not fail to offer his own contribution to this type 115. From the i century A.D., we jump directly to the v with the epigram of Cyrus' 16 that characterises the bucolic life with staying in the shade to play the syrinx, and then to the vi with those of Eratosthenes Scholasticus117 and Agathias 118• Finally, it is impossible to date the various anonymous epigrams inspired by rustic themes 119, among which number at least three bucolic compositions 120• To recapitulate, the most creative period and greatest flowering of bucolic epigram is the first half of the iii century B.C., with the experimentations of Anyte, Leonidas, Mnasalces and Callimachus. It is significant that in the same period interest in bucolic poetry was also shared particularly by other literary genres, as demonstrated by the Theocritean

107. AP 6.96, 255; 7.174; 9.237, 558. The Garland of Philip opens with this poet: see Gow-Page, Garland 2: 278 -9. HIS. AP 9.824. 109. AP 9.556, even if a.beady mannered (Pan asks the Nymphs whether thay have seen the beautiful Daphnis while he was bathing). In contrast, AP 9.226 is rustic (Pan is connected with bees). On the relationship between the epigrams of 2.onas and Glaucus, see Arland (1937: 70). 110. AP 9.217. 111. In fact, only AP 7.636, in which there is also contamination with the sub-genre of epitaphs for those lost at sea. Crinagoras also composed two generically rustic epigrams, AP 6.232 and253. Thyillus, who composed a rustic dedication of trees and a foWltain to Pan (AP 6.170), seems to have worked at Rome in the same period. 112. AP 7.622; AP 9.71 develops instead the simple motif of resting in the shade, without 'bucolic' implications. Apollonidas, who composed a rustic dedication of a beekeeper(AP 6.239), also datesto the Augustan-Tiberianperiod. 113. See Gow-Page, Garland 2: 319. 114. AP 7.703. 115. AP 6.99. 116. AP 9.136. 117. AP 6.78. 118. AP 6.32. 119. AP 7.321, epitaph of a farmer;AP 9.142, with the motifs of thirst and Pan; Pl. 189, in which Pan guards the beehives; Pl. 264b, on an image of the Nymphs erected close to a spring that quenches the thirst. 120. Pl. 12, 17, 227. The classification of AP 1.711 is uncertain, since the same person is mentioned in reference to bees, traps for hares and the valleys in which the flocks pasture.

50

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO lHEOCRITUS

Idylls. Apart from sporadic appearances in the ii-i centuries (Hennocreon. Glaucus and Meleager), bucolic epigram found devotees anew in the i century B.C., above all with Erucius. Also for this period, it is possible to establish a connection with different literary genres, such as the followers of Theocritus who composed several spurious poems of the corpus, Moschus, Bion and especially the author of the Lament for Bion 121• But the i century B.C. also signals the beginning of the popularity of this epigrammatic type at Rome. The composition of a bucolic epigram by Scaevola fits perfectly within the preference for bucolic themes demonstrated by some of the poets of the so-called circle of Lutatius Catulus, who probably first introduced them to the Roman world 122• The epigrammatists of the Ciceronian period who cultivated the bucolic (Crinagoras) or rustic (Thyillus) type should probably be seen in relation to contemporary bucolic editions and Theocritean commentaries (Artemidorus of Tarsus and Theon). Therefore, they should be considered 'preparatory' to the taste that produced the Virgilian Eclogues a few years later 123• Epigrammatic production of the Augustan period (Antiphilus and Apollonidas), in contrast, doubtless reflects the literary climate generated by Virgil's Eclogues, or even, with regard to the more generally rustic epigrams, the Georgics. With the beginning of the Imperial period, bucolic epigram suffers an abrupt halt, only to reappear anew in the late Antique period, in authors who can be traced back to the Garland of Agathias (Cyrus, Eratosthenes Scholasticus and Agathias himself). For this period, however, it is difficult to establish parallels with bucolic taste in other literary genres and authors, both Latin and Greek. One must think rather of a completely 'internal' influence inspired by earlier epigrammatic models. Nevertheless, it is significant to note that the continuation of Latin bucolic poetry both in the Neronian period (Calpumius Siculus and the

121. The bucolic Vienna papyrus (P. Vind. Rainer 29801) seems to be of a still later period. For the various hypotheses on the dating of this text, as interesting as it is problematic, sec Faitelli (1994). whom I would like to thankfor allowing me to read his doctoral thesis, and Bemsdorff (1999: 28-41). 122. See Piccirillo (1984: 544), who notes that the custodes ovium are mentioned in a fragment of Porcius Licinus (fr. 6 M.), just as Daphnides (the freedman and beloved of Lutatius Catulus) is called 'lover of Pan' and thus Lutatius Catulus 'disguises himself' precisely as Pan (for a full survey and commentary on preneotcric epigrams, see A.M. Morelli 2000). According to Fedcli (1991: 77). moreover, "the existence at Rome, towards the midi century B.C., of a vulgata on Pan and his shepherds" songs as elements of civilisation is presumed at least by Lucretius (4, 580ff.; 5, 1379ff.)'". 123. See Fedeli (1991: 77).

BUCOLIC EPIGRAMS

51

Carmina Einsidlensia) and in the iii century A.O. (Nemesianus) does not conform with contemporary Greek epigrammatic production, in contrast to what occurs in the i century B.C. and the Augustan period. In the same way, not even the revival of the 'pastoral' motif in the Greek sphere in Longus' Daphnis and Chloe of the ii-iii century A.O. provoked, strangely, a revival of the bucolic type until the v century A.O.

/.4. The influence o/Theocritus and of the corpus bucolicum Another fundamental aspect that must be examined is if and how much the model of the bucolic Idylls of Theocritus, unquestionably considered in antiquity the archetype of bucolic poetry, influenced this epigrammatic type 124• The earliest Theocritean imitations (idylls 8 and 9) date with all probability already to the mid iii century B.C., very shortly after the death of the poet 125• The spurious bucolic poems (idylls 20 and 27) are contemporary with or immediately after Bion (midi century B.C.), at any rate earlier than Artemidorus 126• It is therefore very likely that bucolic epigrams also reflect at least partially the conception of bucolic poetry that had slowly been evolving in the centuries following Theocritus. They can therefore have been influenced by the concept of 'bucolicity' typical of the reception phase, different from that original. The 'models' of epigramrnatists can therefore have been both Theocritus himself and the various poems of the corpus acknowledged as bucolic 127 • Although there is substantial homogeneity in the choice of constituent elements and subjects that always revolve around motifs and themes -as we have seen- relatively constant and fixed, in agreement with a general trend both epigraphic and epigramrnatic 128, nonetheless bucolic epigram does not seem to have had its own uniform and distinctive dialectal 'code'. Contrary to bucolic poetry, that seems instead to have preferred at least a Doric patina 129, some epigrams completely lack even

124. On this, see in general Kehr (1880: 22-35). 125. Arland (1937: 63-5). 126. Arland (1937: 80). 127. On this problem, see supra, §§I.I and 1.2 (esp. pp. 29-34). 128. On the dialectal heterogeneity of epigram, see Kock (1910); Buck (1923); Palumbo (1987; 1993-1994). On dialectal modifications caused by transmission of epigrams known in both the literary and epigraphic sources, see Tiberi (1996). 129. This use is considered already an acknowledged fact in the l.AtMnt for Bion, in dies also the Aoopic;;dotM (II. I lf.). which when Bi(OVt£8wu:v 6 f3co1C6M>C;

52

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

a superficial Doric patina 130 whereas other compositions are markedly Doricising 131 ; in others, the forms of Homeric poetic language (therefore Ionic) coexist with Doric forms 132• Moreover, the Doricising epigrams themselves can often be explained by the general choices of the individual epigrammatist (I am thinking for example of Anyte and Leonidas) and not necessarily by Theocritean imitation. Alternatively, for some epigrammatists the adoption of a Doric patina could derive from an epigrammatic model that already used it On the basis of these assumptions, only a few very specific dialectal traits can be traced back directly, and exclusively, to Theocritus or the bucolic tradition and thereby betray their influence. But even in these cases it is always necessary to evaluate the data with caution, thanks to the ambiguous and contradictory behaviour of the papyrological and manuscript traditions. In many cases, the choice of one dialectal form rather than another is completely subjective and dependent on the attitude of the editor 133• Thus, for some phenomena, doubt will always remain as to how much they are directly ascribable to Theocritus and how much they are instead the result of the choice of the reception/tradition. I am referring in particular to the problem of the spelling -a6- for -l;- that seems to have been so characteristic of 'Doric' Theocritean poems (among which figure the bucolic ones) 134• This seems to be the only trait dialectally 'labelled' of some epigrams. Thus, if in a Leonidean image the shepherd Ol>pi,ol seated on a rock while the animals graze (AP 7 .657), in Cyrus (AP 9.136) or in the anonymous Pl. 227 the same verb appears in the form Ol>picr&.ov.An analogous choice of spelling occurs with another verb in a rustic epigram of 'Plato' (AP 9.823.3 µElicr6E-rm) and in the anonymous Pl. 12.3 (µEAicr&.ov).There the contraction in -EU (l.1 f PXEU.. .i,Eu) also appears, that was typical, among other literary languages, of the Doric of Theocritus as well. In conclusion, the spelling choice in favour of -a6- in the epigrams could refer not to Theocritus, but to the manner in which it was decided to transmit the text of Theocritus in a particular period. 130. Cf. e.!(. AP 6.37 (anonymous): 7.518 (Callimachus); 9.71 (Antiphilus); Pl. 17 (anonymous). 131. Cf. e.g. AP 6.32 (Agathias); 7.174 (Erucius); 9.558 (Erucius). 132. Cf. e.g. AP 6.334 (Leonidas); 7.703 (Myrinus); 9.313 (Anyte); Pl. 230 (Leonidas). 133. On the dialect of Theocritus and on difficulties due to transmission, see Darms (1981), Gallavotti (1984) and especially Molinos Tejada (1990); see also Hunter (1996: 31-45). 134. On this problem, see Arena (1956); Stanford (1968); Gallavotti (1984: 5-6); Molinos Tejada (1990: 120-31).

BUCOLIC EPIGRAMS

53

For the earliest representatives, such as Anyte and Leonidas, it is not methodologically correct to assume a direct relationship to and imitation of Theocritus. The close chronological proximity of the three (Anyte seems to be a little earlier) makes it difficult to establish who proposed the model and who reused il It is more logical to consider Anyte and Leonidas135 followers of the same taste and stimuli that led Theocritus to produce his bucolic Idylls. The spark of interest in bucolic themes, triggered perhaps by Philoxenus 136 and Lycophronides 137 at the end of the iv century B.C., was taken up by poets of the early Hellenistic period according to their favourite genre. Anyte, followed by Leonidas, 'invented' bucolic epigramand Theocritus (who at any rate could also pay homage to epigram 138) bucolic idyll. Among the contemporaries of Theocritus, however, it is necessary to make an exception for Callimachus and his epigram on Astacides (AP 7.518), that, to set aside the more or less programmatic value that one decides to attribute to it, without doubt presupposes idyll I of lbeocritus 139• With Mnasalces (AP 9.324), even though his dating is uncertain, we probably come very close to the mid iii century 140, that is to the period immediately after the death of Theocritus and contemporary with the authors of idylls 8 and 9 141• Mnasalces is working therefore when the phase of Theocritean 'reception' has already begun. This reception tends to privilege in particular certain aspects of the poetic production of Theocritus, namely bucolic idylls. It is not haphazard that his 'programmatic' epigram is found precisely in this primordial phase of bucolic reception. In this poem, the connection between the syrinx, the shepherds (who live on mountains) and the Muse dypia (l. 4) appears as acknowledged and distinctive with respect to erotic poetry, symbolised by Aphrodite. This identification of bucolic poetry with the reality of shepherds and with clear exclusion of the love theme reflects the same conception that produced the spurious idylls 8 and 9, in which 'bucolicity' is still principally connected with shepherds and their world; love, that characterises a good part of later bucolic production beginning with Moschus through to idyll 27 142, has not 135. On similarities between Leonidas and Theocritus. see Kehr (1880: 34-5). 136. With his Galatea: see PMG 815-824. 137. PMG 844, on which see also infra, the commentary on ep. I, p. 123. n. I 6, and on ep. 2, p. 135, n. 29. 138. On the authenticity of the epigrams attributed to Theocritus. see infra eh. 6. 139. See supra. §1.3, p. 47f. 140. See Arland (1937: 65) and Gow-Page 2: 400. 141. Arland (1937: 63-5); see also Reed (I 997: 11-2). 142. On love as a characteristic element of the bucolic poetry from Moschus onwards. see Arland (I 937: 71 and 80).

54

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THF.OCRITUS

yet made its triumphal entrance. With Glaucus, Zonas and Meleager 143, in contrast, little more than a century later, the motif of love is already so deep-rooted that some of their bucolic epigrams focus precisely on the love of Pan for Daphnis, the figure perhaps most characteristic of all Greek bucolic poetry. Moreover, in Glaucus the connection of Daphnis with kids (l. 2) rather than cows demonstrates the scant comprehension of the pastoral hierarchy that characterises post-Theocritean bucolic poetry beginning with the author of idyll 8 144• One can perhaps identify in Erucius the influence of the spurious idyll 25, to which there seem to be several allusions in AP 9.237. Thus, a Pomc6).oc;offers a libation to Heracles A.£tovt01tCWIMlof Bion were also included under this label150• The epigram of Antiphilus might reflect this conception that fuses the world of the shepherd (represented by the l3ouxoiµT1V)with erotic motifs (the honey-thief modelled on Eros). Moreover, the only other rustic epigram by a known author with a character connected with bees, AP 6.239 of Apollonidas 151, is always dated to the Augustan period or immediately afterwards. Thus, it is possible that the motif of the honeycomb derives as well from 'bucolic' poetry mediated through the 'rustic' model of the Georgics of Virgil, where bee-keeping receives very special attention in book 4 (granted obviously that the work of Virgil was known to Antiphilus and Apollonidas). The last bucolic epigrams, those of late Antiquity, are heavily standardised and already manifestly mannered. In Cyrus (AP 9.136) the world of the shepherd is represented as the longed-for and lamented antithesis to life in the city; the essence of pastoral life is identified with staying seated in the shade of a tree or cliff picn o\ no1µtvt[c;J, on which, see Peek (1942: 61, no. 104) and Borgeaud (1988: 159). The entire group of inscriptions /G IF 4826-4840 comes from a grotto of Pan and the Nymphs (on which, see infra and Peek 1942: 59-68, nos. 99-116). With the exception of JG IF4833, they dale to the Imperial period, especially the iii-iv century A.O. The dedicators, always excluding /G 112 4833, are not specified as shepherds or the like. 157. Borgeaud (1988: 159-60). 158. See Weller (1903): the grotto, in use from 600 B.C. to 150 B.C. was the site of the cult of Pan and the Nymphs. In the second phase of its use, between the reigns of Constantine and Arcadius, it was given over to a Christian cult (Weller 1903: 283-5). Among the inscriptions, three mention the Nymphs as dedicatees (Dunham 1903: nos. 2, 5, 8), two Pan (Dunham 1903: nos. 12 and 13). 159. Dunham (1903: 292) no. 8: t6v6£ tai(c;) vu(µ)q,ataw· ho Icipovoc; hA11t6Aoc; or ha11t61..oc;(that is clearly the preferred reading). This inscription is dated to 475 B.C. by Weller (1903: 283).

58

11IE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCIUTUS

and essential texts, not longer metrical compositions that could have served as models for literary epigrams. An inscription from Aegina, of uncertain but definitely very late date, seems to be an exception (Kaibel 271) 160 : 0(>1ctn 1C11POXU'tOUn ICaT'oi>pta T£p1tOµ£ai>i..oic; 7rTJKTi6~.o(S-r'livrpotc;, oi>6tv6ptmv f)\f'\7r£'t11A.Otc;, fixcl> 6' oi>cpt)..tro,oi>-rtp,roµt dypov6µotmv· fpya dv6poc;6' d8u6i1Cou,ro8trov 1t£pt1Cai..i..ta 'Aµ1t£A.\O\) mctp-rroKai -rtp,roµat, fv8a IC£Moooat fcrcrram -rtp1t6µt[v]at ,r)..a-ravmcr[t]Kai i'>6atlo[tmv. I no longer take delight on the mountains in the flutes of a pektis fixed with wax, nor in the grottoes, nor in the trees with their high foliage. I no longer love Echo. I no longer take pleasure in the inhabitants of the fields. Rather, lamenting the splendid actions of a man of righteous judgement, Ampelius, I jump and take delight there where the Muses take delight in the plane trees and brooks 161•

Kaibel considered this inscription an epitaph that a farmer had carved on the tomb of a friend 162, but Boyance suggested correctly that the speaker in the text is none other than Pan, for whom it is befitting to leave the mountains, his usual abode (1. 1), the syrinx 163 (11.lf.) and love for Echo (1. 3). Therefore, one must imagine the presence of a statue of Pan within a temenos erected in honour of a dead man (Ampelius) and consecrated to the Muses 164• No doubt, this inscription calls to mind bucolic epigrams, through both the presence of Pan connected with the mountains and the syrinx, as well as the general setting in a locus amoenus. But it recalls more precisely AP 7.535 of Meleager, in which Pan, after the death of Daphnis, no longer wishes to live with the goats on the mountaintops (11.lf. 00K&8' 6µou :XtµapOl tpay61touc; optrov nav t8&A.OlKopuq>ac;},since now there is no longer anything pleasing to him in this setting (1. 3 ti y).uKi>µot, ti 1to8&tvov tv o6p&mv;). In both cases, the death of someone (Ampelius or Daphnis) provokes the same reaction in Pan of abandoning his traditional habitat for a new and foreign one. Similarly, this abandonment of old 160. Sec Kaibelad loc.: "Epigramma recentissimum". 1be inscription is JG 4.53, on which, sec also Boyance (1937: 345-7); Borgcaud (1988: 61, n. 160); Robert (1948: 513). Sec also Kaibel 829. 161. 1be text is that of Kaibel; the translation is based on that of Boyance (1937: 346). 162. Sec Kaibel, ad Joe. 163. On bucolic instruments and the presence of lt1'11Ctic; in this context, sec infra, the commentary on epigram 5. 164. Boyance (1937: 346-7), who compares this text to the Cnidian inscription Kaibel 781, for which, sec infra, the commentary on epigram 4, p. 153f.

BUCOLICEPIGRAMS

59

habits is stressed in both by the anaphora of o{nctn and motivated by the absence of every joy in the old way of life. It would seem that the author of the epitaph had in mind the Meleagrean model; otherwise, one must propose that Meleager was inspired by an epigraphic/epigrammatic motif more precise and common than one would think. Another example of the connection, even if weak, between bucolic epigrams and epigraphic material is provided by inscriptions carved on springs and fountains 165• Yet, it has already been shown that the presence of a fountain is not in itself sufficient to characterise the text in which it appears as bucolic 166• The bucolic theme seems therefore to have inspired exclusively artistic phenomena, either in literature or the visual arts 167• It does not seem to have had other contact in daily reality except for the inspiration of ambience and characters. This hypothesis would seem to be confirmed by a metrical inscription (GVI 1312, Alexandria, ii century B.C.) 168 which apparently contains elements that can be traced back to bucolic motifs. In her topical appeal to the passer-by, the defunct initially mentions the cowherds and shepherds ( !), who habitually pass by there. But she invokes the 'travelling poet' as the exclusive addressee of the message, inviting him to read her name on the tomb and to go away only after he has paid homage at the tomb and learned that the dead woman has left a husband and three children: &l Kai j3ouKOA.Ol av6p&~ b6ov 6iaµ&iP&'t& 'tTJV6&, Kai noiµva~ otcov q,tpp&-r&µ1'1)..ov6µ01, tilla croMooo&i01~ Kaµ[ci-ro]1~-r&0paµµtv' b6t-ra, tax& Kai aMJJcra~ «criiµ' 'AliVT1~• am01· «xatp'» &lncl>v6i~ [6' a){l-ro~ fxo1~ -r66&.-reKva 6t A&inco -rpi~u-yaKai no0tov-ra av6pa ).t)..oma 66µ01~.

Even if you cowherds and shepherds, who lead flocks of sheep to pasture, pass along this road, I address you, traveller raised through the toil of the Muses. Stop and go away after you have said, "This is the tomb of Aline". And having said "Rejoice", may you have twice as much joy. I left at home three sons and a husband who laments me.

Reading only the first couplet, the mention of the ~OUICOA.Ol and µT)Aov6µotcould mislead one into thinking that a comparison to the literary fiction had been found in the epigraphic reality. Nevertheless, the strong contradiction (I. 3 tUM) that follows makes one understand

165. See E. Curtius (1859). 166. See supra, §1.2. 167. See in particular Brunn (1879) and Nicosia (1968: 79-99). 168. I would like to thank Peter Bing for having discussed this inscription with me.

60

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO llIBOCRITUS

immediately that the audience of the epitaph is not a shepheni, but rather the traveller MoUCJf:iot; 1eaµatot; t£8paµµtvo; (I. 3). But why are the shepherds so vigorously, I would say so scornfully, rejected? And why must the only reader allowed be necessarily a poet? Perhaps because Aline was a poetess? In any case, if the shepherds were seen as the only addressees of an inscription concerning a woman of similar social class, one could think of an actual epitaph set completely in the world of shepherds both with regard to the dead woman as to the reader. The presence of the poet, however, necessarily shifts the axis of the evaluation of the text. Although there are no other metrical inscriptions that can be classified as 'bucolic', a survey of texts with 'rustic' references can contribute to the creation of a more complete picture of the popularity that certain motifs and images enjoyed within the epigraphic sphere. As far as regards funerary inscriptions in verse, with the exception of the enigmatic CEG 475 (Athens, 404-387 B.C.), the epitaph of an dvitp cptlo1tp6f3ato;, in some cases the deceased was a hunter: in GV/ 406 (Thrace, ii-iii century A.O.) a 1CUV11y6;, / nolloi>; [tv] crraoim; 1tA.ft~a; P6a;, was killed by a Pou; aypto;, whereas GVI 1918 (Crete, ii-i century B.C.) speaks of a youth saying that (II. 7f.) Nuµcpat 6' 'Yopiaoe; Kai bµtcrno; oupemv 'Axco, / to~6ta, 6i~11vtal O'QV 0"1CUA.a1erov tE poav 169• More frequently, the verses linger over the description of the locus amoenus in which the defunct reposes. If sometimes the place is defined simply as fpvemv eonetalot; xci>pov... 70 [0'1CtEp6v]' , elsewhere, in contrast, this is an alcro; 1eap1tot61Co;171, with Nymphs and a tomb dyx60t laivt11; aGlaKo; u6po[cp6pou] 172, or else flanked by a tree and n11yai173• The most complete picture 174 envisages that (II. 7-12) dA.A.ll µ&7tUVotvopo~ xapi.&v7t&pi(>i.Ol(OV dv&p7t&I K'UKA.60ev, &UKllp1to1~ KA...[-] / t:lpla Kai TCWlpCD6J.l(i>c; d>..oxq, Ka-ra8pi ('Strong Heracles, slave of his wife, looks after the wool and the two baskets, serving Omphale'). 222. Guarducci (1979: 276). 223. See Guarducci (1979: 278-9).

tw

BUCOLIC EPIGRAMS

71

griffins, but does not mention the quiver, substituted instead by a bow; tripods, completely absent from the image, are added: nmav~ KA.UtOV dpµa, Pl~ cp6pµly~t£ >..iyta, ypU1t£1eta,sometimes even the action is described by 6v1C£l, aryballos of Corinthian form. Again on a votive tablet from Corinth, Amphitrite is designated with the hexameter clause Ilon:1M.Fovv / &p,taa£ tav ttc va(.F)oii ffllA.lVliy£l ootc d(.F)ttcouaav; 2) Mt'16£lav 1aacov yaµt£,, tc:H.£ta, 6' 'Aq,po6ita; 3) Aatoi6ac; oitoc; tcix' livcu;(.F)£1Cci(.F)Epyoc; aim tcatciPX£l; 4) PAt~ 'Amll.o>v· I MoUCJCll6' dµq,' abtov xapi£l(j xo~ oopavov O~O(j tx£l, ta 6t µal.a µ£9iiCJ£l; 5) Tuv6api6a 'EA.tvav q>EpEtOVAt8pav 6' H.tc:£{l)tov 'A8ava8£v; 6) (F)lcplMµac;, O~O(j t£ Kocov 1t£plµapvatal abtoii; 7) tati jJpotci>v,o 6' fXIDV'AyaµtµV(l)v; 8) 'EpµEiac; 66' 'Ah~civOlrtoc; µi:v tions, monographs on virtues and vices, the lists of miraculous deeds and interventions of famous men, historical miscellanea and collections of common places in the fonnation of ancient biography, see Fairweather (1974; 1983); Lefkowitz (1981). 52. Scholars do not agree as to whether the first canons were established in Alexandria, through the work of Aristophanes and Aristarchus, or in Pergamum. Still others connect their origin to Caecilius of Caleacte in Rome. In general see Krohnert ( 1897), but for an exhaustive and very UJ>-to-datesurvey of the various critical positions and at the same time a focused view of the concept of 'canons', see Nicolai (1992: 251-65). 53. On these epigrams, see Barbantani (1993) and Burzacchini (1997). 54. On ancient heurematology, see Kleingiinther (1933) and Thraede (1962); for the texts, see Krcmmer ( 1890). The flourishing of Hellenistic catalogical heurcmatology was already anticipated by Critias in the v century 8.C., but for the actual beginning of this genre as a specialised literature it is necessary to wait until the iv century. Simonides of Ceos, homonymous of the famous poet, wrote a collection of EUpT)µa-ra in three books at the end of the v or beginning of the iv. Hellanicus (son?) perhaps produced as many and even Ephorus composed a 7tEpi Eupttµcmov. With the Peripatetic school, heurematological literature finally became an autonomous field of study. independent from both philosophy and historical ethnography. Straton wrote two books on inventions in open polemic with Ephorus. The works of Eudemus of Rhodes and the two books of 7tEpi EUpttµimov by Theophrastus arc also to be traced back to the peripatetic circle. Naturally. authors of worlcs on single arts and disciplines arc not Jacking; they must most likely have contained references to their inventors as well. This is the case of the 7tEpi µmxmcij... elv dyopfl (I. 17). Hermesianax, in contrast, states that the inhabitants of Cos erected a statue to Philitas bno nAatavq> (fr. 7.76 Powell) that very probably stood in the agora or at any rate in a well-known and frequented place on the islandn. These honorific statues in fact were usually erected in public places, along streets, in squares, beside temples and sanctuaries. In the Temple of Aphrodite at Argos there was a statue of Telesilla 78 • Along the north side of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia there was a group of Homer, Hesiod and Orpheus, the works of Dionysus of 70. See infra, p. 95. 71. See infra, Appendix. 72. Moreover, one must not forget the enormous increase in the Hellenistic period of requests from cities for self-commemorative praises. This circumstance resulted in an unprecedented mobility of intellectuals: see Guarducci (1926-1929: 629-30); Cameron (1995: 47-53). 73. FD 3.3 192, II. 9f. The identification of the two figures with the celebrated Alexandrian epigrammatists seems certain. 14. JG 9.1 2 16A,l.24: TToot1ilirrrrro1tci>ttmypaµµatorrotci>t TTtllairot. 75. For the list oftex1s, see Guarducci (1926-1929: 631-40 and 648-57). 76. SH 105, for which see also infra, the commentary on ep. I, p. 122, n. 9. 77. On the sile of the plane tree, see also however the convincing hypotheses of Hardie (1997). 78. Paus. 2.20.8.

EPIGRAMS ON POETS

93

Argos 79• There was a statue of Stesichorus in the agora of Himera 80, in that of Metapontus an imageof Aristeas 81 and in the agora of Thespiae a bronze statue of Hesiod 82 • In the prytaneum of Syracuse there was a statue of Sappho 83 • A celebrated statue of Anacreon was dedicated on the Acropolis in Athens 84 • Statues of poets erected within or in the immediate vicinity of temples and sanctuaries, such as the statue of a seated Hesiod in the Mouseion of Helicon 85, merit a separate discussion. This practice falls more properly within the more general sphere of hero cults 86 that were bestowed with a certain frequency on famous poets of the past; they enjoyed great popularity precisely in the Hellenistic period. At Orchomenus in Boeotia religious honours were granted to the tomb of Hesiod 87 , at Lampsacus to that of Anaxagoras 88• At Delphi, rituals of the cult of Pindar89were regularly perfonned.Sophocles was heroised in the same place, even if his heroisation probably was due not so much to bis poetic merits, but rather to his religious importance for having introduced the new cult of Asclepius to Athens90 . Later, there seems to have been a cult of Sappho at Lesbos 91 • Among the Hellenistic poets, Posidippus, if not Philitas as well, hoped that be would receive a hero cult 92 • Moreover, the possibility that Callimachus was heroised in the agora of Cyrene now seems very probable 93• Among these heroisations-Of poets, that also influenced portraiture 94 , the most famous are doubtless those of Homer and Archilochus. The presence of a Ho~reion at Smyrna is attested by Strabo (14.1.37). The statue of the poet, to whom the city also dedicated the minting of a

79. Paus. 5.26.2. 80. Cic. Verr. 2.35. 81. Hdt. 4.15. 82. Paus. 9.27 .5. The material is collected by Schwingenstein ( 1977: 64-9). 83. Cic. Vt>rr.4.56f.; see also H.K.E. Kohler (185()..1853: 275). 84. See infra, Appendix andthe commentary on ep. 17, §2. 85. Paus. 9.30.3 86. See Farnell (1921: 361-7); P. Zank.er(1995: 154-5). 87. Paus. 9.38.3. 88. Arist. Rh. 2.23; Ael. VH 8.19. 89. Paus. 9.23.3. Plut. Num. 4; and, in general, Farnell 90. See Vit. Soph. 95; Etym Mag. s. v . .A&~icov; (1921: 364), but esp. Connolly (1998). 91. Attested on coins: see Farnell (1921: 367). 92. This at least is the hypothesis advanced by Hollis (1996), even though, personally, I do not agree with always and tout coun identifying honorific statues with true divinisation. 93. See Beschi (1996: 29-30). 94. See infra, Appendix.

94

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCIUTUS

particular copper coin called the •0µ11p&1ov9S,must have stood in the building. The Homereion of Alexandria commissioned by Ptolemy Philopator, in which the statue of Homer was surrounded by those of the cities that claimed to be his birthplace 96 , was extremely famous. There was another Homeric cult at Argos 97 • It has already been mentioned that at Olympia, beside the Temple of Zeus, there was a group of Homer, Hesiod and Orpheus 98 , whereas at Delphi one could see the &bc6va 99 • •0µ11pou XaAKT)Vtxi ', ICP'l'tTjpCI', tcnii..ato ICU\ Ki& to ~T)V,/ Kc; liv f't' tv M&yapo,i; 6d1CWto to66& tacpoc;;

100

1llE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

the desire that the tomb of the poets might be covered by vegetation, usually ivy or flowers. 1bis wish is apparently curious since, in contrast to our own, it was not Greek 127 (nor Roman) custom to decorate tombs with plants and flowers. A valid attempt to explain this topos bas been proposed by Luck 128, according to whom the motif of the flowering of the tomb had a more literary than religious origin. The motif is already attested in Greek literary epigrams of the very earliest Alexandrian period (in fact, one example, AP 1.24, is ascribed already to •simonidcs'), whereas it appears only from the i century A.D in inscriptions 129• Still more significant would be the fact that the evidence of the topos in anthologies is entirely for epigrams on poets, except for the isolated example of AP 7.321 (anonymous), not by chance about an old fanner or gardener. But given these premises, GV/ 1911, an inscription on the poet (!) Theodorus dated to the first half of the iv century B.C. 130, cannot fail to be striking. 1bis inscription confirms the hypothesis according to which the origin of the motif was tied to poets, and then was only later extended to youths who died prematurely. Anacreon seems to have been panicularly tied to the motif of flowering on the tomb, since this element characterises three epigrams on this poet. In two examples, the plant that must grow is a vine, so that the drunkard 131 Anacreon will not be deprived of his favourite beverage even in the afterlife: AP 7.24 ('Simonides') 'Hµtpi 1tav8ti..1C'tt1pa, µt8utpocpt µi)ttp 61tc.opac;,/ ... Triiou fJPi)oe1ac; 'Avmcp£iovtoc; tn· lbcpn / O"tT)A.TI Kai A.£Jt'tq>xc.oµat\ 'tOU0£ tacpou, / cbc;o cp1.A.CIKPT'l't~ t£ Kai olvofkipric; cp1.i..6Kroµoc; / ... K'i)v xOovi / ... µ1.V dti ttyy01. vottpit op6ooc; and AP 7.31.5ff. (Dioscorides) af>t6µatai to1 Kpfiva1 dvapi..66ata 6poa6evta Kai 6 KQt(l7t\)1CV~ fp7tUll~ KEitat taic; 'E>..1Krov1amv· tai 6t µeMµcpu>..>..01 Mcpva1tiv, Il68te na1av, &e>..cpic; t1tEi 1tttpa toi3t6 tot d-yM1aev· Jxoµov 6' alµa~E\ KEpaoc;tpa-yoc;O~toc;o µa>..6c;, tepµiv9ou tp'yrov laxatov dKpeµ6va. The roses wet with dew and this thick wild thyme are for the goddesses of Helicon, the laurels with their dark leaves for you, Pythian Paean, since the rock of Delphi adorns itself with this plant for you. This homed white goat that eats the farthest branch of the terebinth will redden the altar with his blood.

[2] &a.cpvtc; 0 A.EUK6Xpco..ov, 6~i>vliKovta, veppi6a, tav 1t11pav,~ 1toK' tµa>..ocp6pe1. White-skinned Daphnis, who modulates bucolic songs on his fine syrinx, dedicated these objects to Pan: his pierced reeds, the staff and pointed javelin, the skin of a fawn and the knapsack in which he once carried apples. [3]

5

Eu6e1c;cpUA.A.Op11· d-ypEUEl6t t\) nav Kai b tOVKpOK6EvtaIlpi111toc; K1aaov tcp' lµeptq> Kpati Ka8a1tt6µevoc;, livtpov lam ateixovtec; 0µ6ppo801. d>..11.a ti> cpeuye, cpeuyeµe8Eic;unvou Kmµa Katayp6µevov. 0 Daphnis, you are sleeping on the ground strewn with leaves, resting your tired body. In fact, the stakes have just been set out on the hills. But Pan and Priapus, with his lovely head crowned with a crocus-coloured ivy wreath, are in pursuit of you. entering the cave together. But flee, flee putting aside the drowsiness that overwhelms you.

[4] T11vavtav 11.ai>pav, t681 tai 6p6ec;.al1t611.£Kaµ\jmc; ec; ~6avov dA.OlOV dvouatov, 0:AA.Cl q>llATltl 1ta16oy6vcp6uvatov K61tp16oc;f pya te1..dv.

110

5

10

15

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO TifEOCRITUS

craK~ 6' ei>ie~ 1tep16t6poµev, dtvaov 6t pei8pov dno mnM&ov navtOvt0tMO tp1crcra0i>T1 teltcra1· pt~co-yap &iµilav, Mmov tpa-yov, lipva tov tcrxm cra1eitav.dioi 6' ei>µevt~ b 0e6 1ta1eti6'de1paµev~ b 6t l}oUICOAO~ liµµ1-ya0t~El dp~euµai tl 1Cp£1CElV, &acpVl~.1Cflpo6ttq>1tVEuµanµel1t6µevo~. t-y-y~ 6t crttivte~ Mm~ 6pu~ livtpou 6mcr9ev nava tOVal-y1Pci,tavopcpavicrmµE~U1tVOU.

111

TEXT AND TRANSLATION

Would you, for the Nymphs,play somethingsweet for me on your double flute? I too taking up the pektis will begin to play something, and together with us Daphnis the cowherd will create an enchantedatmospherewith the breathof the reeds held together with wax. And standing near the thick oak behind the cave, we will deprivePan, who mounts goats, from sleep.

[6] "A 6&iA.au:tu 86pcn, ti to 1tA.tov&lKatata~e1c; MKpucn 61-yA-iJvouc; ilinac;66up6µevoc;; otxetm Q xiµapoc;,to KUA.OV ttKoc;, otxet'

5

tc;"A16av·

tpa.xuc;-yapxaMic; dµq>E1tia~E A.UKoc;. a\ 6t lCUVEc; KA.U"("(EUV't\" ti to 1tA.tov,QV\KUtiJvac; omiov oo6t ttq,pa A.&inetmolxoµtvac;; Ah poor Thyrsis, what is the use of consuming your eyes with tears by dint of crying? The kid has gone, the little one, has gone to Hades. In fact, a bad wolf has grabbedit in its clutches. Even the dogs are howling, but what is the use of it, since even the bones and the ashes of she who has gone no longerremain? 7

NiJmov ulov fA.E\1tEc;, tv QA.\K\(l 6t Kai aot6c;, Eop6µe6ov, t6µf3ou tou6e 8avci>vftuxe. aoi µtv f6pa. Oeiotcn µet' dv6paat, tov 6t 1toA.itm nµaa£UV'tl natpoc; µvroµEVO\ d>filCE ttXVTIV. The son of Apollo came even to Miletus, to meet a man, healer of illnesses, Nicias, who prays daily to him with sacrifices and who had this statue of fragrant citron carved for him, promising Eetion a high payment for his skilful hand. And that man poured all of his art into the work.

112

TifE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO 1HEOCJUTUS

9

Etivt, ~upax:6m~ tol dvitp tM' tcpitt«l "Op8rov· X£lµtpiac; µe800>vµ116aµciVUKt~ tote;. x:ai ya.p tym totoiitov fxm n6tµov, dvrl 6t nou.«c; natpi6oc; 68vdav x:eiµa, tcpeaaaµevoc;. 0 stranger, Orthon the Syracusan gives you this advice: never go around on a stormy night when you are drunk.And in fact, I had this destiny, namely to lie in a foreign land rather than in the great fatherland. 10

x'µiv touto, 8tai, x:exap,aµtvov tvvta naaa,c; -rd'>'ya).µa Etvotlftc; Oftx:t'TOµapµaplVOV, µoOOlx:~· oox t-rtpc.oc;nc; tpsi. aocpin 6' tni -rfi6t: aivov fxmv Moootmv oox:tntA.av8avt:-rm. To all nine of you, o goddesses, Xenocles has dedicated this pleasing marble offering, he who is the follower of the Muses, and no one will be able to say otherwise: being praised for this art, he does not forget the Muses.

11

5

Eoo8tvt:oc;-ro µvftµa· q>OOl"(VCOµcov t 6 dv8pcimo1;oaiµrov 9ytic&ta )..oyp6tata. This little girl went to Hades prematurely, in her seventh year, before living a long life, poor thing, missing her brother of twenty months, who had tasted cruel death. Ah, Pcristere, you who experienced a fate worthy of compassion, with what swiftness destiny arranges for human beings the saddest thing! 17

5

0aom tOVdvoptavta tOU'tOV, cI,~tv&, 01to~ icai )..ty', tnriv t; olicov fv9n;· "'Avaicptovt~ &lic6v'&toovtv Ttq1 tci>v1tp6o9' d n 1t&p1ooov~01totci>v". 1tpoo8d; ot x,ron toi; vto1m V liO&tO, tp&i; dtp&ictmtci>v7COA.A.COV &lµi l:UPT11COO'irov, u\o~ npa~ay6pao 7C&plKA.<T)~ t& tA.lVTl~· µoucrav 6' 68v&i1'1v oGnv' tq>&A.KucrciµTlv. Another is the one of Chios. I, Theocritus who wrote this work, am one of many Syracusans, son of Praxagoras and noble Philina. I have never followed another person's Muse.

5

26 "Av8pro1t&, ~rof)~1t&pupei6&0 µT16i:nap' ropTlv vautiAo~ icrOt·Kai &c;oo 1to1.i>~ civ6pi Pio~. O&iA.al& I0.&6VlK&, O'Uo' &l~A.map11v0acrov tA.8&iv f)n&iy&uKoiATJ~fµnopo~ tK I:upiT1~. fµnopo~.@ K1.&6Vt1C&" ()l)O'lV o' U7CO TTA.&lllOO~ aOtllV 7COVC07COpci>v aotfi TTA.&lllOl cruyKatEOU~. Human being, save your life and do not set sail when it is not the season, also because human life is not long. Poor Cleonicus, you were hastening towards rich Thasos, you a merchant who set out from Coele Syria, a merchant, o Cleonicus. Sailing the sea precisely at the setting of the Pleiads, you set together with the Pleiads themselves.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPIGRAMS

1 (= AP 6.336; 5 G.-P.)

1. The epigrammatic genre of epigram 1 and its function as proem This votive epigram has been considered a caption for a rural landscape in which grazing goats and perhaps statues of Apollo and the Muses are depicted 1• This assertion is derived not so much from the first four verses. in which vegetal offerings to the Muses and Apollo are simply enumerated, as from the final couplet in which the sacrifice of a goat is predicted. The demonstrative t1e&iva in I. 1, the deictic ol>toc; in I. 5, the precise information that the goat is intent on eating and, especially, the deviation between the present tense of the dedication K&itat 2 (I. 2) in reference to the offering and the future a\µit;&l (I. 5) used to indicate the performance of the sacrifice might indeed make one think of a representation. In the foreground, the objects dedicated (the roses, the terebinth and the goat that nibbles on the branch of a plant) are represented; in the background or to the side appears the altar that will be reddened with the goat's blood as well as the images of the deities. Reconstructed thus, the picture is similar to the fresco in the form of a diptych found in the House of the Epigrams at Pompeii. In one scene, the goat nibbles on a vineshoot; in the other, he is dragged to sacrifice 3 • Therefore, epigram 1, apparently votive at first, would take on an 'ekphrastic' colour in the last couplet. This final couplet would seem to suggest a description of a rural sacrificial scene rather than a simple dedication of an animal in addition to the other offerings already enumerated. This interpretation, however, is not the only one possible. The poem could be read as a votive epigram that also recounts the performance of a sacrifice. The text would not only enumerate as usual the objects dedicated and the deities to whom they are offered, but would go further to narrate as well the sacrifice of a goat, that will occur after the offering. Certainly, there are funerary epigrams that, apart from the usual formal tributes of the genre, for example, the topoi 'here lies' or 'this is the tomb or and similar formulae, focus more than anything else on the narration I. Gow 2.527; Gow-Page 2.528; Wilamowitz (1906: 120); Albiani (1996); see also supra, p. 65. 2. Cf. ~-8· AP 6.2.2 ('Simonides'), 71.4 (Paulus Silentiarius), 310.4 (Callimachus). 3. See supra, pp. 66-8. For representations of goats sacrificed or led to sacrifice on gems and cameos, see FelhnannBrogli (1996: 24-6).

122

11IE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO lllEOCRITUS

of death. Thus, a votive epigram could also linger longer on the narration of the performance of the sacrifice than on the more traditional motifs that provoked it. In conclusion, the use of the future tense in the last couplet might impart a narrative rather than descriptive tone to the text4. This composition has been labelled as 'bucolic'S, no doubt because of the presence of the tpa-y~ in the final couplet. Nevertheless, the simple presence of a goat as the future victim of a sacrifice cannot automatically place the text within a strictly 'bucolic' world, since rams and lambs, and sheep generally, together with cows were the most common victims of sacrifice in the ancient world 6 • Moreover, the epigram lacks any other element that expressly characterises its context as bucolic. The deities to whom the sacrifice is offered are not those usually connected with the bucolic world 7 and do not appear in any of the epigrams previously labelled as such 8• Rather, precisely because Apollo and the Muses are cited together, they doubtless reflect an immediate connection with the world of poetry 9 • Decisively different, however, is the assessment of the sacrifice of a goat in Pl. 17 (anonymous, in which, moreover, the motif of the blood shed on the altar also recurs, cf. ll. 5f. ooi 6i: 1eaAo6ov,/ ic:tlov liv8£µa, ic:ai dlhla ic:ai ICOOVEaV / ic:ai tciv 811poq,6vov all9 ICEXUtQl/ tm tciv Xaplpina 1eaAitv) and, not by chance, in the spurious [Id.] 8. 18 ((1t)Pl'Y'Y'... 1eaMv) is very different. With respect to the model, epigram 2 inverts only the word order that, in contrast, is respected by the author of idyll 8, but at least in the bucolic tradition, maintains significantly the Doric vocalism of the adjective 39 • Always with reference to the same line, the iunctura m'.>pt'Y'Ylµe>..io-orov is also paralleled in the lbeocritean corpus40.This time, the comparable passage would derive from µe>..io-oro.Nevertheless, one of the spurious poems, [Id.] 20.28 m'.>pt'Y'Yl the intention to refer to Theocritus as a model is clearly made explicit by the linguistic colouring of µe>..io-oroinstead of µe>..i~ro41 • Moreover, precisely in the opening verses of idyll 1, the verb µe>..io-oro(1. 2) appears along with references to the music of the syrinx (1. 3 m'.>pto-6ec;)and Pan (1. 3), all elements that characterise the introductory couplet of the epigram. Finally, the term 66va~ of 1. 3 (toi>c; tp11touc; 66vmcac;) of the epigram is only paralleled in the Theocritean corpus, again, in the spurious [Id.] 20.29. It is worth mentioning that it appears in the same context µe>..io-oro(II. 28f. luiu 6t in which the presence of the iunctura m'.>pt'Y'Yt µot to µt>..to-µa, Kai flv Pl'Y'Ylµe>..io-oro,/ 1eflv aAip MA.Ero, Kflv 2 001va1Ct,Ki\v 1tM-yta6).q)) was already pointed out4 • In contrast, the expression Pou1eo>..t1eouc;uµvouc; of I. 2, modelled in all probability on the uµvov dEio-nc; of Id. 1.61, merits a separate discussion. But, if in idyll I the role of uµvot in place of µt>..11finds a very

38. Id. 4.49 and 7.128. 39. Nevertheless, concerning these dialectal matters, doubts regarding the reliability of the tradition always exist: see supra, pp. 51f. 40. On the commonness in bucolic poetry of the verb µd.i~oµat, absent in Homer, see Faitelli (1994: 94). Cf. also epigramAP 6.73 of Macedonius on Daphnis who dedicates to Pan the tools that have already been mentioned: in I. 5, after his renunciation because of old age of the by now too exhausting pastoral life, Daphnis affirms: Elatn yap crupl'Y)'l µ&>..ia6oµat, again with the same iunctura. In the bucolic epigram AP 9.823, ascribed to 'Plato', the same nexus reappears in reference this time to Pan: I. 3 Clearly this stylistic feature had a cerairtoc; t,u:i cruplyyt µd.io6£tal &UK&Ml6q, tain popularity in bucolic poetry. 41. But on this, see supra, the observations in eh. 3, §1.4. 42. With respect to the entire Theocritean corpus, however, it should be noted that UUKOXpo>..iyrivQVOO£lV X£tpc; acp' f)µtttpric; A.atfic;,~&V£" ICOµt1tpoo£i1tuc; xuipt1v £lc;(cr)ttixt1c;1tpoc;cp1>..iou t&µtvoc; f\pcooc; 'Avny6vou· Moiicrm 6t crot £i n vtµoumv to8>..6v,d1tapxto8ai 6uiµOO'lvtyµt[A]ttric;· ICU\yap Qo16oimv 8uµt>..ri,ICU\nvov of I. 2, rightly refer to Pl. 86 (anonymous), in which the image of Priapus in question

156

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO llfEOCRITUS

Three contributions have been written about the characterisation of this image of Priapus, that all attempt to propose a valid interpretation of the term dvoua'tov with which the l;6avov is described in line 3. Trypanis ( 1970) confirms that this adjective would not make sense in the description of the statue, since it is focused on its head and phallus, just as the absence of ears accords badly with the request to listen of U. l 3ff. Therefore, he proposes to read dvoi>Ta'tov, a Homeric tenn particularly favoured by Hellenistic poets, to be understood here in two ways. On the one hand, the image would be 'intact' since it was not damaged by passers-by, as in contrast the wooden images of Priapus often tum out to be in the Priapea. On the other, the artist would have avoided. during the process of carving it, making too many mistakes and damaging the statue with the carving. If we accept this proposal, it would be necessary to delete the hapax dvo6a'to~ from Greek vocabularies. Moeller ( 1971) accepts instead the reading of the manuscripts, in so far as a Priapus dvoi>a'to~ is perfectly in line with other epithets that refer to the image in the same lines. This epithet accords especially well with the typical iconography of the phallus, usually bald, red and with a single eye; there is no room for the ears. Giangrande (1971) also sides in favour of dvoi>a'to~. considering that images of Priapus were as a rule of two types, either with the mentula and ears, or else with only the mentula, without ears. The statue described in the epigram would belong to the latter type. From these last two comments, it is therefore clear that the reading transmitted by the manuscripts should be accepted without reserve.

An analogous question arises, always in the same line, concerning the choice between the reading 'tptmc&lec; Aacpvt6oc; n68ouc;), the animals offered in the two different sacrifices (II. 15 e l 7f.) as well as the abt6loc; questioned at I. 1 who is the addressee of the epigram can also undoubtedly be traced back to the bucolic world. It is natural that an adaptation of the lexicon corresponds to this change in content. Some agreement with the Theocritean corpus is already present in the preceding lines. The aot6cplotoc; of I. 3, in fact, also recurs in the spurious (and not bucolic) [Id.] 25.208 in reference to the staff/club of Heracles in the same metrical position and in the same form (accusative singular neuter). But a much more significant coincidence is that of the clausula e00>6et 1CU1tapiooq>of I. 7 of the epigram, that is similar to other clausulae of the authentic bucolic idylls. Thus, e00>6T)c;µeliteta appears in Id. 4.25, in a line that, as already in the Odyssean model and the epigram itself, enumerates three species of plants, of which the last receives precisely the epithet e00>611c;.In Id. 11.45, the clausula is pa6tvai 1eu1taptO'O'Ol,always within a list of plants that extends through two entire lines (II. 45f.). The same iunctura is again reworked in the same place by the anonymous author of the 'bucolic' and spurious [Id.] 27.46. Another variant form of clausula occurs in Id. 22.41, d1ep61eoµot Ku1tapiooo1, always within a list of the usual three species of plants, begun in the previous line. Moreover, it should be noted that in Id. 11.45 the cypress is named together with the laurel trees, as in I. 7 of the epigram. Passing to the settion more specifically 'bucolic', it should be noted that the fsto of I. 13 that opens it can be coMected to the invitation that the anonymous al1t6loc; addresses to Thyrsis in idyll 1 to sit down not only under an elm tree, but also in front of the statue of Priapus and that 37. Cf. ~.g. Kaibel797 (Smyrna,ii A.D.), 811 (Thespiae,Hadrianicperiod), 812 (Lesbos, Romanperiod), 818 (Paros,Romanperiod); AP 6.11.5 (Sab"ius),51.9 (anonymous), 278.3 (Rhianus). 38. See supra, pp. 31 and 40ff.

EPIGRAM4

165

of the Nymphs, precisely where there are oak trees and a seat for shepherds (11.21-3): atup' 61totciv 7tt£A.tavta&hµt8a tci>tf; IlplC17tCO Kai tQVKpaviarovKat£Vavriov, ~7t£p 6 8ci>K~ ti\V~ 6 7t0lµ£VUC~Kai tai aputc;.

This passage of the famous idyll 1 could have very easily inspired the basic situation of the epigram, in which it is imagined that precisely an ahr6>..oc; is invited to reach, thanks to the directions signalled by the presence of the oaks (cf. t681 tai 6pfa:c; in I. 1 of the epigram), a small wood in which is found a statue of Ilpi.anoc; 39 • With regard to the choice of describing Priapus with the epithet xapi.etc; (I. 13), the possibility that the poet would have wished to portray the god as the benevolent protective deity of love has been pointed out. The Theocritean use of the adjective confirms this interpretation, since xapi.etc; is always used with positive connotations in contexts for the most part erotic and in reference to young boys. In Id. 2.115, it is the epithet of Philinus, the rival of Delphis, in Id. 12.20 of the di.tT1c;,in Id. 13.7 of Hylas and, finally, in the spurious [Id.] 8.1 of Daphnis, whereas in [Id.] 20.18 it refers to the young shepherd in love rejected by the city girl Eunica. Concerning the final part of I. 15, 'flv 6' dvaveucrn, I would like to recall the hexameter clausula OOKdvave6cov of Id. 14.63 and li ot µ01 To µtl10-µa, x:ai iiv crup1-yy1µElio-&o, / x:ftv al>¼ A.aA.tro,x:'fiv&i>vax:1, 14• x:iiv 1tA.ay1a6A.Q)) In post-Theocritean and later bucolic poetry, in contrast, the characterisation of bucolic music as the product of wind instruments rather than string instruments was no longer clear. Arland (1937: 75) already correctly offered fr. 10.7f. of Bion as a parallel for epigram 5. Here, the musical education given to Eros by the Po6Ta, 616-n

ao-cac;tv toic; opEow 9&ov ft£p7t£v· A.tynat yap µouauccl>tatoc;tvtot£ y£vta8cu Kai bi PouKo>..tKoic; 9aµam 61aPoTt&i\va1 Kai crup1yyano1µ£Vl1CTJV tv taic; opEm cruv8£iva1Kai >..ow nptoc; civ8pclmcov KEXPfla8al,7tA£iatcit£ Kai 1CciU1ataµt>..'1 71:0lflCJCU. 18. For the controversial dating of Nicander, see Ma.uimilla(2000).

172

11fE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO 111EOCRITUS

one could think that this is punctually reflected by epigram 5. Thus, the hand of a poet who no longer understood which elements characterised the authentic bucolic atmosphere and therefore were admissible there is revealed. The behaviour of the poet of idyll 8 is analogous, when, for example, he relates that, after the victorious competition with Menalcas, Daphnis, the Pou1e6~ par excellence, became 1tp«tKtn 7tEtpa; / li~t1;. oi> 9ripciJv ai>tov6µou; dyt).a;. 42. AP 1.9 (Damagetus) ll. 7f. a; Kai dµElAlKtOlO J3api>IO.uµtvoto voriµa / Kai tov dKTJAT'ltoV 9uµov f9E~E Al>P\l· 43. AP 7.10 (anonymous) ll.7f. £7tCO0llpaVto6t 7tEtpal / Kai 6put;, li; tpatfi to 1tpiv f9EAYEAupn.

EPIGRAMS

177

the locus amoenus by the sound of the syrinx44 or else by the breath of breeze combined with the song of the cicadas and the m>piooevof the shepherds45 • It is therefore relatively clear that legendary traditions and bucolic motifs are merged in the image presented in epigram 5. Thus, Daphnis becomes a sort of 'bucolic Orpheus' who bewitches with his music whoever listens to him. Moreover, one must not forget that a vague parallel between Daphnis and Orpheus is also possible for idyll 1, in which even the wild animals (and all nature) come to pay a final farewell to the dying Daphnis46 • Concerning the authenticity of this epigram, the same conclusions proposed for epigram 3 hold true. There is a sort of lag between the imitator, who commits a 'mistake' such as the introduction of a string instrument in a bucolic context and who demonstrates knowledge above all, and perhaps primarily, of the famous idyll 1 and the poet who, in a rather refined fashion, alludes to Theocritus by reshaping some of his lexical uses. At the same time, he demonstrates a certain confidence as well with the 'high' poetic tradition of epic, lyric and tragedy, which he uses with the clear intention of raising the stylistic level of the epigram.

44. Pl. 13.4 ('Plato'). 45. Pl. 227.4 (anonymous). In AP 9.88.6 (Philip of Thessalonica) the atmosphere of enchantment is produced by the song of the nightingale. in 10.16.4 (Theaetetus Scholasticus) by that of the cicada. 46. See Gow 2, ad Id. 1.72.

6 (= AP 9.432; 22 G.-P.)

1. The sub-genre of epitaphs for animals Not even epigram 6 has escaped the attempt to classify it as an ekphrastic composition. Gow (2: 532) defines it ambiguously as a "bucolic vignette"; in Gow-Page (2: 536), the possibility that this "vignette" could accompany a work of art is expressly excluded. In contrast, Edmonds ( 1923: 369) does not fail to label this text as well as a caption, as Legrand (1925-1927 2: 124) did before him. Van Groningen (1959: 47f.) has already rejected this interpretation. He stresses how it is difficult to imagine a representation with the details enumerated in the epigram and emphasises above all that the fact that the epigram is considered ekphrastic actually reveals a certain embarrassment in connection with the exegetic difficulty offered by the text itself. According to van Groningen, the basic motif of this composition would be 'futile', dealing with the desperation, considered excessive, of a goatherd for the death of a kid. Thus, the idea of interpreting it as an accompaniment for a painting or sculpture would only be an 'expedient' that in fact does not resolve any difficulty, but at worst adds the further problem of hypothesising a representation that agrees with the images suggested by the text. Van Groningen proposes to read the text metaphorically. Thyrsis would be none other than the 'disguise' of a person known to the poet. The kid would be a person dear to him now lost, in particular a beloved girl, as demonstrated by the expression of II. 3 (t&1co;, otxet' t; ..Aioov) and 6 (ootiov oo5t t&µpov ft£U~£ Mupco. In AP 7.191.6 (Archias), the dead jay speaks in the first person, with the typical formula 'I lie', KE iµai. The examples could continue. The other aspect that had aroused perplexity in van Groningen ( 1959: 47) is the fact that the kid is a single one, in the singular and with the article O.3 a.xiµapoc;). This led the scholar to think, as mentioned earlier, that "the singular and the article ... imply that it deals with a very precise animal and that the flock of the poor shepherd did not contain perhaps more than a single kid; that is strange." On the contrary, it has already been noted in connection with epigram 1 that in the bucolic Theocritus it is usual for shepherds to 'call by name' their animals with the adjective that indicates the colour of their coat or a deictic pronoun, or else with the article before the common name of the animal, with a strong demonstrative value 27• I would ascribe the same meaning to the

26. In particular on ep. 6 as an example of a lament by the surviving left behind, see infra, the commentary on ep. 16, §3. 27. See supra, the commentary on ep. I, pp. 127f.

184

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCJtITUS

article in the case of epigram 6. Thus the article refers to "a very specific animal", to agree with van Groningen, but in the sense of a kid easily recognisable in the flock of Thyrsis, probably a kid particularly dear to his shepherd for reasons perhaps simply affectionate. The singular does not serve to indicate that the kid was the only animal in the flock of Thyrsis, but it is used because it refers to a single, specific kid.

2. Allusions to Tbeocritus Once the epigram is framed within the bucolic type, one can examine possible inter-textual allusions to the bucolic idylls of the Theocritean corpus. It has already been noted that the character of Thyrsis appears only in idyll 1. Similarly, in the entire corpus buco/icum the verb 666poµm (I. 2 66upoµevoc;) occurs only in Id. 1.75, among other things in a situation antithetical to that of the epigram. There, it is the •bucolic' animals (oxen, bulls, heifers and calves) that mourn the dying Daphnis. It is, therefore, significant that the verb, in the only case in which it occurs in the Idylls, is used in reference to animals, even if in idyll 1 these play an 'active' role compared to the 'passive' one of the epigram. The verb 1eatatri1ero (I. I 1eatata~eic;) significantly occurs only in the bucolic idylls, connected with the •wasting away' of the Cyclops for Galatea (Id. 11.14) and that of the dying Daphnis mentioned in the Thalysia (l. 76)2B.The image of the animals that, dying, go to Hades (I. 3 otxet' tc; Ai6av) reappears in idyll 4, in connection with the cows of Aegon, neglected by their master (I. 26f. q>eu q>eu Paaeuvtm 1eai tai Pote;... / de; 'Ai6av)29. The reference to the bones and ashes of the dead kid (I. 5f. titvac; / omiov oo6e ttq>pa 30 lebtetm olxoµtvac;) recalls, in an inverted manner, the •skin and bones' to which a calf, saddened by the absence of Aegon, is reduced in idyll 4 (II. 15f. titvac; µev 6it tot tac; 1t6pnoc; aota AEAE\1ttat / tdxnia) 31 • The antithesis between the dogs as protectors of the flock and the wolf its enemy of 11.4f. goes back explicitly to idyll 5 (I. 106 1eftµiv tmi 1Cl)(l)V q>tA.01toiµvioc;,6c; li>1eoc; 0

28. The other occurrence of the verb is in Id. 14.26, but the conjecture of Pohlenz Kaucpp6yEto (see the commentary of Gow 2, ad /oc.) is to be preferred to the readingof the manuscripts (KatnaKEto). 29. Gow, in the commentary on I. 3 of the epigram, also mentions [/d.] 25.271 as a parallel passage, in reference to the Nemean lion killed by Heracles. 30. For ttq,pa in funerary epigrams, see AP 7.175.4, 382.2, 401.7, 405.2, 444.8 and 482.4. 31. But cf. also epigram 30 Pf. of Callimachus (= AP 12.71), in which the Thessalian Cleonicus is reduced to bones and hair (I. 3 oatta crot Kai µouvov ftt tpiXE~)-

EPIGRAM6

185

compared to the compound with li-yx£1)32• Similarly, the simple 1t1Cll;co dµcpi in the epigram (I. 4 dµcpe1tia~E) appears again in idyll 4 (I. 35 1t1a~ac;)33• And again in the same idyll 4 (I. 60 cl>oeila1E), the adjective oev..a1oc; occurs in the same fonn in which it is found in the epigram (I. 1 c1odAU1E), a fonn less usual than the more common oe1l6c; 34• One must not, however, overlook the debt that this epigram owes in general to the poetic tradition. For example, oeila10c; (I. 1), the lengthened fonn of 0£1l6c;, is usually tragic 3s, as is the tautologic expression 01-ylT}vouc;d>n~(1. 2) 36• The euphemistic use of otxoµm (11. 3 and 6) for 'to die' 37 is primarily epic and tragic, whereas tt1eoc; (I. 3) is the poetic tenn for tt1evov, 'son'. The formation of the denominative JCAU-y-ytco, finally (I. 5, hapax), finds parallels only in tragedy (1ela-yyaivco in Aesch. Eum. 131 and JCAU'YYrtVco in Soph. fr. 959.4 R. and Ichn. 308). The linguistic model, therefore, in addition to Theocritus, is tragedy above all. As far as then regards the dialectal guise of the epigram 38 , it is mostly Doric (I. 1 t6 and the d in 1eatata~E1C;, I. 3 Q, I. 4 tpaX(>c;, I. 5 the contraction and the termination in day-yeiivt1, in addition to ltvi1ea and f'lV~, I. 6 6atiov and olxoµtvac;). In conclusion, the Theocritean referent of this epigram is not only or principally the usual, extremely well known idyll 1, as was the case of the preceding epigrams, but also and especially idyll 4. For this reason, one would be inclined towards the authenticity of this epigram more than for the other epigrams already examined. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the reworkings are much less clear and marked. Nevertheless, the protagonist of the epigram bears the same name as a well-known lbeocritean character 39 • Arland (1937: 72) had already noted that the sentiment towards animals expressed in this epigram recalls more the author of the spurious idyll 8 than the authentic Theocritus. Both these

32. But cf. also the bucolic epigram AP 9.558 (Erucius), in which the tpay~ docs not sleep until the dogs have captured the wolf that wanders around the sheepfold. (see supra, p. 39) 33. Sec Gow 2, ad foe. 34. Sec Gow 2, ad foe. and esp. in the commentary on ep. 16, pp. 267f. and 276. 35. Sec LSJ, s.v., to which I refer also for the terms treated later. 36. Sec Gow 2, ad foe. 37. On this, sec Letoublon (1992). For this use of otxo1,1a1in funerary epigrams, cf. AP 7.19.4, 190.4, 203.4, 273.6, 340.4, 412.1, 423.7, 454.2, 464.3, 488.2, 492.1, 571.1, 595.2, 662.1, 698.11, 732.1. In particular, for a parallel also complete with the addition of 'to Hades', cf. AP 7.19.4 otxua1 &l; 'Ai6av, 423.7 olxo1,1tvo1cnv l; {i6av, Thcoc. oo6v. Epigr. 16.lf. 4Jxu' .. ./ &l; 'Aioriv and also AP 7.203.4 c\>xt:o... El; 'Axtpovt~ 38. These dialectal observations should naturally always be understood within the limits of the reliability of the manuscript tradition, on which sec supra, pp. 51f. 39. For the reworking of Thyrsis in post-Thcocritcan bucolic poetry. sec supra, p. 55.

186

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRJnJS

clues therefore lead one to think that, also for this composition, as already for epigrams 2-5, it is perhaps more plausible to recognise the hand of an imitator, although able and measured in his reworking of the model, rather than that of Theocritus himself.

7 (= AP 1.659; 8 G.-P.)

1. Epigram 7 and epigram 15: the two Eurymedon Epigrams 7 and 15, separated in the bucolic tradition but placed consecutively (even though in inverse order) in the Anthology, have always been examined together by modem scholars. Some have considered them two epitaphs present simultaneously on a single tomb, in honour of a single defunct (Eurymedon) 1• This usage is well-attested in inscriptions and in literature is paralleled by the two epitaphs composed by Erinna for Baucis (AP 7.710 and 712) 2 • Others, in contrast, see the two Eurymedon as two men of the same name and nothing more 3 ; this reading would be corroborated as well by dialectal motivations 4 and matters related to content 5• This hypothesis is then further reinforced if one accepts the correction ftuxe in I. 26 of epigram 7 that renders the epitaph no longer for the father Eurymedon, but for the son of Eurymedon (whose name is, however, not mentioned 7 ). This new interpretation of epigram 7 would not prevent one from thinking that epigram 15 could be the epitaph for the father Eurymedon, and that both the epigrams can be considered inscribed on a single tomb containing the remains of the father and son 8 • There are, I. Wilamowitz (1906: 117); Gow 2: 533; Gow-Page 2: 529. 2. Wilamowitz (1906: 117). 3. Gallavotti (1986: 107-109), substantially accepted by Tarditi (1988: 50-1). 4. Gallavotti (1986: 108): epigram 7 has a clear Doric colouration, whereas 15 is in Ionic dialect. 5. For a discussion of this motivation 'connected to content' (associated with the characteristics of the 'initiate' that the Eurymedon of epigram 15 would not share with that of epigram7), that seems to me to be the only weak point of the reading proposed by Gallavotti, see infra, pp. l9lf. 6. See Gallavotti (1986: 107-8), who demonstrates that the correction is necessary to justify the expression Kai auto..111t1E, to ,rpo yuvauc:..ov Ov'fltoimv 5n ..ni6ai; di; toiT)V t>..ni6a >..u6µe9a; 534. lf. (AlexanderAetolus or Automedon 7) liv8pco7te, ,ofii; nep1q,ei6eo µT)6t 1tap' mp11v / vauti>..oi; ta91; 650.1 f. (Flaccus or Phalaecus 8) q,efrye 9aMama f p-ya, Poo>v 6' tmpa)..>..eu txtt>..n, / et ti tOl fl6u µax:pfii; neipat' l6dv µT)te Ptotfii;; 665. lf. (Leonidas) µT)te µax:pft 9apatcov vautilleo j3a9ein / VT)i.To ignore the various causes of death, in all these cases the defunct addresses the wayfarer/living with an imperative, sometimes (AP 7 .32, 272 and 400) significantly preceded precisely by a verb of saying, that emphasises the tone of order/advice given. But once again, this fonn is not exclusive to literary epigrams, since it also occurs in metrical funerary inscriptions, although beginning from a period later than the first anthological examples. As in the literary epigrams, in almost all of the cases the advice consists of an invitation to delight in the joys of life while there is still time, before dying (cf. e.g. GVI 621.5, Xanthus, i-ii century A.D., 1tai,e, 1t>..a, 1tapo6eita, p>..tncov5tt x:ai ae 9aveiv 6ei; 1l 12.9f., Prusa on the Hypius, ii century A.D., nai~ov x:ai 1t>..aaov, tq,' ooov ~fti;, ~e 'Y«Pt>..9c.ov/ oo6tv fxe1i; x:a816eiv i\ vi>x:ta µa1epav µua ae11fii;; 1146.7f., Rome, ii-iii century A.D., ehvac;fxrov ~ijv / µiJ8' cbc;dnruµopoc;, tva / µ«CJ'ttl;oxn A.0"(01[c;]. / tyro A.tyro 0'01 taUta 1tavta 1tlpClO'at;·/ tvt&OO&voOOic;dno8avrov tyip&[tai]) 12• Given the chronological lag between the first literary examples and the earliest epigraphic attestations of this motif, one could wonder whether this is a case in which the literary epigram has influenced the thematic typologies of the mettical inscriptions. Alternatively, the epigraphic documentation known to date may simply be fragmentary13• Nevertheless, the existence in the funerary sphere of a precise sub-genre, as epigrammatic as epigraphic, within which epigram 9 should be inserted, is clear. 2. The 'destiny' of Orthon In the first part of I. 3 (Kai yap tyro tOlOUtOVfxro 1t6tµov) there are two difficulties. One is connected with to1outov, that would seem to presuppose a lost couplet in which the circumstance of the death14 was µitpov tcni ,oijc;; 1955.3-6 (Tralles, i A.O.) ooov ,nc;, q,aivou, / µ1'111&v l>A.CDc; cru AUJtou·/ Jtpc>c; 6>..iyovtati to ~ijv· / to t&>..oc; b xp6voc; dJta\tEi; 1958.lf. (Termessus, ii-iii A.O.) 6uctoc; taoc;, 1Ca>..oc; 1tpaaaE· I tU.oc; 6paµa ti>µJk>u·Piou taiha and 7f. oouc; GEaUtOVE{>q,pavnc; liv fiµipac;, I ta6tac; Piov voµl~E, tac; 11'lillac; xp6vov; cf. also GVI 1368 (Ath. 8.336d) Jtl&V,q,aytv 1CaiJtcivta t~ IV"X~66µEv. / 1Cfiyci> yap lata1C' dvti 8a1Cxi6aAi0oc;,and supra, AP 7.32. For other epigraphic examples with the addition of the verb of saying that stresses the advice, see infra n. 12. datoic; ftl VT1Jtiaxo[c; 10. GVI 665.9-12 (Macedonia, i A.O.) tOUtO11'tµijc; yVµ'l'lc; 1tEp)/ t~EV&Jt(I)" t&1CVO>v Adllfava 1tolla AlJtE[iv)/ [11Jci>µaatv· El yap 1Cain 1tapaaqn')>..&tt nc; ata[T1t),/ [oµotov lt[ATI]. II. GVI 1366.1-4 (Athens, ii-iii A.O.) tiJttE µatT)V,iL ~EiVE,1CEvaic; cppEai aaim KEffOl8ac;;/ 1ltp1CEO, µ..; ooiµwv tx8poc; 6mo6E YEMl"/ oMtv tv dv8pciHtotc;yap dpuppa6tc;· Et GE µ&AElaii>v,I toe·6n tO>VJtQVtO>V Moipa 1CpatEiYEµVTl12. Cf. GVI 378.2 (Cos, ii-iii A.O.) 1tavti >..tyrovitap{,oq>·1tEivE,p;.,t1tlc;to tt>..oc;; ti>µJk>lc;A.tyro/ "11>..&lc; 1957.4-6 (Seleucia, ii-iii A.O.7) vtoc; n:atpq>olc;1CEiµEvoc; UM:UlCOU" xaipEtE E{>q,paivEo6& tE" / lCEVO>V yap fiµEiv ttpµa µox8[ro]v 'Ai1IT1c;; 1978.17-22 (Corfu, ii-iii A.O.) tout' Eooooc; Ppotoic; Jtam JtapalVO>I tfi IV"XTI µEta6oc;1CUAv· ti fx8Elc;; / 1Caitov Piov tpucpfi 1t«PT1YPT1Gov / El&i>c;, f;v 1CataPfic;tc; mi>paAit9T)c;,/ oMtv tci>vtn:ciVO> 1Ccitro Jtot' 6ljfEl/ ll"lXTlc; t1CµEltrov dn:01tta8EiGT)c;. 13. For analogous conclusions, see supra, p. 11, n. 42. 14. Gow 2 and Gow-Page 2, ad toe. propose"/ met my doom/or that nason, i. e. by going abroad on a stormy night" and they also cite the example of a Callimachcan epigram in which there is a similar reticence concerning the fate of a drunk man.

202

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBEDTO THEOCRlll.lS

revealed; the another is associated with the present fxm instead of the expected aorist 15• In AP 7.374.5 (Marcus Argentarius), the defunct lost in a shipwreck says fcrxov 6t 1eat' Al-yaiT)vcUa 1t6tµov, but to indicate that someone had 'had' his 1t6tµalov tcpeo-o-aµevo~. 299.4 (Nicomachus) o-aµ• tpatav 1tatpav KEiµe8' tcpEO'O'(lµEVO\,446.2 (Hegesippus) 'Apyeiav yaiav tcpeo-o-aµevo~. Regarding, in contrast, the debts to the poetic language of the literary tradition, it should be stressed that the use of tcpiriµi in the middle voice (I. 1 tcpietat) in the meaning of 'to advise, warn' seems also to be exclusive to the poetic language, especially of Homer and tragedy47 • As for the expression :x,eiµepia~ ... VUKt6~in I. 2, if one examines the iunctura formed by the substantive v6~ and the adjective :x,eiµepio~. a considerable difference immediately emerges between prose and poetry. In connection with v6~. the adjective :x,eiµepio~. that can have three or two endings, always takes the form of two endings in the prose writers and of three in the poets: cf. e.g. Thuc. 3.22.1 tflpiJo-avte~ v6Kta :x,eiµepiov u6an Kai dveµq> Kai aµ' QO'EA.flVOV t~fio-av or 48 Plut. Alex. 60.3 vuKto~ 6i: :x,eiµepiou Kai do-eliJvou compared to 43. Cf. GV/ 1248.4 (Rhodes, iii-ii B.C.) KEiµal tlJV OA.OTJV yaiav tq,£crcraµ£v6£6t Ka ~UVTJV yaiav tq,£crcraµ£vKta and 7.717.4 (anonymous) f!p8tto XE\µtpin VUKti,in which among other things, as in the Theocritean epigram, the death occurs precisely on a stormy night. In general on the two or three endings of adjectives in -t~. see Kilhner-Blass (1890-1892 1: 536-7); F. Reisch (1907: esp. 46 for Xttµipt~).

lO (=AP 6.338; 3 G.-P.)

This epigram is the dedication of a certain Xenocles who defines himself as a µ0001.K~ and offers a marble liya).µa to the Muses as a thank-you for the fame derived from his oocpia. From the point of view of epigraphic conventions, on the lexical level, apart from the obvious liya).µa and the dedicatory verb 9ii1es in I. 2, the epithet 1esxap1oµtvov of I. 1 and the expression Ot>Ktm).av8avstm in the final line should be noted. Gow explains 1esxap1oµtvov as a pred-

icative participle that, together with 9ii1es, sounds like txapioato dvan0dc;1. I believe, however, that some examples of metrical inscriptions in which the same epithet regularly refers to the monument inscribed, whether funerary or votive, remove any doubt concerning the 'technical' use of this participle as attributed to a tomb2, or, as in this case, to a votive liya).µa 3• The concept of the offering as an expression of 'not forgetting' the divine benefactor is found in a votive inscription of the first quarter of the v century B.C.4 (reworked in full in the first couplet of an epigram of the Anthology ascribedto Simonides 5). Although one can only cite this parallel, it seems to me quite probable that one can speak of a true epigraphic topos, even if of minor diffusion and use. As far as regards, in contrast, the complete comprehension of the text, one must define precisely the meaning of µoum1e6c;(I. 3) and the sense of the affirmation o6x tttpo>c; nc; tpsi in the same line. The term µ0001.1e6c; in reference to a person can assume, in fact, various meanings, from that more generic of 'follower of the Muses' to those gradually more specific of 'a cultured, educated person', 'poet' and, naturally, 'musician' 6• Which significance should be given to µ0001.1e6c;in I. Gow 2, ad loc. 2. CEG 165.2 (Sicinus, vii B.C. ?) to 6t aiiµ' EOv~ fotaaE

1CC1Aov JCEX,ap•aµtvov

lpyov. 3. CEG 260.lf. (Athens, 490-480 B.C.) 'AvytA.lt~ µ' dvt9Ti[icE(V) u - u u - u u - -] / [it6tVl1 'A8Evaia X,EX.[«plaµtvov - u u - -]; 888.17 (Phanagoria, iv B.C.?) d8avato•m 8Eoic; 1CEX,«p1µµtva(sic) &i>pa d[vt)8f11C«[c;]. 4. CEG 312 (Attica, 480-475 B.C.) l:tpoiJk> xai, t66' liy11Aµa, AEoicpatEc;, El>t' dvt8n:ac; / hEpµ&\, 1CC1AA.\icoµcoc; (sic) obic f).a8Ec; Xapltac;. S. Cf. AP 6.144 (and 213 bis)= FGE 'Anacreon' IS. 6. Cf. LSJ, s.v. II and Gow 2, ad toe. The µouaucoi are not very frequent in votive dedications: naturally, inscriptions in which musicians of various sorts are mentioned are not lacking. But the epigraphs concerning them are mostly lists of the costs paid for the staging of specific festivals or ceremonies; or else they are catalogues of the winners of

210

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO 11iEOCRJTUS

this epigram remains, it seems to me, obscure, since there is no indication in the text that allows one to reach any conclusion in this regani7. Xenocles could have perfonned any one of the numerous arts of which the nine goddesses were patrons. What, however, remains indisputable is the markedly apologetic tone of Xenocles towards real or prospective detractors. It seems to me, in fact, that he emphatically proclaims himself a µ000'\K~, since this title appears only in the third line and above all in the opening of the line, after the usual infonnation concerning the offering (a marble liyaAµa), its dedicatees (the nine goddesses) and its dedicator (Xenocles). But in turn, this emphatic position of µ000'\K~ seems to prepare and ward off at the same time the objection that follows n; tpti, 'no one will be able to say immediately in the text, oox tttpco..µ6c;with 'eye' 32 rather than 'look', as Gallavotti 28. I refer the reader directly to the commentary on epigram 20: in particular, see infra, pp. 319-22. 29. See the commentary on ep. 20, p. 322 and esp. n. 99. 30. See Gow 2: 536. 31. Cf. e.g. CEG 87. I (Athens. 432-421 8.C. ?) cJ>pU'"fci>v 6..ov natpi KlCJCJocpo[pouvn]·/ toul>&6i: fn 7tpot&poc;..ounaic;. For other metrical choregic inscriptions, all however of the Roman period, see Kaibel 927-31. 15. FGE 'Simonides' 28: ~PX&V 'A6&iµavtoc; µi:v 'A9"vaio1c; 6t' tviKa / 'Avt1oxic; cpu>..,; 6a16ciA&OV tpinooo·/ 8£1vocpi1.ou6£ tl..in icii6oc; / 6-y&oicovtah&1na16i A&o1tp£1t&oc;. 16. AP 6.213: "El; tni 7t&VtJJKOvta, I:1µmvi6TJ,fipao taupouc; / Kai tpinoooc;, npiv t6v6' dv8tµ&Val nivaKa. / ToaaaKl 6' lµ&po&vta 616a~aµ&voc;xopov dv6pv/

232

11-IEEPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

tripods and the 1tivru; is particularly eloquent on the private nature of the dedication. Finally, the no less private setting of AP 6.140 ('Anacreon') is obvious 17• In contrast, the classification of AP 13.28 (ascribed to 'Bacchylides' or 'Simonides', but probably to be traced back to Antigenes 18), that is a reworking in 'dithyrambic' style of the usual choregic inscriptions, remains uncertain since the text is corrupt precisely in correspondence with the dedicatory verb (ll. 6 and 12), that, as has been seen, is the 'generic sign' of the private nature of choregic dedications 19•

In light of what has just been delineated, epigram 12 turns out to be contradictory because of the simultaneous presence of two elements that should exclude each other, the tripod (1. 1) and the dedicatory verb (1. 2). The first goes back exclusively to the model of public cboregic inscriptions, whereas the second is tied to private ones exclusively. Nevertheless, one could explain this apparent anomaly by taking into account the evolution of the choregia, choregic monuments and relevant inscriptions at the end of the iv century B.C. In this period, the costs for the choregia had become so expensive for private citizens that the synchoregia was created and, a little later, the public agonothesia2ll. Thus, whoever was able to undertake by himself the costs for the staging of a chorus had good reason to boast and emphasise bis own merits. The clearest reflection of this shift was the progressive monumentalisation of bases for the support of the tripods. Eventually, this trend led to the creationof true structures in the form of small temples, surmounted by the tripod and able to contain statues within that were often the works of the most famous sculptors of the time 21• At the same time, the epigrapbic formula also underwent modifications. If, for example, Lysicrates limits himself t:Mol;,oo Nhcac; dy>..aov lipµ' titi~T);. On FGE 21 and 28 and theirrelationshipwith CEG 270, see Gallavotti (1975: 165-71). uµtl.ac; 17. AP 6.140 (corresponding to FGE 'Anacreon' 11): Ilail>i qllAOCTCEq>aYCp dv£9T}ICEMH.av8o; / µvciµa xopoii viica;, ulo; 'ApT)icpil.ou. 18. See Brinck (1885-1886, no. 42); Page,FGE: 11-2. 19. FGE Antigenes 1 (=AP 13.28): 1t0Uaict 611cpu~ 'AicaµaVTi6oc; tv xopoimv 7 0pal / dVCIJM>A.ul;,av IC\O'O'OvµaKciprov dva8Eic;), unless the dedication of this effigy was placed on a private monument erected in memory of the victory. If one follows this line of interpreting the presentation of the defunct against the background of judicial oratory, it is not surprising that precisely the adjective µttptoc; that characterises the choregus at I. 3 has the same almost 'technical' function in Demosthenes, for whom to be or show oneself as (1taptxttv) µttptoc; is a very important attribute of the credibility of the individual and a necessary guarantee for obtaining victory in a trial 28• Nor do things seem different for the expression Kai. 'tO 25. Cf. e.g. Lys. 21.1-6 and Dern. 21.154-7, that are at the same time the key passages for the rcconsbllction of the Athenian choregia. On this typical behaviour of Athenian judicial oratory, that aimed at celebrating the private and public merits of the litigant and discrediting the adversary by every possible means, see for example Carey-Reid ( 1985: 8-10). 26. See E. Reisch (1899a: col. 2416). 27. See E. Reisch (1899a: col. 2411) based on Lys. 21.2-4. 28. Cf. e.g. Dern. 21.128, 186 and 199, and MacDowell (1990: 256); cf. also Dern. 21.101 and 18.321.

EPIGRAM 12

235

KaAOVKai to npo..6c;, cf. also Dern. 20.165, p. 56.1, Ep. 3.45 and Isoc. 12.261; for 1tpoai'j1Cov, cf. aJso Dern. 21.70; for the substantive use, cf. Dern. 4.13, 50; 15.25; 19.181, 240; 21.51; 24.38, 93, 188,207; [25).26; [48).4; [60).37; p. 48.3; Ep. 3.2. In particular, it should be noted that in 21.70 and 24.207 the adjective is paired with 6i1Caioc;,in 48.4 with µhploc;. Moreover, ii is aJso significant that this adjective, so frequent in Demosthenes, is used much more rarely by Plato and Aristotle. 31. For expressions parallel to that of I. 2 (tov li61crtov 8&ci>v),cf. Hymn. Hom. Ap. 169 ~6lcrtoc; dm6ci>v and Hermes. fr. 7.28 Powell f\6lcrtov ... µoooon6wv. In general on the epithets of deities, sec Bruchmann (1893) and Wentzel (1889). 32. Cf. also Pl. Rrsp. 605d, 607a and in general Gentili (1984: 73-5). 33. See supra, p. 9.

236

1llE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO 111EOCRm.1S

inscriptions. Although it is true that it does not correspond to the characteristics of the typology of dedications, it is also true that the epigram, just as it is, is not understandable as an epitaph either. However that may be, certainly choregic inscriptions provided a starting point for this composition, since the technical terminology is respected at least in pan (I am thinking especially of xopcp dv6pci>v, whereas tK'tacrato vi.Kav and 6 xopa-y~ are reworltings respectively of the epigraphic tvi.K11cr£/tvi.Kaand xop11-yci>v/xop11'}'Tlcr~). A certain learned interest in the choregia was also probably influential. In Hellenistic times, it is documented for example by the fact that Heliodorus of Athens, a perigetic writer probably datable to the ii century B.C., wrote a IlEpi tci>vtv 'A8iJV11cnVtp11t66cov34.In addition to these stimuli, the influence of Attic prose of the iv century B.C. is just as probable. On the one hand, the presentation of the defunct recalls very closely that of many litigants of Attic judicial oratory. The precise terms used to characterise the private qualities of the dead are commonly used in an almost technical manner at least from Demosthenes. On the other hand, perhaps the epithet with which Dionysus is described could allude to a conception of the function of Greek poetry as old as Homer, but explicitly theorised only in the iv century in the work of Plato and Aristotle. If one accepts this Attic contextualisation on the level of both Realien and literary models, the Doric patina of the epigram transmitted by the manuscript tradition should probably be explained by the attribution of the epigram to a poet, Theocritus, by this time already heavily considered Doric. The choice of the dialectal colouring, together with the identification of the choregus named 35, has inevitably aroused debate concerning the authenticity of the composition. The commentators have supposed that the contextualisation of the text in the Attic sphere automatically excluded Theocritean paternity. To justify this attribution, they have pointed out that choregic contests are also attested in other parts of the Greek world 36 • Personally, I do not believe that a markedly Attic form or content can be an obstacle for the identification of the author, to say the least, as a Hellenistic poet. The fusion of epigraphic reuses, the attention to the Realien, the link with the erudite tastes of the time and the debt to earlier literature in the portrait of Damomenes all seem to be indications

34. On Heliodorusof Athens, see Jacoby(1912). 35. On the name and identification of this figure, see Gow 2, ad /oc. and especially WilamowilZ (1906: 118-9). 36. See Gow 2, ad I. I.

EPIGRAM 12

237

that make it possible to ascribe this composition to a poet of the early Hellenistic period. The dialectal argument is not a valid one for deciding the paternity of a literary epigram37 • But on the contrary, keeping in mind that the Alexandrians were so expert and refined in the use and reuse of the constituent materials of their poetry, I do not believe that a poet such as, for example, Theocritus, would have had much difficulty in also adapting the dialect to the subject of the epigram. As in other cases in the collection, there is no indication that makes it possible to ascribe the epigram with certainty to Theocritus. Nor is there any unequivocal evidence that makes it possible to contradict the transmitted paternity.

37. On dialect in inscriptions and epigrams, see supra. p. 51 and n. 128.

13 (= AP 6.340; 2 G.-P.)

1. Introduction This epigram is apparently a nonnal votive dedication (I. 2 liv0tµa) to Aphrodite offered in her own house (I. 3) by a woman, Chrysogona. The precise nature of the votive gift is not specified further by the text, but if one considers that the generic liv0tµa of 1. 2 is the apposition of ta.v 9&6vat I. 1, one can think with certainty of an image of Aphrodite, of which neither the type, size, nor location is specified. However that may be, it would seem that also in this case there is nothing contrary to its contextualisation in 'reality'. Votive offerings to Aphrodite are extremely well attested in epigraphs from the Archaic period onwards 1; parallels are also found in numerous epigrams of book 6 of the Palatine Anthology2. Just as well documented is the domestic cult of various deities 3 who received votive dedications in private houses in addition to those in the grand sanctuaries. In the epigram, however, there are elements that do not fit the traditional conventions of dedications, leading one to suspect that this votive is simply a weak framework for a composition that has a completely different aim.

2. Epigram 13 and the religious propaganda of the Ptolemaic court In the first couplet, the distinction between Aphrodite Ilav611µ0~. patroness of material, physical love (and therefore reprehensible and to 1. For metrical inscriptions, cf. e.g. CEG 268 (Athens, 480-470 B.C.), 324 (Euboea, c. 450 B.C.), 368 (Gythion, 600-550 B.C.), 400 (Antipolis, 450-425 B.C.), 409 (Delos, v B.C.), 775 (Athens, 350-320 B.C.); for other epigraphic examples, cf. also /G 1124636 and 4637 (Athens, iv B.C.) for Aphrodite Urania, 4596 (Athens, after the middle of the iv B.C.) and 5149 (Athens, Roman period) for Pandemos. In general on the cult of Aphrodite in the Greek world, see Pirenne-Delforge (1994); especially for the archaeological documentation concerning dedications to the deity, see Pirenne-Delforge (1994: 375-8). 2. For an exhaustive survey of votive epigrams in the Anthology that are dedications to Aphrodite, see Pirenne-Delforge (1994: 378-80); on the social categories to which the 'private persons' who dedicate votive gifts belong, sec Pirenne-Delforge (1994: 400-3). 3. On this subject, see Hopfner-Schwander (1986: 180); Nilsson (1951-1960 3: 26570 and 271-85; 1955 I: 72 and 402-6 and 2: 187-9). Attestation of domestic cults of Aphrodite, such as that in this epigram, are not known to date. The epigram is used in fact by Nilsson (1955 2: 188, n. 6) for this purpose. But for the interpretation of the epigram it is sufficient that domestic cults are nevertheless attested in Greece, regardless of the specific identity of the deity venerated.

240

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO TifEOCR.fruS

be rejected), and Aphrodite Oopavia, who symbolises in contrast chaste, pure and noble love 4 , is insisted on with great emphasis. Specifying from the first couplet that the dedication of Chrysogona is absolutely not addressed to Aphrodite Pandemos (I. 1 •A K61tp1~ ou nav6aµo~). the text displays a clear ethical and moralistic abnosphere that not by chance also characterises the remainder of the composition. In perfect agreement with the opening statement, in fact, the Chrysogona 5 (I. 2, who dedicates the offering to Aphrodite Urania is declaredly 6:yva. among other things in immediate proximity with the epithet OOpavia of the goddess). Moreover, the example of the pietas of Chrysogona and her husband, who had always commemorated the goddess first in their prayers and that therefore had received prosperity in exchange (11. 4f. dd 6t O'(J)\VA.COlOV El~ ft~ ~v / fK ot9tv dPXoµtvoi~. i 1t6tvia), is framed within the more general maxim on that (pious) behaviour that all mortals should have towards the gods, who always reward the attention received. (11. 5f. 1CT166µtVOlyap I d9avatrov a0toi 1tA.t\OVfxo\)(J\ ppotoi). Far from denying the existence of Aphrodite Pandemos, the poet takes the opportunity to advise his public and direct it towards the cult of the goddess more 'in fashion' at that time. The proof, to my mind indisputable, in favour of the precise moralistic/exemplary function of the composition comes again from the first couplet. There, the imperative tM 6t 60[; xa]pitaav dµoi.Fav)7, or else optativesfunperatives with which the dedicator invites the god to be propitious (cf. e.g. Kaibel797.5, Smyrna ii century A.D., lAftKoi;; 818.22, Paros late period, tUa8i) 8 • The case of a dedicator who exhorts the passer-byl'reader' to venerate the deity is never verified 9• In short, given the presence of the verb \Mc:ncco, the concept expected would be an optative or an active imperative in which the dedicator asks the god to be benevolent and propitious, and not instead an imperative in the middle voice with which the dedicator exhorts a third person to propitiate the deity. Moreover, if one adds to this exhortation, already in itself atypical, the specification of the exact epithet with which the 'reader' must address the goddess when invoking her (II. If. tbtcov / oopaviav), it seems clear that the characteristic formulae of a dedication are absent. The votive elements of this epigram, the same that seemingly led to its inclusion in book 6 of the Palatine Anthology, are limited to the single technical term liv8tµa 10 with which the image of Aphrodite is defined at I. 2. Moreover, the ancients already evidently had some suspicions concerning the completely votive nature of this epigram, since in the Palatine Anthology the first two lines, namely precisely those containing the 'clue' of liv8tµa, were inserted with ease in book 6 (340), but the remainder of the text was included in book 9 (433bis), since its meaning certainly appeared more epideictic than votive 11• The hypothesis of interpreting the text as an example of propaganda for the cult of a 'chaste' Aphrodite corresponds extremely well with the political/religious trends of the early Hellenistic kingdoms and that of the Ptolemaic dynasty in particular. At the dawn of the Hellenistic period, Aphrodite was placed alongside the more traditional Hera as the protective deity of marriage, to then 7. For other examples in Archaic metrical inscriptions, cf. CEG 231, 268, 275, 279a, 313, 321a, 326, 358, 359, 396, 760, 822, 863, 865. For the Anthology, cf. e.g. AP 6.12, 89, 106, 137, 138, 183, 346. 8. Cf. also Kaibel 811.4; 818.11, 17 and 19; 835.3; for the Anthology, cf. AP 6.40, 251,253. 9. Perhaps one could explain the reading lMICJ1Cnoof the Theocritean manuscripts (KCD 1) precisely as a clue to this aporia, in an attempt at rationalisation, even if not entirely successful. 10. On this terminology, see supra, eh. 1, §2.1. Modem scholars also continue to consider this composition votive: see Wilamowitz (1906: 118); Gow 2: 527; Gow-Page 2: 527; Palumbo (1993: 482). 11. On the transmission of this epigram, see Gallavotti (1986: 112-4); in the Planiukan Anthology, the composition again appears without the first couplet.

242

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO 'JlfEOCRfTUS

become the patroness also of conjugal love 12• Already the wives and mistresses of figures such as Arpalus and Demetrius Poliorcetes had been venerated as Aphrodite, receiving temples and cults in this guise. 1be queens of the various Hellenistic kingdoms later adopted this same model of assimilation in grand style, and were regularly portrayed as Aphrodite in portraiture and official representations. These images were intended to portray them as exemplary wives of their consorts, honest and faithful guardians of their love. In particular, in Egypt the promotion of the cult of Aphrodite by the queen is very well attested for the entire Ptolemaic reign, probably from the period of Ptolemy Philadelphus and Arsinoe II onwards 13• Court propaganda could not help but leave clear hints in the works of the poets associated with it. Posidippus celebrated the temple of Cape Zephyrium dedicated to the cult of Arsinoe-Aphrodite in two epigrams (12-13 G.-P.). Callimachus composed an epigram for a shell offered in the same sanctuary (Epigr. 5 Pf.) and the Lock of Berenice 14• In idyll 15, Theocritus described the festivals in honour of Adonis celebrated by Arsinoe in the royal palace (II. 22-4) to give thanks to Aphrodite who had made her mother Berenice immortal (II. 106-11). In the programmatic Encomium of Ptolemy, he connects Berenice even more explicitly with the goddess, who had not only made her immortal, but even kept the queen with her as crovvao~ (ll. 45-52).

In the ideological propaganda of the Ptolemies, therefore, the cult of Aphrodite as the protective goddess of marriage and of conjugal love was promoted to spread simultaneously the ideal of the wife, a model whose most shining example was provided by the wife/queen. Therefore, the fact that in epigram 13 Chrysogona is an b.:yvawife who dedicates a statue to Aphrodite Urania is perfectly in line with the religious trends propagandised by the court and reflected also by Theocritus in certain key points of his work. The imperative \A.acnc&oof I. 1, therefore, apparently so anomalous in a votive context, is perfectly pertinent in a context that has an additional function, that of exhorting the 'public' to adhere to the religious, moral and behavioural ideals propagandised 12. See Vatin (1970: 53), who also cites in support of this Hellenistic evolution Erinna (SH 401.30) and Thcocritus himself (/d. 17.36-9 and 18.5lf.); Friedrich (1978: 142-3); especially on the connection of Aphrodite Urania with marriage, see PirenneDelforge (1994: 21-5). 13. See Neumer-Pfau (1982: 56-8) and also Fraser (1972: 197). 14. On the support to the court propaganda of Aphrodite Urania as patronessof conjugal love demonstrated by Callimachus in these two compositions, see respectively Gutzwiller (1992b), extremely useful also for the exhaustive bibliography for this aspect of the cult of Aphrodite, and Gutzwiller ( 1992a).

EPIGRAM 13

243

by the Ptolemies through their encouragement of the cult of Aphrodite. Not by chance, the imperative in the middle voice lA.amcscr8' also occurs in the epigram of Posidippus on the temple of Cape Zephyrium (12.2 G.-P.), another 'propagandistic' text in which the readers are invited to venerate this temple of Arsinoe-Aphrodite. Moreover, support for this ideal model of wives promoted by the court seems to me to be reflected as well in another famous Theocritean poem, the Distaff15• At I. 2 Theugenis, the wife of the doctor Nicias, is portrayed as a woman who has at heart the care of the house (y6vat~1v v6o~ ohcmq,elia~ al01v tmiPolo~) and whose principal activity seems to be spinning and nothing else (II. 10-3). She is defined as an dvooispyo~ woman who q,1lts1 6' 6ooa oa6q,pove~ (I. 14). She is absolutely not an dKipa or lispy~ woman (I. 15), whom Theocritus would not have considered worthy of his gift (II. 15f.). In short, Nicias seems to be a very lucky man to have married a woman so virtuous and to have a wife so exemplary, who is so close to precisely the model propagandised in those times. Nor is Aphrodite absent in this case, the 'new' goddess of that conjugal love of which Nicias and Theugenis provide an excellent example. Thus, in the opening lines of the composition, Theocritus, when he introduces Miletus as the destination of the journey, in addition to calling it the 'noble city of Neleus' (I. 3 1t6l1v t~ Neilso~ dylaav) mentioning the hero who had been its mythical founder, defines it also as the place in which rises the sanctuary of Cypris (I. 4 61t1ta K61tp160~ lpov 1caMµm xA.Ci>pov{)7t' d1taA.CO). Little or nothing is known however about this place sacred to the goddess; neither ancient sources, inscriptions nor archaeological remains have made it possible so far to understand anything more about this local cult 16• More noteworthy is the fact that, of the two indications with which Miletus is characterised, the first is perfectly pertinent, in that it concerns its mythical founder. In contrast, the second is much less immediate and clear. If Theocritus had wanted to characterise the city with its most significant and famous sanctuary, with its temple for antonomasia just as he had done choosing its founder par excellence,why would he have selected a cult so obscure and uncertain as the Milesian one of Aphrodite? The mention of Aphrodite would have been more appropriate, for example, for Paphos or Cythera; it is decidedly much less characteristic for Miletus. Therefore, either he thought to add an Alexandrian aetiologic touch, as more worthy of appreciation the IS. On this poem, see Cairns (1977). 16. See Gow 2, ad Id. 28.3 and 7.115.

244

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRJTUS

more rare the cult cited is (and Theocritus seems to be the only source that knows it) 17 , or else one has to advance another hypothesis. It does not seem to me completely absurd to suppose that the mention of Aphrodite does not function to characterise Miletus. Rather, it serves to prepare the atmosphere for the celebration of the model of the ideal wife attained by the eulogy of Theugenis, that doubtless constitutes one of the principal motifs of this poem. If read in fact against the background of the ideal marriages propagandised by the court, the presence of Aphrodite can no longer be explained as the mention of the patron goddess of the city of Miletus, to the extent that she could become its symbol together with Neleus. Rather, once again her presence can be understood as a reference to the guardian deity of conjugal love that in this case is embodied in the example of Theugenis. The wife of Nicias is thus placed under the protection of Athena (1. l) as an excellent spinner and under that of Cypris (1. 4) as an ideal wife.

3. The mention of children: political propaganda

In epigram 13, the reflection of court propaganda is not limited to simply the invitation to venerate Aphrodite Urania and to repudiate Pandemos, but goes much further and uses themes even more 'political'. In the second couplet, in fact, Chrysogona, already characterised as 'chaste' (o:yva) in I. 2, is rendered another homage, that of having shared with her husband children and life (11.3f. Q>1eai t&1Cva1eai j3iov dxE / ~uvov). But why and, in particular, what meaning does this precise definition have? The motif of the shared life occurs for example in those epitaphs for husbands and wives buried together in a single tomb, to perpetuate even after death the sentimental union that had linked them in life 18. But the theme of shared children (t&1eva)is never added to that of the common life (j3ioi;). If, therefore, the crucial element becomes precisely the mention of children, there must be a valid reason for which Chrysogona can boast of and be praised for having in common with her husband not only life, but also, and especially. children.

17. See Gow 2, ad Id. 7. I I 5. according to whom perhaps another reference to a Milesian cult of Aphrodite could be perceived in a passage of Charito; but in this case it is clearly a small temple dedicated to a private cult. However, it is clear that, also if one should find a Milesian temple of Aphrodite, the 'programmatic' value tied to the choice of a temple of the goddess rather than of another deity would remain unaltered. 18. See supra. the commentary on ep. 7, p. 188, n. l l.

EPIGRAM 13

245

Against the background of the ideological/political propaganda of the Ptolemies, this second characteristic also becomes immediately clear. Turning again to idyll 17 and the praises of Berenice in ll. 34-52, the central section (ll. 40-4) seems to me particularly important. There, the eulogy of the queen is based precisely on the consideration that the love that Ptolemy had for her was abundantly repaid by her (I. 40 ~ µav nAtov). The consequent gnomic reflection is that the dvt.:q>1Adto noA.i> love exchanged, bearing with it as a corollary fidelity, provoked faith in the husband, who could thus tranquilly entrust the house to his own children (ll. 40-2 d'>ot IC£ nallA.£00011~) without nurturing doubts concerning their legitimate birth (ll. 43f. dcrt6p-you 6t yuvm1e~ tn' dllotpiq> v6o~ ald, / P11i61016t -yovai, tt1eva 6' ou not.:011e6ta natpi). As T. Griffiths (1979: 78-9) rightly explained, behind these lines in which Berenice appearsas a model of conjugal fidelity, a strong political polemic must be perceived against Eurydice, the first wife rejected by Ptolemy Soter, and her children, that after the death of Soter could have been able to lay claim to the throne that passed to Philadelphus. But the public could have thought naturally as well of another analogous situation, since in tum Philadephus himself had exiled Arsinoe I in order to marry his sister Arsinoe II, although not excluding the children of Arsinoe I from inheriting the throne. Matrimony based on the fidelity of the wife was therefore the ideal union, since it preserved the throne from dynastic struggles that could gravely disturb the equilibrium of the kingdom. There was a further advantage in marriage between blood relations, between siblings, as in the case of the Theoi Adelphoi 19, which definitively avoided any risk of upsetting the hereditary line by introducing foreign blood into the dynasty. Therefore, in epigram 13 Chrysogona is depicted as the chaste wife of Amphycles devoted to Aphrodite exactly as in idyll 17 Berenice is the ideal wife for Ptolemy, cruwao~ of the goddess after death. Again, the fidelity of Chrysogona is exalted in the epigram precisely as the fidelity of Berenice and Arsinoe II is praised in the Encomium of Ptolemy. In conclusion, Chrysogona is characterised so as to correspond perfectly to the model of the ideal wife propagandised under the reign of Philadelphus. Idyll 17, therefore, seems the ideological referent closest and at the same time most useful for a thorough understanding of epigram 13. Moreover, it seems to me possible to discern in I. 5 (tK crt0ev dpxoµtvoi~. &'>1t6tvm) a deliberate allusion to the celebrated incipit of the 19. On this, see also Camey (1987: 434 and 436).

246

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRm.JS

Encomium of Ptolemy ('EK At~ dpxcoµeµtv pov dt8A.ocp6pcov. Toi>~ pa8triaaµtv~ Kai t~ lcl>vyEitovo~ t1e 8tlaµou. On one side I have near me the Zeuxippus, a pleasant bath; on the otherthe place for the races of horse that win prizes. After you have watched the competitions and bathed yourself at the Zeuxippus. come here and restore yourself at our table; and then at the right time, you can return to the stadium at night, going there nearby this adjacent abode.

In AP 9.652 (Julianus of Egypt), a house declares itself cool in the summer and warm in the winter. The fact of declaring that it offers (l. 2 1taptx,rov) that which each season does not possess, could make one think that it is in fact a hotel, that advertises on its sign qualities undeniably important to attract potential clients: ·npn dva'l'i>xco8tpto~. 1eai:x;Eiµan8CLA.1tco, toi>Uutt~ @pacovt~ tµt8tv 1tapt:x;cov. In the summer I am cool and in winter warm, myself offering that which the seasons lack.

One could object however that the genesis of this epigrammatic type is rather late compared to the presumably early Hellenistic period in which the Theocritean epigram should be placed. This argument could be used

30. Cf. Anthologie grecque 8, p. 257, ad I. 9.

EPIGRAM 14

257

to post-date epigram 14 and refute its attribution to Theocritus. Nevertheless, the most recent papyrological finds in the epigrammatic field make it possible to easily date the genesis of this epigrammatic type to the early Hellenistic period as well. One of the new epigrams of Posidippus in the Milan papyrus, in fact, clearly appears as an advertising sign for an augur who exhorts his potential clients to come to consult him 31 :

b: tofrrou too navta 1t&punct1ttotoicoAfOvoo &aµcovT&AµTJCJCJ&~ tic nattpmv dya86~ olcov001C01ti~t&icµaip&tai·dU' he cpT)µT)v icai &to~ otcovo~ roo'dva1ttua6µ&VOl. From this high ground, that is visible from every part. Damon of Telmessus, of noble birth, gives prophesies observing the birds. Come on. Come and ask here for the responses and predictions of 2.eus32•

In connection with this composition, editors oscillate between considering it "an important testimony of how much the themes treated and the functions assumed by an epigram could be unusual" and "a text that Damon had actually commissioned and had had carved on a plaque to propagandise his art" 33• But after the epigraphic and epigrammatic examples listed earlier, there should no longer be doubts that this epigram of Posidippus is the literary reflection of a 'real' use and that it can be inserted within a precise epigrammatic type. In a manner analogous to all the examples examined earlier, the augur Damon also presents himself in a good light. He proclaims himself of a noble family (I. 2 tK naTtpcov dya96c;), exactly as for example Caicus professed his own trustworthiness, and stresses the clearly 'advertising' detail of his provenance from Telmessus (I. 2 Telµ11crc:n:6c;), "extremely famous for its soothsayers" 34 , citing it as an implicit guarantee of his reliability. He specifies that the high ground from which he studies the flights of birds has the advantage of being by far the best place of observation (that is, in comparison to his rivals), being 1t£picrK£1ttoc;(I. 1), 'visible from every part' and therefore with a complete view on the entire horizon. In the same way, Caicus stated that his own bank, compared to the others, was ready to return money even at 31. I print the provisional and not critical text of Bastianini and Gallazzi (1993a: no. 4). ~ is known, the text of the 'new' Posidippus has not yet been published by the editors, but for a preview, sec Bastianini-Gallazzi (1993b; 1993c and especially 1993a). The absence of a critical edition has not however prevented the production of work on the argument: sec Angio (1996); Dickie (1995); Gigante (1993); Gronewald (1993); Lehnus (1993); Palumbo (1993-1994). 32. I reproduce the translation of Bastianini-Gallazzi (1993a: 8). 33. Bastianini-Gallazzi (1993a: 9). 34. Bastianini-Gallazzi (1993a: 9).

258

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO TiiEOCRITUS

night. Finally, he evidently attracts his potential clients (I. 3 tn:), just as occurs in the advertising epigrams of ships converted into brothels (AP 9.415.7 lmP«iven:, 416.5 tµpatve), or in those for the baths (AP 9.621.2 6eup' t-re) or hotels (AP 9.650.4 6eupo Kai a.µnveooov). On the basis of these comparisons, therefore, I do not think that one can still state that "Posidippus has spread over his lines a veil of irony, forcing the tone with which he speaks of the augur" and that "the statements are too peremptory to be credible and convincing" 35• It is precisely the typology itself of the text that demands this tone of self-propaganda. It is therefore possible to trace back the evolution of what should doubtless be defined as an autonomous epigrammatic type. On the basis of the documentation provided by the Anthology, epigrams that imitate advertising signs begin with Posidippus and perhaps Theocritus in the iii century B.C. In the same period, a parallel is provided by the 'real' epigraphic example of the Memphis stele. Analogous poetic experimentation then occurs again only in the Augustan period, with Antipater of Thessalonica, Antiphilus of Byzantium and Philip of Thessalonica 36 , as well as in two anonymous epigrams, certainly datable to not earlier than the Roman period, because they deal with baths for men and women 37 • The latest examples of epigrams/signs, finally, coincide precisely with the last period of the flowering of epigram, namely with poets such as Leontius Scholasticus and Julianus of Egypt 38 •

35. 36. 37. 38.

Bastianini-Gallazzi (1993a: 9). Respectively AP 9.107, 415 and 416. AP 9.622 and 621. AP 9.624, 650 and 652.

15 (= AP 7.658; 7 G.-P.)

1. 'Good' and 'bad' passers-by The connection between this epigram and epigram 7, in which an Eurymedon is always mentioned, has already been examined earlier 1; therefore, the commentary that follows is restricted to epigram 15. In the first couplet, it is implied that the passer-by could have a different attitude towards the defunct, based on whether the latter should be considered belonging to the 'category' of the 'good' or 'bad' dead 2 (ll. If. yvcoooµm, &it\ vtµt1c; d-ya0oic; 1tA&OV, ii Kai O OE1A6c;/ tK oe0tv [nomen).

10. For analogous examples, see supra, p. 11 and the commentary on ep. 9, p. 201.

262

TIIE EPIGRAMSASCRIBEDTO TifEOCRfTlJS

the presence of a verb of saying. often significantly in the imperative before the 'citation•. The fact that these inscriptions are rather numerous provides gocxl evidence in support of the hypothesis of considering the existence of a true 'topos within a topos'. See, for example, the late but not therefore less typical GVI 1352.2-4 (Britannia. iii century A.D.) f1tol1t£AO\tOKOVlaATtV O'O~ fi6t: IC£1Ct:u8t:v 'At:tiou XPTl601totrov evidence precisely for the appraisal of contemporary scholars. If, in fact, the poet was included in the canon of the nine lyric poets by Aristophanes of Byzantium 34, it is very probable that this inclusion consecrated a judgement well rooted and shared already in the preceding century. Again, in one of the epigrams of Antipater of Sidon (AP 7.26) the ancient defunct poet requests a libation from the passer-by justifying it (l. 2) Ei ti tot £K PiPMOv~A0Ev tµrov q>EA~. a clear allusion to an edition of the works of Anacreon. Finally, in line with the completely Hellenistic conception of art as 1t6vo~ that produces an artistically refined and elaborate result, is set the description of the tranquil sleep of the dead Anacreon, ev OTJtt 1tEp1oia~.The presentation of Epichannus as eopetiJ~ of the comic genre (I. 2 eoprov) is perfectly in line with literary theories of the period, but also betrays the influence of or at least the contemporary interest in heurematological literature 5• Secondly, the reference to Doric is obvious for an author who composed in the Syracusan dialect, l. The commentaries of Gow and Gow-Page on this epigram mention as a parallel composition only the epigram transmitted in Diog. Laert. 8.78 = AP 1.125, on which, see infra, p. 233; the parallel of AP 7.82 is cited only in Gabathuler (1937: 20), without, however, any complete comparison between the two texts. 2. See .fupra, eh. 5, esp. §2. 3. Gow 2: 542; Gow-Page 2: 533. 4. See Pickard-Cambridge - Webster (1962: 230). 5. See supra, eh. 5, §2.

288

11-IE EPIGRAMS ASCRJBED TO 11-IEOCRITUS

whereas the mention of Sicily in AP 1 .82 and Syracuse in epigram 18 represents a precise stand on the part of the two epigrammatists concerning the controversial question of the fatherland of Epichannus 6 • The cities that were in contention for the birthplace of the poet were in fact five, Krastos, Syracuse and Megara Hyblaea in Sicily, Samos and Cos in Asia Minor. These last two can be excluded very easily, in so far as Samos had the function of linking Epichannus to Pythagoras and Cos of providing an alleged etymology of the term x:roµcpoia. Therefore, Epichannus was born in Sicily and worked primarily in Syracuse under Hieron II, regardless of the city that actually could have been his birthplace 7. Thus, on the basis of contemporary knowledge, the Syracusan setting proposed by the author of epigram 18 (II. 5f. toi I:upax:oooavroc:r' c'io&~upaKoc:ricov. 6. Among the modem commentaries on the Theocritean poem, only Gabalhuler (1937: 74, n. 102) mentions lhe possibility lhat lhe poet would have wanted to take a stand cocneming the question of the fatherland of Epicharrnus. 7. See Pickard-Cambridge - Webster (1962: 230-1 and 236). 8. In this point I did not follow Gallavotti's text, and wilh Gow have preferredto interpret that lhe "'fellow-townsman" is Epicharrnus and not Bacchus-Dionysus, for whom lhis type of specification is decisively much less reasonable: see Gow 2, ad /oc.; Palumbo (1993: 486, ad I. 6). 9. Pfeiffer ( 1968: 265). 10. Pfeiffer ( I 968: 264-5). 11. Pfeiffer (1968: 249). 12. The text is that of Page, FGE: anon. 358.

EPIGRAM 18

289

If the great sun with its splendour surpasses the stars and the sea has a power superior to that of the rivers, I say that Epichannus excels as much in wisdom, he that this fatherland of the Syracusans has crowned.

Many points of contact with the Theocritean composition are also present in this text. The motif of Syracuse as the fatherland of the poet and of the honours bestowed on Epichannus by his fellow townsmen recurs. Compared to the parallel offered by AP 7.82, however, a new element is added, the cro). This conception of Epicharrnus as a sage was very widespread in antiquity. Diogenes Laertius mentions (1.42) that a certain Hippobotus (dated between the iii and the ii centuries B.C.) had included Epicharmus in a list of philosophers, together with Orpheus, Linus, Solon, Periander, Anacharsis, Cleobulus, Myson, Thales, Bias, Pittacus and Pythagoras. This information is inserted within a context on the various ancient traditions connected with both the number and names of the Seven Sages. Thus, it is very likely that also this work of Hippobotus would have referred to this subject and that Epicharrnus might have been

no.•

13. Also in this point I have not followed the text of Gallavoni, preferring that proposed and printed by Gow: as I hope will become clear from the discussion that follows, the fact that Epicharmus crropov yap d:x.&:x.pTJµchrov,namely that he would have had .. a pile of riches·• (trad. Palumbo 1993: 487, but see also Palumbo 1993: 487, n. ad II. 7f.), does not correspond to the portrait that can be reconstructed for the figure. The fact that the poet was honoured and rewarded by his fellow townsmen for his teachings and his maxims of knowledge justifies much better the erection of a commemorative statue and accords perfectly with the ancient conception of Epicharmus as wise. In general on the various editorial changes proposed for this controversial passage, see Gow 2: 543. Finally. in connection with the reading toii; mimv of the penultimate line, I follow Gallavoni despite the indisputable difficulty posed by the article (see Gow 2, ad loc.), since it is much more plausible that Epicharmus was honoured for having been of use to everyone, and not only toii; nauriv. 14. It is not completely absurd to state that Epicharmus appears a bit as an euergetes, since after the mention of the honour conferred by the city (the dedication of the statue, II. 1-6) follows the listing of the benefits rendered by Epicharmus to the community (II. 7-9), to conclude finally with the necessary demonstration of gratitude (I. IO): especially for this last aspect, cf. /G IF 222 (Athens, 344-343 B.C.), an honorific inscription for a Delian who was given citizenship and other honours, with the motivation (II. 11-4) onroi; ii]v &l&ixnv anavt[&],; on 6 6iiµoi; [6 'A0]TJvairov dno6i&.xnv :x.o.pttai; µ[&y]o.Am; toii; &u&py&toiknv.

290

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

included in one of these lists. Moreover, it does not seem accidental that the already cited AP 7.82, although it contains no mention of this tradition, is inserted within a section of epigrams that are all on figures included in the various lists of Seven Sages 15• Around Epicharmus, on the other hand, flourished a series of texts that tended to connect him with Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism 16• Among the spurious works ascribed to him appear precisely the Maxims that would have been composed by an Axiopistus of Locri, already known to Philochorus. This collection, probably originating from the presence of many moralistic maxims in the comedies of Epicharmus, very likely also included some authentic sayings of the poet 17 • Therefore, II. 7-9 of epigram 18 would allude to this pre-existent tradition of Epicharmus as a sage and dispenser of wisdom. The crocprov pT)µlitrov of I. 7 and the noA.A.a. ... not ta.v l;6av ... xp11mµa of I. 9 should be interpreted in this sense, just as the µsya)..a xapt~ owed to him of the final line should be justified more by these sapiential merits than those artistic connected with the invention of comedy, mentioned in the opening lines. At the same time, however, it can very probably be hypothesised that the epigrammatist would have wanted to pay homage with this composition to what one can perhaps identify with a specific epigrammatic subtype devoted to semi-legendary figures enumerated in the various lists of the Seven Sages. It is true that the section of the Palatine Anthology on them that has just been mentioned (7 .81-92) 18 is inserted within a larger section containing commemorative compositions of philosophers (7.56-134). But it cannot be accidental that the twelve epigrams on the Seven Sages constitute a continuous and close-knit series, making one think that the topos of the Seven Sages was comparable to, but at the same time quite distinct from, that of philosophers. Again, although the epigrams that make up this section are mostly anonymous 19 or ascribed to Diogenes Laertius 20 , it is nevertheless very important that the only two of known authorship are by Antipater of

15. AP 7.81 is on Oeobulus, 83-5 on Thales, 86-7 on Solon, 88 on Chilon, 89 on Pittacus, 90-1 on Bias, 92 on Anacharsis. 16. See Pickard-Cambridge - Webster (1962: 232-6); on the role played by Aristoxenus in the emphasising of Epicharmus as representative of the Western sapiential tradition as opposed to that Attic of the Socratic/Platonic model, and on the consequent impulse given by Aristoxenus to the proliferation of Pythagorising fakes tied to the name of Epicharmus, see Cassio ( 1985: 43-51 ). 17. See Pickard-Cambridge - Webster (1962: 245- 7). 18. See supra, n. 15. 19. AP 7.82-4, 86, 90. 20. AP 7.85, 87-8, 91-2.

EPIGRAM 18

291

Sidon (7.81, on Cleobulus) and Callimachus (7.89, the famous epigram on Pittacus and the top). Thus, it is possible to date the genesis of this subtype to the early Hellenistic period.

2. Epicharmus and Theocritus

Therefore, the epigram turns out to be perfectly datable to the first half of the iii century B.C. If one then accepts the authenticity of the composition, the choice made by Theocritus to commemorate Epicharmus in an epigram would not have been motivated only by knowledge of the biographical, historical/literary and sapiential material circulating on the author. Even less would it be connected with a parochial sympathy for his fellow countryman. Rather, it would have been driven by a true frequentation of the works of Epicharmus the poet, attested at least in the Dioscuri'21• In idyll 22, in fact, at the end of the battle between Amycus and Pollux Theocritus says (I. 131): "tov µev lipa Kpattrov 1tep dtci0'8a>..ov ouoev fpel;a~". What would this dta0'8aA.ia have consisted of? From a scholiast to Apollonius Rhodius 2.98 it turns out that in Epicharmus22, as in Pisander23, Pollux tied up the giant after he had defeated him, whereas in Apollonius Amycus is killed. In Theocritus, however, Amycus is defeated by Pollux, but neither killed nor tied up. To be tied up after having been defeated must have been interpreted as an act of derision and contempt. This would be the ouoev dtau0a>..ov that the Theocritean Pollux did not commit. This 'corrective' relationship of Theocritus with respect to the model offered by Epicharmus and Pisander is rightly pointed out by Gow in his commentary ad locum. No one, however, to my knowledge, has ever thought to make a connection between this clear Theocritean allusion to the two ancient poets and the homage that, perhaps, Theocritus would have paid them in his two epigrams. It would be rather likely that, in these two cases, Theocritus would have wanted to honour the two authors who were considered authentic models of poetry. I do not think that the debt of Theocritus towards them was as generic as proposed by Bing (1988b: l 18 and n. 7). According to him, Epicharmus would have influenced Theocritus' taste 21. On comparisons between specific Epichannean and Thcocritean passages, see Lawinska (1964: 82-6), who demonstrates the agreement between certain fragments of Epichannus and the Dioscuri, the Epitholamius of Helen, the Herakliskos, the Chorites and the spurious idyll 9. 22. Probably in the Amycus: see Pickard-Cambridge - Webster (1962: 264). 23. See also infra, the commentary on ep. 22, p. 334.

292

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

for mime and comedy (especially in idylls 2 and 15) and Pisander his predilection for epic, whose style "is present in the use of the hexameter and in the studied use of epic vocabulary and themes". The relation between Theocritus and his models takes the form rather of a precise knowledge of their works, that is expressed also, as in the case of the Dioscuri, in refined allusions to the different mythological choices made 24•

3. Literary epigram or real inscription? This epigram, just like that on Anacreon, has also been considered by commentators an authentic inscription meant to be carved on a bronze statue erected to Epichannus by the Syracusans 25• Some have even wished to identify the place in which it would have been set up as the Theatre of Dionysus (cf. II. 3f. roPVa1CtO~ b IC&ptoµtovta ~u~a~ aptt K&KOtµTttOl 0uµo~ £Vftcruxin. 'A'),).,a 1tpoµ11811cracr8&· ta yap 7t&7tUproµtva IC&lVOU ~iiµata n11µaiv&1v ol6&Kai &lv'Ai611.

w

Pass without making noise alongside the tomb, so as not to awaken the stinging wasp that is sleeping. In fact the soul of Hipponax, who barked out offensive words, has just fallen asleep in peace. Therefore pay attention: his fiery words know how to do harm even in Hades.

The tone of the epigram of Philip of Thessalonica (AP 7 .405) is not very different':

yn~&iv&,cp&uy& tOVX«A.a~&7tll t6:cpov oi t& xo. ttcppa tov cpptKtov'17t1tci>va1eto~. laµp1~&1 Bou1t6:A.&1ov t~ crtuyo~. µii n~ tyeipn~ crcpftKatov 1emµci>µ&vov, 6~ oi>6' tv ~on WVIC&KoiµtlC&V XOA.OV, cr1e6:~oum µttpot~ 6p0a to~&ucra~fn11. 0 stranger,avoid the hailing and terribletomb of Hipponax,of whom even the ashes compose iambics against the hated Bupalus, so that you will not awake the sleeping wasp that not even in Hades has been able to subdue its rage, hurling his words in scazon metre straight ahead like darts.

I. This composition is the only of the three in iambic trimeters rather than elegiac couplets.

296

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

According to some scholars, the comparison with the wasp would derive from Cynical terminology 2, already reworked by Callimachus in reference to Archilochus in a famous couplet (fr. 380 Pf.): £0.KOO'E 6e 6ptµuv tE ):OA.OV l(\)VOT11C6& 'tuµl3

~6.puv

(m'

olvav8T1oi:µtijc;8AtPoµtvriv 1(\)At1coc;, rv· ft cptM1epritoc; t1e1:ivri ciyp&vtvcoc;f8111CEV, Kai cp81µevriATIVci>v yi:itova tuµpov fxoi. Ieron buried in his fields the nurse Silenis, who when she drankpure wine was not bothered by any cup, so that that drunken woman also in death has her tomb near the wine presses.

The commentators tend instead to cite as parallel another epigram of Dioscorides 3 on a Lydian tpocpe6..iV / [6E~aµevo]~ 7t&v9Ettdpetat ci1Caµatrot; in 780.3f. (Lydia, ii century A.O.) that t&p['lf]at6 µot yev&tT)~ [O]Ai.yovxp6vov· oo yap f6roKa/ tOUtQ) t@V Kaµ«tO>V[tTJVX]«pt[V], vltp«cpT)V; in 969.2f. (Oaldis, Lydia, i century A.O.) that Fate has stolen away too soon the young boy and oOK ftacrn yo[vEu]mv / ta8M~ 'YTJPOtp6cpou~livta 6t6Eiv xa[ptta~] 65 • The expression used in epigram 20, therefore, seems to imply this same concept of xap1~. with the sole but substantial difference that the topos is transferred from the figure of the parents to that of the wet nurse. In short, it is inevitable to see in this 1. 3 a conscious allusive play with the traditional epigraphic formula. According to the epigraphic material cited 66, problems do not arise concerning the dating of this topos, since even though the earliest attestations do not pre-date the ii-i centuries B.C. 67 , there is at any rate an example 68 dated by Peek to the middle of the iii century B.C. The only real difficulty is lexical, in so far as in none of the epigraphic cases selected does the verb fxro appear: to indicate the relationship that ties the dedicator to the defunct, who receives in fact xap1~. funerary honours or other, the verbs used are usually 6txoµm. 69 , 6i.6roµ170 , dvttA.aµJ}avro71(AEi1troin the 'active' variant of the defunct who leaves to the living one thing rather than another 72). The only text that shows the same iunctura as the epigram is GVI 871 (Macedonia, ii century B.C.), in 64. See also Griessmair (1966: 32-6) and especially Verilhac (1978-1982: I 124-8), but see also supra, the commentary on ep. 16, p. 269, n. 17. 65. In funerary epigrams, however, this motif should be framed within a more general topos that always requires the presence of civti. Originally, the commemoration of the defunct occurred in exchange (civti) for the talents and qualities which he possessed in life (cf. CEG 41, 139, 726). Closer to the formula examined are all those inscriptions (from the iv century B.C. onwards) in which it is lamented that death arrived too soon and is celebrated instead of (civti) another happy event of life, such as marriage for the young girls who died prematurely (cf. CEG 584, 591, GV/ 1005, 1006, 1330). To return to the motif of the ;ctipli; owed to the parents, cf. GVI 679. 684, 871, 1002, 1009, I 155.17f., 1156, 1160, 1264, 1417, 1691, 1822, 1949.13f., 1974.Asaliteraryexample,lwouldlike to mention Aesch. Ag. 728f .• xaplV / yap tpoq>£00lV ciµtifki>v. 66. See supra and n. 65, but the conclusions set out here are also valid for prose inscriptions, as demonstrated by research in PHI 1. 67. Cf. e.g. GV/ 679, 1002, I 155, I 156, 1417, 1822. 68. Cf. e.g. GVI 1691 (Athens). 69. Cf. e.g. GVI 635.4, 679.4, I 155.17, 1160.9, 1424.3. 70. Cf. e.g. GVI 780.3, 969.3, 1317.5. 1974.4, whereas in 1417.I, 1691.6 and 1822.7 the compound ci1tooi00>µl appears, that together with civta1tooi00>µl is extremely frequent in prose inscriptions. 71. Cf. e.g. GVI 1001.4, I 156.14, 1406.4 (simply A.aµJ3tivro). 72. Cf. e.g. GVI 684.5.

318

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

which one reads (1. 6) d>oeivcov 7tatOoc;fXEl xapltac;73 and whose dating is however a bit later than that of epigram 20. 1be real obstacle to accepting the presence of f xcoin the epigram is above all the use of this verb in this topos, since there it is too anomalous, not to say too rare, to justify its adoption in a literary context that wished to appear as epigraphic. On the other hand, turning from the epigraphic side to that literary, it turns out that the iunctura xap1v fxe1v is very frequent from Herodotus onwards in prose and from Euripides onwards in poetry 74 . But it almost always appears in the sense of 'to be grateful to someone' and not •to receive gratitude from someone' as in this case, with the single exception of a passage of Euripides (Hee. 830) 75• Also in connection with this construction, therefore, it seems that it repeats the same situation that the reworking of a markedly has already been pointed out for tq,' boci>: epigraphic motif modified in an Alexandrian manner into a form unusual for the epigraphic formula but justified by the poetic tradition. In connection with the proper name of the defunct wet nurse, it should be emphasised that Clita, in addition to being a name not attested anywhere for a slave, is above all an extremely rare name 76 • In literature there are only five people with this name 77 : a Danaid 78 , an Arnazon 79, two characters who appear in the late epic of Nonnus 80 and Quintus Smyrnaeus 81 and especially the daughter of Merope, the wife of the king of Cyzicus, mentioned by Apollonius Rhodius in book I of his Argonautica82. Among the various identities and origins attested for this figure, a scholium 83 attests that she was the daughter of a Thracian king. Perhaps this could have been the learned and allusive starting point for the choice of the name of the wet nurse in the· epigram. Clita is doubtless a noble 73. In GV/ 1949.14 (papyrus of Ermupolis, iii A.O.) dntxro appears, whose value is moreover closer to the usual verbs than the simple txw. 74. Sec LSJ, .u. 11.2. 75. But also in Euripides, as already in GVI 871, the construction takes the genitive without the preposition dvti; the prcsense of dvti in epigram 20 certainly dependson the 'normal' and common iuncturae with d1to6i6roµ1 and the like, on which the expression is nevertheless doubtless modelled. 76. Gow 2, ad foe. According to the LGPN, KJ.Eita is attested in an Athenianinscription of 510 B.C., in an ltaliot and a Siceliot one (in this last example in the form KAtiTI]), both of the Roman period; with PHI 7 it has been possible to find only a single additional example, in a Thcssalian inscription of the iv B.C. (/G 9.2 1227.6). 77. Sec Papc-Benseler (191 I), s.v. K).Ei-rfl. 78. Apollod. 2.1.5. 79. Etym. Magn., s.1•.KAEmi 80. Nonn. Dion. 21.77. 8 I. Quint. Smym. 8. I 21. 82. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.976. 1063, 1069. 83. Sch. in Ap. Rhod. Argon. I. 1063.

EPIGRAM 20

319

name, as the root itself of the name demonstrates, that little befits a wet nurse who, also designated by the ethnic, is probably a slave. Nevertheless, the literary archetype of the wet nurse, the Odyssian Eurycleia, also has a name no doubt aulic84 • It is not completely unlikely to think that the epigram derived the proper name as well from this epic model. A final difficulty occurs in the final sentence of the text, even though in this case the problems arise more from the interpretations proposed by modem commentators rather than from the alleged stylistic anomalies of the ancient author. In 1.4, a phrase appears that is without doubt difficult to understand on a conceptual level: ti µav; fn xp11 in the passive, joined with terms such as ,ratfip, yaµj3p6c;, ,r&nc;, ,rapa1Comc;, 1i1Comc;,liA.oxoc;,6ciµap, ruvit,indicates the condition, the state, the 'qualification' of a pc=: cf. e.g. II. 3.138 up6t VllC'lOOVt\ q,i1111C£1CAT1GTI 1i1Comc;. 100. On 1CaA.£ita\as a future or present, see Gow 2, ad loc. and Gow-Page 2, ad loc.

21 (= AP 7.664; 14 G.-P.)

1. The epigrams on Archilochus The popularity of Archilochus among the epigrammatists of the Anthology is documented by the epitaphs for the poet composed by late authors, such as Julianus of Egypt, Gaetulicus and Hadrianus, and by an anonymous composition. These epigrams all share a negative evaluation of the figure of the poet who, because of his aggressive iambics, must be feared even when dead, in the afterlife. Julianus, in fact, writes (AP 7.69): Ktppep& 6&1µai..tT]vOA.UKTJV v&1C6&amvlcu..A.Cov, f)6T]cpptlCUA.&OV 6&i6t8t ICU\ nor Degani (1973: 851 n. 14) share this hypothesis. Personally, I consider it preferable to interpret this motif as a reuse in the epigrammatic sphere of biographical/anecdotal ideas on the poet7. The comic poets must surely have contributed to their formation8 • In connection with the epigram for Hipponax, the theory of those scholars who identify the existence of a Hellenistic learned controversy between the estimators of Archilochus and the supporters of Hipponax, defined respectively as 'Archilocheans' and 'Hipponacteans', has already been discussed. It has been proposed to not intensify the terms of the question especially for epigram, in which the 'ranks' in favour of one or the other poet would seem to be motivated rather by the intention of grafting the sub-genre of epitaphs for misanthropes onto the type of epigrams on poets9• Exactly as in epigram 19 on Hipponax, the epigrammatist diverges from the denigration of Archilochus carried out by other poets who had portrayed him as a defunct capable of frightening the other dead and even Cerberus and who had connected him with the tale of the suicide of the daughters of Lycambes. In contrast, the author of this epigram sings his praises, recalling the great fame that he achieved (II. 2f. oi to µ6p1ov KAEO~/ 6tfil0e Kftni v61Cta ,cai 1tot' dro) and the preference accorded to him by Apollo and the Muses (I. 4 ~ pavtv al Moicrm Kai 6 ~alto~ riya1teuv 'A1t6llrov). He especially praises his musical (I. 5 tµµeAT)~) and poetic merits (ll. 5f. ,cftm6e~10~ / fnea te 1toleiv npo~ l6pav t' deioe1v). In addition, he does not represent Archilochus exclusively as a poet of iambics, but also of compositions in other metres 10• The basic conception of epigram 21 therefore 5. For the non-attribution to Meleager, see Gow-Page 2: 680. 6. Pfeiffer (1949, in the commentary on fr. 380). 7. See also supra, eh. 5, §2; in addition Lefkowitz (1976: 184-5) rightly points out that the suicide of Lycambes and/or his daughters is exactly paralleled by that of Bupalus and Athenides as a result of the invectives of Hipponax. 8. See von Blumenthal (1922: 3-4) and Tarditi (1956: 126). 9. See supra, the commentary on ep. 19, pp. 299-301. 10. On the variety of metres in the poetry of Archilochus, cf. [Plut.] De mus. I 140f1141b, in which Archilochus is credited with the •invention', in addition to iambic

326

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

turns out to be less typical and less subject to schematism. Particularly because of the reference to music and metrical variety, one could perhaps think that, in addition to direct knowledge of the work of the

iambic poet, the author is also drawing on the traditions of scholarship inaugurated by Glaucus of Rhegium, who had pointed out precisely these latter characteristics of Archilochean poetry 11•

2. The popularity of Archilochus in the Hellenistic period Also in this case, as in all of the Theocritean epigrams on poets, the celebration of Archilochus can be explained by contemporary grammatical interest in the ancient iambic poet 12• The same negative tradition with respect to Archilochus attested by Callimachus and the late epigrammatists dates to the Archaic period, as well as his association with Homer 13 based on style, from which would have arisen the antipathy of Callimachus for the poet 14• The earliest example is Heraclitus (B 42 D.-K.), who hopes that Archilochus and Homer should be thrown out of the rhapsodic contests, whereas Pindar (Pyth. 2.55f.) characterises Archilochus as a slanderous person who gets fat with his odious insults. The first true ancient judgement on Archilochus is the celebrated passage of Critias (B 44 D.-K.) transmitted by Aelian (VH 10.13), in which the poet is reproached for having said he was the son of a slave, for having left Paros for Thasos in search of fortune, for having alienated the Thasians by his aggressive character, for having been an adulterer, dissolute and arrogant and for having confessed. the

trimeter, also of 1tapa1eatClM)y,; and again of the combination of various metres. Finally, it is claimed that the poet also taught how to sing and recite iambic metres. According to Weil-Reinach (1900: xxii), the source of this passage would be Glaucus of Rhegium, whereas greater caution in this regard is suggested by von Blumenthal (1922: 12). Turning then briefly to the question of the existence of a controversy between supporters and denigrators of Archilochus. it has been said (see supra, the commentary on ep. 19, p. 299-301) that Callimachus was among the latter, but Bilhler (1964: 227-9) had already pointed out as well how much Callimacbus is indebted to Archilochus for metres; Degani (1973: 79 and 1995: 124) denies this, but the arguments of G. Morelli (1995: 167-9) seem very convincing in demonstrating the presence of Archilochean metrical reworkings in the Iambi of Callimachus. 11. See the preceding note. 12. For this reading, see supra, eh. 5, §2. 13. See von Blumenthal (1922: 2-10) and Skiadas (1965: 111-7). On the existence of an epic/lyric production of Archilochus, see Gerevini (1954). 14. On this, see supra, the commentary on ep. 19, pp. 296 and 299.

EPIGRAM 21

327

thing worst of all, to have abandoned his shield. Archilochus must then have been the subject of attacks and parodies in the comedies inspired by him, such as for example the Archilochoi of Cratinus, the Archilochus of Alexis and probably also a comedy of Diphilus in which Archilochus and Hipponax were represented as in love with Sappho. Finally, Plato (Ion 531a) placed Homer, Hesiod and Archilochus on the same level in the rhapsodic contests. In the iv century, in contrast, the tradition of studies on Archilochus began 15• Aristotle wrote three books of 'A1top11µata 'Apxt1..6xou Eopmioou XotpiAou and Heraclides Ponticus a nEpi 'Oµ11pou Kai 'Apxi1..6xou, works that reveal an interest in the poet already in the first Peripatos. Glaucus of Rhegium speaks of Archilochus on account of his metrical and musical innovations 16 and Phanias of Eresus, pupil of Aristotle, considers him older than Terpander. Chamaeleon and Clearchus, finally, attest to the existence of recitations of the poetry of Archilochus. In the Hellenistic period, Callimachus probably wrote about him in the Pinakes and Lysanias in his nEpi laµfk>1totrov.Apollonius Rhodius wrote a nEpi 'Ap'..(tA6xou and a treatise on the expression dxvuµevri O"KUtCXAll (fr. 185 W. 2). This expression was also the subject of a work of Aristophanes of Byzantium. Aristarchus edited a commentary and perhaps also an edition of Archilochus, whereas Apollodorus of Athens referred to the poet for an etymology of Apollo from d1t6AAUµt.Finally, a papyrus of the middle of the iii century B.C. (Pack 2 136) should be remembered as well. It contains a comparison of some Archilochean lines with Homeric ones, probably an example of the literature on plagiarism 17• In this context, and remembering the typical Hellenistic learned taste for the 1tprotoc; E0pEt11c;18, the expression tOV 1ttlAa\ 1t0\'ltllV / tOV trov laµfkov of the epigram (II. If.) would not simply imply that Archilochus was 'the ancient poet of iambics', but precisely 'the (famous) ancient poet who composed iambics', namely the poet who was considered the inventor of the genre. Since the fame of Archilochus and the preference of the Muses and Apollo for him are exalted in II. 2-4, one cannot help but think of the possible allusion by the epigrammatist to the biographical tales about Archilochus that connected the poet with the deities of poetry. It is not so much the tradition (mentioned also by Dover 1971: 278, ad l. 4) 15. 16. 17. 18.

See von Blumenthal (1922: 10-3 c 25-31). See supra, n. 10, and von Blumenthal (1922: 11-2). The interpretation of the papyrus is discussed by Slings (1989). See supra. pp. 88f.

328

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRfl1.JS

according to which Apollo threw the murderer of Archilochus out of the temple at Delphi, but the oracle of Apollo that foretold to the father of Archilochus the future greatness of his son and the meeting with the Muses, episodes both commemorated in the inscription of Mnesiepes 19• If it is correct to hypothesise that the monument in honour of Archilochus erected at Paros by Mnesiepes was not the first. but that an analogous monument with a relevant biographical commemorative inscription already existed on the island (the monument then restored in the i century B.C. by Sosthenes) 20 , it is indisputable that local biographical tales about Archilochus already circulated in the iii century B.C. But the evidence of Aristotle (Rh. 1398bl 1) would make it possible to backdate this diffusion to the iv century, since he attests already in this period to the presence of not better specified honours paid by the Parians to the poet 21 • Therefore it is rather likely that the author of the epigram was aware of local tales similar to those known from the inscriptions 22 and that he alludes to these with a biographic, aetiologic and antiquarian taste 23 • But undoubtedly, his presentation of Archilochus as favoured by Apollo and the Muses is due as well to the enormous echo aroused in the ancient world by the Archilocheion of Paros itself2'4• When Posidippus addressed the same god and the Muses to obtain the honour of a commemorative statue that would perpetuate his fame in eternity, his request was very probably also based precisely on the model of these extraordinary honours conceded to Archilochus by Apoll25.

19. On the Archilocheion, see supra. pp. 94f.; on the inscription of Mnesiepcs as a Vita of the poet, see Bing (1993: 619-20). 20. Tarditi ( 1956: 128-9). 21. In addition to the Archi/ocheion with its inscriptions, a Parian coin should also be considered evidence of the fame and cult of Archilochus (dated to the i century B.C.; see Schefold 1943: 173 and 195; P. Zanker 1995: 158-9). The poet is depicted seated with the lyre in one hand and a scroll in the other. reproducing a model of a statue belonging to the Archilocheion or to another honorific sening (see Schefold 1943: 195; Rubensohn 1935: 68-9). Finally, there is a copy in Copenhagen of the Hellenistic original of a seated poet, which should very probably be identified with Archilochus (see P. Zanker 1995: 142-5; see also supra, p. 105). 22. On the resonance of the cult of Archilochus at Paros in the iii century B.C. as attested by the elegy of Posidippus (SH 705), see Bing (1993: 621-3), but on the problem. see in particular Millier ( 1985: esp. p. 136 on the evidence provided by this epigram). 23. The author of the epigram should be counted among those who cling to the 'Parian/Delphic' tradition on Archilochus, on which, see Tarditi (1956: 131-9). 24. On the Archilocheion. see supra, eh. 5, §3.1. 25. SH 705. The reading of the lines connected with Archilochus andthe Delphic oracle is unfortunately rendered difficult by the state of the tablet. that has a 1-=unaprecisely at this point; nevertheless, for the corrections and exegesis of the text, see Uoyd-Jones (1963: 87-8).

EPIGRAM21

329

3. The authenticity of the epigram and the dilemma between real and fictitious

It remains to examine the problem of the nature of the epigram, that is whether it should be considered a real inscription 26 or a literary composition. Epigram 21 no doubt refers to an iconographic representation of the poet (l. l dcn6E), but it does not contain any element that could make one think of a specifically funerary context. On the other hand, if the exhortation to look is just as characteristic of literary epigrams on works of art27 , the epigraphic fonnula 'stop and look' of the opening line (a,;a.811eai dcn6e) is typical precisely of funerary inscriptions28• At any rate, the general tone of the composition does not contradict the possibility that it could be an authentic inscription. Thus, the arrangement of the infonnation is rather ordered and sufficiently linear and concise, since the name of the figure, introduced by an epigraphic fonnula (l. 1), is followed by his qualification (l. 2). His fame, that justifies the erection of the monument, is then mentioned (ll. 2f.) and the text then goes on to commemorate the divine endorsement (l. 4), whose motivations are expressed in the final couplet (ll. 5f.). Therefore, the epigram turns out to be constructed according to principles of a rigorously logical consequentiality. For each statement a justification is given, that in turn renders necessary. another and another again. But one element could challenge the epigraphic setting of the text, namely the absence of the patronymic and ethnic 29• Nevertheless, this could have been motivated by the exceptionality of the person honoured. But the fact that in the inscription of Mnesiepes, the 'real' counterpart par excellence of this epigrammatic text, the name of the father of Archilochus is mentioned immediately alongside that of the poet leaves not little doubt concerning a possible real setting for epigram 21. In addition, it is strange that there should be no mention of the place in which the statue would have been erected or, rather, of who would have provided the funds for the dedication of this monument. It is very curious that the dedicator, perhaps a private person such as Mnesiepes or Sosthenes, or a civic group such as the Parians or the citizens of some other Greek city, would have commissioned the epigram from an author as celebrated as Theocritus, but 26. Gow 2: 545; Gow-Page 2: 532; Dover (1971: 277); Gabathuler (1922: 76); Wilamowitz (1910: 88) think of an inscription for a statue of Archilochus at Paros. 27. See supra, eh. 2, §2. 28. See supra, eh. l, §2.2. 29. See supra, eh. l, §2.2.

330

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO TIIBOCRITIIS

then had not bothered to have this recorded and praised in the epigraph. Greek inscriptions very often seem more a monument to the dedicator than to the defunct/dedicatee. No private person or city would have passed up a similar occasion to praise their own pietas towards Archilochus, also considering that the erection of a similar statue after so many centuries cannot have failed to have a propagandistic or selfennobling value for the place that hosted it30 • Therefore, one would be inclined to consider this epigram an example of the practice of epigrammatists to compose literary texts that, at the same time, were, and especially wished to appear as, strongly rooted in 'reality', both in terms of form and content. The epigram can therefore be contextualised without difficulty in the first half of the iii century B.C. Regarding its possible authenticity, it should be remembered that the familiarity of Theocritus with Archilochus has finally been demonstrated by the discovery of the Cologne papyrus (fr. 196a W. 2)31• Up until then, the only parallel that could be established between the two poets was connected with I. 48 of idyll 13. There, the d1ta1.ac;ttpa tiic; tati, ltA.QCJµatci>VtT)V 'HpaKAElaV ltOlll(J(lvt(l)V, £ft£ IlEicravopoc; TprollC'lc; µV11µ11c; ~v. Ett' iiA.loc; tlC;. 11. Athenaeus 5 I 2e-f (= PMG 229) relates that, according to Megaclides,o\ vto1 (sc. Heracles) tv lncr1tol11tai (sc. the poets who came after Homer) 1eataCJ1CEOO~oumv toii crxriµan µ6vov 1tEpl1topw6µEvov, !;ulov fxovta 1eai AEOVTTJV 1eai to!;a· 1Cai taiita nlacrm npcinov l:t11crixopov tov 'lµEpaiov. 12. See the preceding note. 13. The 'canonisation" of the inferiority of the bow comes with the Euripidean Herades (ll. 159-64). On this problem, see also Cassio (1994b: esp. 18-9) and Musti (1994). 14. The mosl significant fragment in this respect is that which describes the battle between the two (SLG 15).

EPIGRAM22

333

mation of the hero must have begun very early. The most ancient figurative evidence of the battle between a Heracles tv )..nmou csx;f1µan with quiver, arrows and lion skin and a hoplite Geryon with helmet, shield and spear is already incised on a bronze plaque (probably a pectoral) from Samos dated to the last quarter of the vii century B.C. 15• In this period, therefore, the transition from a heroic Heracles, like that Homeric, to a Heracles "adventurer, troublemaker and glutton" has already happened or was taking place 16• This latter characterisation of Heracles finds its most complete expression in the Alcestis and comedy, but the process of the negative representation of Heracles in literature had already begun with two very early poets tied to epic, Pisander and Stesichorus 17• Turning to the author of the epigram, therefore, one could hypothesise that he is taking sides in the debate concerning the priority of Pisander or Stesichorus for this transformation of the figure of Heracles. In I. 2 tov A.&Ovtoµax_av and tov 6~6x_&tpawould refer respectively to the new 'clothing' of Heracles, following his defeat of the lion, and his 'quick hand', with a clear negative shading that would degrade the hero into a figure of a robber who owed his outstanding success only to deception and cunning and no longer to heroic tests of courage. Therefore, the primacy of Pisander in 1. 3 (1tp«toc; tci>v t1tavco8& µoucs01totci>v)would allude not so much, and not only, to the fact that he was the first to compose an epic poem on Heracles, but rather to the fact that he was the first to portray Heracles in a certain manner. Epigram 22, therefore, would take a position in favour of Pisander rather than Stesichorus in the question of the priority of the characterisation of Heracles tv )..nmou ax11µan.

2. The setting and authenticity of the epigram This epigram has also been interpreted as a real inscription for a statue erected to Pisander at Camirus or in some other place on Rhodes 18, primarily because of the mention of the oiiµoc; (I. 6) as dedicator, that emphasises the honorific character of the monument. This hypothesis also seems to be confirmed by the reference to bronze as the material of which the statue was composed (bronze was the material par excellence for honorific statues and was regularly mentioned in inscriptions in formulae of the sort x_aA.K&l'lV dK6va, sc. fm110-&,and the like). Finally, the practice 15. See Bri:ze (1985). 16. Bri:ze (1985: 86 ). 17. On Stcsichorus and Homer sec L.E. Rossi (1983). 18. Gow 2: 546; Gow-Page 2: 533; Dovcr(l971: 278); Gabathuler(l937: amowitz (1910: 88, "subscriptum statuae a Rhodiis pub/ice positae").

75); Wil-

334

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

of erecting an honorific statue to a poet many years or even centuries after his death (l. 8 noUoi~ µTJ110-avare no doubt valid, but perhaps one could also attempt a third explanation. It could easily be that ev I:upa1Coooa1c; eypTJµi:v tv bypfl VElCpO~, £yroO' aA.~ OUVOµa tuµ~o~ fXC.OV K11PUO'O'C.O 7tQVaA.118E~ f1to~ tOOE'«tuyi:8aA.acrcrn cruµµicryE\V'Epiq>ic; ... !tEtpa of 1.4 of the epigram (on which, see .mpra. the commentary on ep. I, p. 125).

EPIGRAMMATICSYI..LOGE

367

even also of an authentic imitation of a Theocritean epigram, is an epigram of Eratosthenes Scholasticus (AP 6.78). This epigram would go back to the model of epigram 2 ascribedto Theocritus, but at the same time it would also follow the conventions of a specific epigrammatic 'sub-genre' 28 • But even if one wishes to use this text of Eratosthenes as a chronological set point, it would provide a terminus ante quem only for epigram 2 or at most for the entire group of five bucolic epigrams, since it would not in fact be sufficient in itself to deduce other conclusions valid/or the entire sylloge. It seems, therefore, that this principle of textual allusion does not turn out to be appropriate for the task. Perhaps, by adopting other parameters and turning from an analysis of epigrammatic texts to an examination of the structure of the collection itself one can hope to find some other supportive element.

3.3. A new proposal: from verbal allusions to the internal organisation of the sylloge Usually the structure of the sylloge is reconstructed in this way: 1-6, bucolic epigrams in elegiac couplets; 7-16, votive, funerary and epideictic epigrams (in an alternating but not completely regular sequence), all again in elegiac couplets; 17-22, epigrams in non-elegiac metre 29• Tarditi (1988: 47) and Gutzwiller (1996b: 92; 1998a: 434) rightly recognise and stress the indisputable proemial character that epigram 1 acquires if placed precisely at the opening of the collection, since it is a dedication to the patron deities par excellence of poetry (Apollo and the Muses) 30 • But if my reading of epigram 1 as absolutely not bucolic is acceptable, I would thus like to propose a slightly different internal subdivision, structured in this way: 1 (proemial), 2-6 (bucolic), 7-16 (various genres but still in elegiac couplets), 17-22 (various metres). Moreover, the 'nonbucolicity' of epigram 1 would also seem to be confirmed by its placement within the Anthology. Far from being within a sequence with at least one of the bucolic epigrams 2-6, it introduces instead the votive series of epigrams 8, 10, 1231 and 13 (= AP 6.336-40).

28. On the epigram of Eratosthenes Scholasticus, see supra, p. 45, and the commentary on ep. 2, p. 132. On possible relationships between the epigram of Eratosthenes Scholasticus and epigram 2, see also Smutny (1955: 78). 29. See e.g. Gow 2: 523; Gow-Page 2: 525; Smutny (1955: 65); Tarditi (1988: 45); Gutzwiller (1996b: 92; 1998a: 42-4). 30. See especially the discussion supra, in the relevant commentary on the epigram. 31. But for a reading of ep. 12 as funerary rather than votive, see supra, the commentary on the text.

368

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO TIIEOCRITUS

Apart from which of the two structures one wishes to accept. I would like to examine the internal criteria followed in the arrangement of the texts 32• In the earliest libelli and anthologies. namely of the Hellenistic period. it seems that the basic principle for the organisation of the material was fundamentally thematic or verbal analogy 33• In contrast. the organising criterion for the arrangement based on genres appears with absolute certainty only in the anthology of Agathias, who in his proem (AP 4.3.114-34) explicitly states the organising criterion he follows 34 • In the syllogies. finally, the arrangement of the material does not seem to follow any artistic disposition; only a more or less alphabetical order is adopted. On the basis of these observations, the Theocritean sylloge is anomalous. Even considering that the type of the bucolic epigram was not explicitly classified as such in antiquity 35, it is nevertheless clear that the grouping of the block of epigrams 2-6 betrays, if not an indisputable thematic link as in the oldest anthologies and libelli, at least a reception of these compositions as homogeneous on the basis of their content. Therefore. the composition of this epigrammatic sequence must date to a 32. In coMcction with this, see also Szepessy (1994), who on the basis of rather controversial criteria reconstructs an original sylloge containing eps. 23 and 24 as well, and Gutzwiller ( 1998a: 43-4), who especially for the first and third sections (for the second, see the discussion infra in the text, in which I draw on her observations) stresses organising criteria different from those analysed by me infra. According to Gutzwiller, section 26 "displays a thematic arrangement that progresses by thematic linkage from poem to poem", since Daphnis, the dedicator to Pan of ep. 2 would foreshadow ep. 3, in which Pan and Priapus attack Daphnis with erotic intentions, whereas in the fourth epigramthe sexual motif would move from the divine sphere to that human, since a shepherd asks Pan to satisfy his love for Daphnis. The links proposed by Gutzwiller between compositions 5 and 6 are not very convincing. Finally, the elegiac tone of ep. 6 would constitute a link with 7, an epitaph (always in coMcction with this first section, I do not understand why she "presupposes the reader's knowledge of the epigrammatist's literary persona.. his identification with a l3ou1CoA.O;, or cowherd": see Gutzwiller 1998a: 45). Concerning the third section, I do not agree that the reference to the Muses and Apollo in the penultimate epigram "harlts back to the opening epigram", nor do I agree with the two hypotheses proposed to explain why the collection closes with the epigram on Pisander (Pisander, writing on Heracles, could be considered a forerunner of Theocritus who celebrated the descent of the Ptolemies precisely from Heracles. Otherwise, the eternity of the bronze statue of Pisander would be a metonymy of the eternal fame of the poet, in the manner of AP 1. 715 of Leonidas, that according to the scholar would have closed the Leonideancollection, and of the Horatian exegi monumentum aere perennius, with which the third book of the Oths closes). 33. See Argentieri (1998: 17); Cameron (1993: 19). 34. Cameron (1993: 26 and 31-2), in contrast, acknowledges an organisation by genres (corresponding to books) for Meleager as well, compared to whom therefore the 'innovation' of Agalhias would consist no longer in the sub-division of the material by genres, but in the addition of three other genres (protreptic, scoptic and sympotic) to those already Meleagrian (erotic, votive, funerary, epideictic). 35. See supra, p. 29 and n. 8.

EPIGRAMMATICSYLLOOE

369

period in which the concept of a bucolic poetic tradition (to ignore for the moment its specific characteristics) must have already been formulated. It could therefore with good probability coincide with a period contemporary with or immediately after that of the composition of the five epigrams. In contrast. the final group of epigrams 17-22, that have in common non-elegiac metre, reveals a kind of ordering unattested to date for ancient epigrammatic collections. Rather, it seems to follow the same grammatical criterion from which book 13 of the Palatine Anthology arose that is characteristic, as we shall see 36 , of a later period than that from which the grouping of epigrams 2-6 originated. But at the same time this block of six epigrams in various metres contains five epigrams all devoted to the commemoration of ancient poets. thus revealing in tum a previous organisation on the basis of a thematic criterion. The sequence of epigrams 7-16. finally. because of their irregular series of votive, funerary and epideictic epigrams. could seem confused and lacking organisation. But, on the contrary. this apparently casual succession of compositions belonging to different epigrammatic genres is most probably an indication of the antiquity of the series itself. Gutzwiller ( 1996b: 98) rightly cites as a parallel for the criterion of the grouping of this last block the example of P. Koln 5.204 (ii-i centuries B.C.). that contains six epigrams of Mnasalces in which votive compositions alternate with funerary ones. In addition to the Cologne papyrus, however. one can also take into consideration P. Freib. 4 (i century B.C.), in which votive and ekphrastic epigrams are found side by side, and P. Oxy. 662 (Augustan period), in which votive and funerary epigrams alternate37. The papyrus of Mnasalces. then. being older than the other two, not by chance also displays the thematic analogies already known from other contemporary collections 38. The first epigram is the dedication of a shield never used in battle and the second is the epitaph of a soldier. The third is again an epitaph for a young girl dead before marriage and the fourth a dedication by a young girl about to marry. The fifth and sixth seem to be epitaphs for a woman and a man, both fond of wine in life. For the Theocritean sylloge. however, it is not possible to identify any similar kind of connection. Therefore. the block 7-16, precisely for its alternation of different genres, clearly belonging to a period in which the distinction of epigrams on the basis of genre had not yet been established, can date to the early Hellenistic period. I cannot however agree with Gutzwiller in

36. Sec infra, pp. 369f. 37. For these two papyri, see Argentieri (1998: 14-6). 38. Sec Cameron (1993: 32).

370

1llE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO 11fEOCIUTUS

considering that the entire amngement of the epigrams in the Theocritean collection fits the editorial criteria of the i century B.C. perfectly. Apart from the arrangement by types or subjects, already early Hellenistic (it should suffice to think of thenew Milan papyrusof Posidippus) and then Meleagrian 39 , the American scholar also traces the 'separate' placement of epigrams in various metres back to Hellenistic practice and in particular to the i century B.C. Her argument is based on the fact that the Garland of Meleager seems (but it is not certain) to have included epigrams composed exclusively in elegiac couplets-40.Immediately after this statement, however, Gutzwiller would seem to contradict herself, since correctly citing book 13 of the Palatine Anthology, containing in fact only epigrams in various metres, she mentions that its certain date of final composition is the i century A.O. Even if it is obvious that the nucleus of book 13 could date to the ii century B.C. 41, the only certain chronological date in my opinion is however the final version of the book, that postdates Philip of Thessalonica, who wrote the latest composition of the entire collection. As a result, it is more prudent to trace the basic organising criterion of the grouping of epigrams 17-22 back to a later period. such as the i century A.O., for which the phenomenon can be cenainly dated, rather than force its pre-dating on the basis of unverifiable information42.

3.4. The Theocritean sylloge as a reflection of earlier syllogies Therefore, the Theocritean collection reflects various organising criteria: a thematic one for the epigrams on poets 17-18 and 19-22 and, at least as a document of reception, for the bucolic epigrams 2-6; a metrical/grammatical one for the distinction between epigrams in elegiac metre 1-16 and in various metres 17-22; a third that still does not distinguish between epigrammatic genres for the sequence 7-16. Further, it is necessary to specify more correctly that the sylloge reflects in part the thematic criterion dear to epigrammatic collections of the period at least down to Meleager, and in part the criterion for the separation of epigrams in various metres, certainly attested to at least in the i century A.O., namely

39. See Gutzwiller (1996b: 98). 40. Gutzwiller (1996b: 98-9). 41. On this, see G. Morelli (1985: 295-6). 42. The stance of Cameron (1993: 143, n. 33) is analogous, for whom it does not make much sense to waste time establishing the various hypothetical versions of book 13 in order to ascertain whether it originated from various stratifications from the Hellenistic period onwards or was composed directly in the early Imperial period.

EPIGRAMMATICSYLLOGE

371

from the date of composition of book 13 of the Palatine Anthology. Moreover, the section 7-16 provides evidence for a phase in which the distinction between the votive, funerary and epideictic genres was not yet as clear as it was for Agathias. It is possible to identify in this late poet a terminus ante quem at least for the formation of this individual section. Thus, it is acceptable to consider the Theocritean sylloge the reflection of earlier collections organised according to criteria (and perhaps non-criteria) different and therefore belonging to different periods. In addition, I would like to propose considering the Theocritean sylloge the result of the stratification of several epigrammatic collections containing epigrams ascribed to Theocritus, organised and composed in different periods and for which set chronological connections date from the iii century B.C. onwards for the thematic and (non-)generic criteria, from the second half of the i century A.D. for that metrical43 •

4. The epigrams in the Anthology and the existence of more than one sylloge of Theocritean epigrams Moreover, that more than one collection of epigrams ascribed to Theocritus existed is clearly demonstrated by the Anthology44, and not only because at least one other epigram ascribed to Theocritus (23=AP 7. 262) appears there, whereas a second, handed down by the Palatine Anthology under another name, is ascribed to Theocritus by Planudes alone (26=AP 7. 534) 45 and a third (24=AP 9.436) is labelled in the Palatine Anthology as 'Syracusan' 46 and inserted in a problematic sequence (AP 9.432-7) that also contains epigrams 6, 4, 5 (to which are attached II. 3-6 of epigram

43. I agree fully with the conclusions of Argentieri (1998: 7), according to whom the collection of Theocritean epigrams is a sylloge ·•whose diversity of criteria, moreover (bucolic type - votive and funerary genre - metrical criterion), seems to reflect a plurality of sources". 44. And perhaps also by the papyri: finally P. Oxy. 3726 of the ii-iii century A.O. has provided the long-awaited papyrological evidence of an epigram known as Theocritean (25). Nevertheless, enthusiasm is curbed by the illegibility of the other lines of the papyrus, whose content seems at any rate epigrammatic. Moreover, as Argentieri (1998: 7) points out, "the absence of space between the lines suggests that" the texts "were separated by paragraphos and therefore all of the same author". Legrand (1925-1927 2: 119) notes that Vita 6 of Homer (8f. Allen) also cites 9£6icprroc; tv -roic; 'E1n-ypciµµacnv among the sources that presuppose that Homer was born at Chios. But on this evidence. see also Argentieri (1998: 7), who rightly urges caution. 45. On this epigram, see the relevant commentary supra. 46. On the •syracusan' epigrams, see Gallavotti (1986: 117-8) and especially supra, the commentary on ep. 24, pp. 339-41.

372

TiiE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO nmocRI11JS

13), 25, 14, precisely 24, and again the first six lines of epigram 447 • 1be fundamental reason that one is led to think of the existence of at least two different collections of Theocritean epigrams is above all the order in which the compositions are arranged in the Anthology. 1be general picture has already been delineated in an extremely clear manner by Gow. He ends, however, by concluding that, despite the fact that it seems clear enough that a Theocritean collection not very different from that of the bucolic manuscripts led to the inclusion of the epigrams in the Palatine Anthology, the use made of this same collection "presents problems which appear to be insoluble " 48 • The sequence AP 6.336-340 reproduces, in the same order, the succession of votive Theocritean epigrams 1, 8, 10, 12, 1349 • But it is also true that the votive epigram 2 is missing from the sequence; this epigram is placed earlier in the same book (AP 6.177) after another dedication to Pan composed by Macedonius 50• This apparent incongruity could reveal that epigram 2, although also votive, had been acknowledged principally as bucolic, and for this reason had been associated with another composition with an analogous subject 51• It is clear therefore that epigram 2 was not included in the same collection from which the other votive epigrams inserted in the series were extracted. Nevertheless, the homogeneity 'of genre' of the Theocritean block in AP 6.336-340 disappears if one accepts my reading of epigram 12 as funerary rather than votive. In this way, in fact, one would create a further difficulty concerning the very criterion of association of the five epigrams of the sequence. The funerary epigrams are also collected in a single block within book 7 of the Palatine Anthology and with an order all but identical with that of the bucolic manuscripts. The only shift is connected with epigram 15, probably placed before 7 because of the fact that the two defunct share the same name 52 • The internal ordering of AP 7 .658-663 corresponds in fact to the succession 15, 7, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21. Gow rightly points out that the exclusion from the sequence of epigram 19 (=AP 13.3), the epitaph for Hipponax, seems unjustified, since book 7 does not lack cases of

47. On this sequence, see Gow 2: 525; Helmbold (1938: 57); Smutny (1955: 67-8); Cameron (1993: 141); but see especially in Antho/ogie grecque 8: 41, n. 4. 48. See Gow 2: 525. 49. See Gow 2: 525. 50. See Gow 2: 525. 5 I. According to the distinction that I proposed in eh. 3. § 1.2, in fact, the epigram of Macedonius is not properly 'bucolic', but rather 'rustic'. 52. Gow 2: 525.

EPIGRAMMATICSYLLOGE

373

compositions in non-elegiac metre. On the contrary, the inclusion of epigram 21, an honorific dedication for Archilochus, in a funerary context is puzzling, although it may be justified as the result of a hurried reading of the composition by the anthologist 53• I wonder whether the insertion of epigram 21 in this block does not demonstrate rather simply as well the origin of the sequence itself from a Theocritean sylloge that already displayed the immediate succession of 20, an epitaph for a wet nurse, and 21, an epitaph for a poet. I would suggest that this collection already attested to the arrangement of the group of Theocritean epigrams in various metres, in which the thematic criterion of the compositions Elwenkampf des Heraldes. Oberdas Verhliltnis von Literatur und bildender Kunst im 25. Idyll des Theokrit", GB 14, 151-65 "Schriftquellen zur hellcnistischen Kunst. Plastik, Malerei und Kunsthandwerlc von vierten bis zum zweiten Jahrhundert", GB Suppl. 4

Wandgemiilde der von Vesuvverschiitteten Stiidte Campaniens, Leipzig

Helmbold, W.C. "The Epigrams ofTheocritus", CPh 33, 37-62 1938 Hengstl, J. 1972 Private Arbeitsverhiiltnisse freier Personen in den he/lenistischen Papyri bis Diok/etian. Bonn Henrichs, A. "Riper than a Pear: Parian Invective in Theokritos", ZPE 39, 1980 7-27 Herbig, R. 1949 Pan. Der griechische Bocksgott. Versuch einer Monographie, Frankfurt Hennann, C.Fr. 1853 Disputatio de Daphnide Theocriti, Gottingae Herrlinger, G. 1930 Totenklage um Tiere in der antiken Dichtung, Stuttgart Herter, H. 1932 De Priapo, Giessen 1954 s.v. "Priapos", in RE 22.2. 191442 von Hesberg. H. 1981 "Bemerkungen zu Architekturepigramme des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.", JDAI 96, 55-119 Heubeck, A.-West, S. Omero. Odissea l (libri 1-4), Milano 3 1987 Hicks, E.L. "On the Characters of Theophrastus", JHS 3, 128-43 1883 Hollis. A.S. Callimachus. Hecale, Oxford 1990 1996 "Heroic Honours for Philetas?", ZPE l 10, 56-62

BIBLIOGRAPHY

389

von Holzinger, C. 1895 Lykophron's Alexandra, Leipzig Hommel, H. 1939 "Der Ursprung des Epigramms", RhM 88, 193-206 Hopfner, W.-Schwander, L. 1986 Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, Milnchen Hopfner, T. 1938 Das Sexualleben der Griechen und Ri:jrner,Prague Hughes, B. "Callirnachus, Hipponax and the Persona of the lambographer". 1996 MD 31, 205-16 Hunter, R. 1993a The Argonautica of Apollonius. Literary Studies, Cambridge "The Presentation of Herodas' Mimiamboi", Antichton 21, 1993b 31-44 1996 Theocritus and the Archaeology of Greek Poetry, Cambridge 1998 "Before and After Epic: Theocritus (?) Idyll 25", in Genre in Hellenistic Poetry (Hellenistica Groningana 3), ed. by M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Walcker, Groningen, 115-32 Theocritus. A Selection (Idylls I, 3, 4, 6, JO, 11 and 13), 1999 Cambridge Hussey, R.H. 1853 Socrati scholastici ecclesiastica historia, Oxonii Hutchinson, G.O. 1988 Hellenistic Poetry, Oxford Huttner, U. 1997 Die politische Rolle der Herak/esgestalt im griechischen Herrschertum, Stuttgart Huxley, G. 1974 "Aristotle's Interest in Biography", GRBS 15, 203-13 Hyde, W. 1903 De O/ympionicarum statuis a Pausania commemoratis, Halle Irigoin, J. 1975 "Les bucoliques de Theocrite. La composition du recueil", QUCC 19, 27-44 Irmscher, J. "Bemerkungen zur hellenistischen Ekphrasis", Akten des Xl/1 1988 lnt. Kongr. klass. Arch., Berlin, 392-3 1991 "Zurn griechischen Bukolikbegriff', in Studi in onore di G. Monaco 4, Palermo, 1379-80 Irwin, E. "Biography, Fiction and the Archilochean ainos", JHS 118, 1998 177-83 Jacobs, F. 1798-1814 Animadversiones in epigrammata Anthologiae Graecae secundum ordinem Analectorum Brunckii, Lipsiae 1813-1817 Anthologia Graeca ad fidem codicis olim Palatini. nunc Parisini ex apographo Gothano edita, Lipsiae Jacoby, F. s.v. "Heliodoros", in RE 8.1. 15-8 1912

390

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

Jessen 1902-1909 s.v. "Priapos", in Roscher 3.2, 2967-2990 Joly, R. "La caracterologie antique jusqu' a Aristote", RBPh 40, 5-28 1962 Jung, F. Hipponax redivivus, Diss. Gie8en 1929 Karousos, Chr.I. 1972 "Iltpix:aU.t:~ liyaA.µa-t~£1tOiT1cr'oi>x:Mali~Empfindungen und Gedanken der archaischen Griechen um die Kunst", in G. Pfohl (Hrsg.), lnschriften der Griechen, Darmstadt. 85-152 Karousos, S. 1957 "Emtuµ~ia ITTTJA.£ tit9Tt~ mo t9vtx:6 µoootiq>", Hellenica 15, 313-23 Kassel, R. "Dialoge mit Statuen", ZPE 51, 1-12 1983 1990 "Die Phaleceen des neuen hellenistischen Weihepigramms aus Pergamon", ZPE 84, 299-300 Kehr, U. De poetarum qui sunt in Antho/ogia Palatina studiis The1880 ocriteis, Diss. Leipzig Keydell, R. s.v. "Epigramm", in RAC 5, 539-77 1962 Kienzle, E. Das Lobpreis von Stiidten und Liindern in der ti/teren 1936 griechischen Dichtung, Diss. Basel Kleingilnther, A. Ilpcoto~ tl'.>pttT]~. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer 1933 Fragestellung, Leipzig Knaack, G. s.v. "Daphnis", in RE 4.2, 2141-6 1901 Kock, B. De Epigrammatum Graecorum Dia/ectis, Diss. Gottingen 1910 Kohler, H.K.E. 1850-1853 "Geschichte der Ehre der Bildsaule bei den Griechen", in Gesammelte Schriften 6, St. Petersburg, 243-366 Koehler, U. "Attische Choregeninschrift", MDAI (A) 1,348 1882 Kontoleon, N.M. "Archilochos und Paros", in Archiloque (Entr. Hardt 10). 1964 Vandoeuvres-Geneve, 37-73 Korver, J. De Terminologie van het Crediet-Wezen in het Grieksch, 1934 Diss. Utrecht Krebs, A. s.v. "Choregia", in Daremberg-Saglio. Dictionnaire 1.2, 1887 1117-9 Kremmer, M. De cata/ogis heurematum, Diss. Leipzig 1890

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Krevans, N. 1993 Krohnert, o. 1897 Krug.A. 1993 Kudlien, F. 1979 1976

391

"Fighting against Antirnachus: the Lyde and the Aitia reconsidered", in Callimachus (Hellenistica Groningana 1), ed. by M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Walclcer,Groningen, 149-60

Canonesne poetarum scriptorum artificum per antiquitatem fuerunt?, Diss. Konigsberg Heilkunst und Heilkult. Medizin in der Antike, Miinchen 2 "Der griechische Arzt im Zietalter des Hellenismus", AAWM 6 "Medicine as a 'Liberal Art' and the Question of Physician Income", JHM 31, 448-59

Kiihn, H. Topica epigrammatum dedicatoriorum Graecorum, Diss. Breslau 1906 Kiihner, R.-Blass, F. 1890-1892 Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Hannover und Leipzig 3 Kiihner, R.-Gerth, B. 1898-1904 Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Hannover und Leipzig 3 Kurtz, D.C. "Mistress and Maid", AJON(archeo/) 10, 141-9 1988 Kynaston, H. The Idylls and Epigrams commonly attributed to Theocritus, 1892 Oxford 2 Lai, A. "II XAOEpov oicruµppov di Nicia, medico-poeta milesio", 1995 QUCC 51, 125-31

Larson, J. 1997

"Astacides the Goatherd (Callim. Epigr. 22 Pf.)", CPh 92, 131-7

Lattimore, R.A. 1962 Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs, Urbana Lauer, J.-Picard, Ch. Les statues Pto/emaiques du Sarapieion de Memphis, Paris 1955 Laurens, P. L 'abeille dans /'ambre. Celebration de l'epigramme de 1989 /'epoque a/exandrine a la fin de la Renaissance, Paris Lausberg, M. 1982 Das Einzeldistichon. Studien zum antiken Epigramm, Milnchen Lauxtermann, M.D. 1998 "What is an Epideictic Epigram?", Mnemosyne 51, 525-37 Lawall, G. Theocritus' Coan Pastoral. A Poetry Book, Cambridge (Mass.) 1967 Lawinska,J. "Echa Sofrona i Epikarma w tw6rcz6sci Teokryta", Eos 54, 1964 74-86

392 Lazzarini, M.L. 1976 Lefkowitz, M. 1976

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO 1lfEOCRITUS

"Le fonnule delle dediche votive nella Grecia arcaica", MAL ser. 8, vol. 19.2, 47-354

"Fictions in Literary Biography: The New Poem and the Archilochus Legend", Arethusa 9, 181-9 1981 The Lives of the Greek Poets, Baltimore Lefkowitz, M.-Fant, M.8. 1982 Women's Life in Greece and Rome, London Legrand, Ph.-E. 1898 Etude sur Theocrite, Paris 1925-1927 Bucoliques grecs, Paris Lehnus, L. "Posidippo ritoma", RF/C 121, 364-7 1993 1996 "On the Metrical Inscription Found at Pergamum (SEG 39. 1334)", CQ 46, 295-7 Lejeune, M. "Notes d'epigraphie sicilienne", Kokalos 16, 16-29 1970 Lembach, K. 1970 Die Pflanzen bei Theokrit, Heidelberg Leo, F. 1897 Die plautinischen Cantica und die hel/enistische Lyrik. Berlin Letoublon, F. "Ce qui n'a plus de nom dans aucune langue", RPh 66, 317-35 1992 Lewis, D. M. "Bowie on Elegy: A Footnote", JHS 107, 188 1987 Lier, 8. 1914 Ad topica carminum amatoriorum symbolae, Progr. Stettin Littlewood, A.R. 1967 "The Symbolism of the Apple in Greek and Roman Literature", HSPh 72, 147-81 Lloyd-Jones, H. "The Seal of Posidippus", JHS 83. 75-99 1963 Loew, 0. 1908 Xapi~. Diss. Marburg Lorenz, Th. 1965 Galerie von griechischen Philosophen- und Dichterbildnisse bei den Romern, Mainz Luck, G. "Trygonions Grabschrift", Philologus 100, 271-86 1956 Luiselli, B. 1967 Studi sulla poesia buco/ica, Cagliari MacDowell, D.M. 1990 Demosthenes. Against Meidias, Oxford Maehler,H. "Poesie alexandrine et art hellenistique l Memphis", CE 63. 1988 113-36 Maiten, L. "Elysion und Rhadamanthys", JDAI 28, 35-51 1913 Die Sprache des menschlichen Antlitzes im friihen Griechen1961 tum, Berlin

393

BIBLIOORAPHY

Manakidou, F. 1993

Beschreibung von Kunstwerken in der hel/enistischen Dichtung, Stuttgart Manca Masciandri, M.-Montevecchi, 0. 1984 / contrani di baliatico, Milano Manni Piraino, M.T. 1970 "Epigrafia selinuntina", Kokalos l 6, 268-94 Marasco, G. "Les medecins de cour a l'epoque hellenistique", REG 109, 1996 435-66 Markwald, G. Die Homerischen Epigramme, Meisenheimam Gian 1986 Masaracchia, A. 1983-1984 "Virgilio e Teocrito: nascita e fortuna dell'ideale bucolico", Sanda/ion 6-7, 75-91 Massimilla, G. "Nuovi elementi per la cronologia di Nicandro", in IA lene2000 ratura ellenistica. Problemi e prospenive di ricerca, Atti del Coll. Intern. (Univ. di Roma "Tor Vergata", 29-30 aprile 1997), a c. di R. Pretagostini, Roma. 163-82 Matz, F. review Lauer-Picard 1955, Gnomon 29, 84-93 1957

Mau, A. 1896 Megow, R. 1963 Maier, F. 1970 Meillier, C. 1981 Meineke, A. 1856 Mesk, J. 1932 Millett, P. 1991 Milonas, K.D. 1879

s.v. "Aushiingeschilder", in RE 2.2, 2558-9 "Antike Physiognomielehre", Altertum 9, 213-21

Der CJ0'9(X,-BegrijfZur Bedeutung, Wertung und Rolle des Begriffes von Homer bis Euripides, Diss. Milnchen "Quelques nouvelles perspectives dans l'etude de Theocrite", REG 94, 315-37

Theocritus, Bion, Moschus, Berolini3 "Die Beispiele im Polemons Physiognomonik", WS 50, 51-67

Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens, Cambridge "N ta npoc:nctfiµata BCH 3, 354-60

tou

£V

tQ) pappa1e£iq> µooo£iq>".

Misener, G. "Loxus, Physician and Physiognomist", CPh 18, 1-22 1923 Mijbius, H. 1966 "Eigenartige attische Grabreliefs", MDAl(A) 81, 136-60 Moeller, W.O. 1971 "Nochmal the Word ANOYATON", CPh 66, 113-4 Molinos Tejada, T. Los dorismos de/ Corpus Bucolicorum, Amsterdam 1990 Momigliano, A. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge (Mass.) 1971

394 Montanari, F. 1995

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

"Filologi alessandrini e poeti alessandrini. La filologia sui 'contemporanei' ", Aevwn(ant) 8, 47-63 Mont6n Subias, S. 1990 s.v. "Galateia", in UMC 5.1, 1000-5 Moorhouse, A.C. 1950 "The Etymology of IlEPU:TEPA and Some Allied Words", CQ 44, 73-5 Morelli, A.M. L 'epigramma latino prima di Catullo, Cassino 2000 Morelli, G. 1985 "Origini e fonnazione del XIII libro dell'Antologia Palatina", RFIC 113, 257-96 "Archil. 197 W.", in Mousike. Metrica, ritmica e musica 1995 greca in memoria di G. Comotti, a c. di B. Gentili-F. Perusino, Pisa-Roma, 159-72 Millier, C.W. 1985 "Die Archilochoslegende", RhM 128, 99-151 Mumprecht, V. 1964 Epitaphios Bionos, Ziirich Murray, P. 1996 Plato on Poetry. Jon; Republic 376e-398b; Republic 595608b, Cambridge Musti, D. "Elogio di un oplita in una lamina di Camarina?", RFIC 122, 1994 21-3 Nardelli, M.L. 1988 "Testi Letterari dall'Archivio de! Serapeodi Memfi: lpotesi di una Biblioteca", Proceedings of the XVI/I Intern. Congr. of Papyro/ogy, Athens, 179-88 Nauta, R.R. 1990 "Gattungsgeschichte als Rezeptionsgeschichte am Beispiel der Entstehung der Bukolilc", A&A 36, 116-37 Neumer-Pfau, W. 1982 Studien zur Jkonographie und Gesel/schaftliche Funktion hel/enistischer Aphrodite-Statuen, Bonn Neutsch, B. 1955 "Das Epigrammenzimmer in der 'Casa degli Epigrammi' zu Pompeji und sein Wandbild 'Eros im Ringkampf mit Pan'", JDA/ 70, 155-84 Nicolai, R. 1992 La storiografia nel/'educazione antica, Pisa Nicosia, S. Teocrito e /'arte figurata, Palermo 1968 Nilsson, M.P. 1955 Geschichte der griechischen Religion, Miinchen 3 1951-1960 Opuscula se/ecta, Lund Norden, E. 1893 "Beitriige zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophic", Jahrb. fur class. Philo/. Supp/. 19, 365-462

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ott, U. 1969 Overbeck, J. 1868 Pack, R.A. 1941 Page, D. 1976 Palm, J. 1965-1966 Palumbo, B.M. 1984

395

Die Kunst des Gegensatzes in Theokrits Hirtengedichten, Hildesheim Die antiken Schriftque/len zur Geschichte der bildenden Kiinste bei den Griechen, Leipzig "Artemidoros and the Physiognomists", TAPhA 72, 321-34 "Five Hellenistic Epitaphs in Mixed Metres", WS 89, 165-76 "Bemerkungen zur Ek phrase in der griechischen Literatur", in Kung/. Humanistiska Vetenskapsamfundet i Uppsa/a, 108-211

"Le note metriche di A.P. xm e la genesi de! libro", BollClass 5, 61-85 1987 "Differenze dialettali e stilistiche nella storia dell'epigramma greco", in Linguistica e fi/o/ogia, (Atti VII conv. int. dei linguist!), Brescia, 429-34 Teocrito. ldi//i e Epigrammi, Milano 1993 1993-1994 "Note dialettologiche al nuovo Posidippo", Helikon 23-24, 405-12 Pape, W.-Benseler, G.E. Worterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen, Braunschweig 1911 Parsons, P. 1993 "Poesia ellenistica: testi e contesti ". Aevum( ant) 5, 9-19 Pearce, T.E. V. 1988 "The Function of the locus Amoenus in Theocritus' Seventh Poem", RhM 131, 276-304 Peek, W. "Ein unbekannter attischer Hymnode", Hermes 75, 425-6. 1940 1942 "Attische lnschriften", MDAl(A) 67, 1-217 1953 "Aus der Werkstatt", in Studies Presented to D.M. Robinson 2, ed. by G.E. Mylonas-D. Raymond, Saint Louis, 304-29 1954-1955 "Neues von Archilochos", Philo/ogus 99, 4-50 1974 "Zu der Dreifussbasis /G 12673", ZPE 13, 199-200 Peppas-Delmousou, D. 1971 "Das Akropolis-Epigramm /G 12673", MDA/(A) 86, 55-66 Perez Lopez, M.P.L. Lexicon poetarum bucolicorum Graecorum minorum, Ams1994 terdam Perutelli, A. 1976 "Natura selvatica e genere bucolico", ASNP ser. 3, vol. 6, 763-90 Petre, Z. 1992-1994 "Aphrodite Pandemos", Studii Clasi,e 28-30, 5-14 Pfeiffer, R. 1949 Callimachus, Oxonii History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the 1968 End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford

396

1lfE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO 1lfEOCRITUS

Pfisterer-Haas, S. Darstellungen alter Frauen in der griechischen Kunst, Frank1989 furt am Main Pfohl, G. 1953 Untersuchungen iiber die attischen Grabinschriften, Diss. Erlangen 1964 Momunent und Epigramm. Studien zu den metrischen lnschriften der Griechen, Festschr. Neues Gymm. Numberg 1964 (= Pfohl 1968, 1-57) 1968 Elemente der griechischen Epigraphik, Dannstadt 1970 "Das anonyme Epigramm", Euphrosyne n. ser. 4, 73-112 Pfohl, G. (Hrsg.), 1969 Das Epigramm. Zur Geschichte einer inschriftlichen und literarischen Gattung, Dannstadt Pfuhl, E. 1923 Ma/erei und Zeichnung der Griechen, Milnchen Piccirillo, F. 1984 s.v. "Bucoliche", in Encic/opedia Virgi/iana I, 540-82 Pickard-Cambridge, A.-Webster, T.B.L. Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy, Oxford 2 1962 Pirenne-Delforge, V. 1988 "Epithetes cultuelles et interpretation philosophique. A.propos d'Aphrodite Ourania et Pandemos a Athenes", AC 51, 142-57 L'Aphrodite grecque, AtMnes-Lieges 1994 Ploss, H.-Bartels, M. 1905 Das Weib in der Natur- und Vo/kerkunde, Leipzig Pohlenz, M. 1911 "Die hellenistische Poesie und Philosophic", in Charites Fr. Leo zum sechzigster Geburtstag dargebracht, Berlin, 76-112 Pollitt, J.J. 1974 The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology, New Haven & London 1987 The Critical Terminology of the Visual Arts in Ancient Greece, Ann Arbor 1987 (= diss. Columbia Univ. 1963). 1990 The Art of Ancient Greece: Sources and Documents, Cambridge Porro, A. 1989 "L'epigramma XI della silloge teocritea: problemi di cronologia". Aevum( ant) 2, 235-43 Powell, J.E. 1960 A Lexicon to Herodotus, Hildesheim 2 Preaux, C. 1939 L 'economie royale des Lagides. Bruxelles Preger, Th. 1891 lnscriptiones Graecae metricae ex scriptoribus praeter Anthologiam collectae, Lipsiae 1889 De epigrammatis Graecis me/etemata selecta, Diss. Milnchen

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Preisigke, F. 1922

Pretagostini, R. 1977

1995

Privitera, G.A. 1992 Puelma, M. 1996

397

Namenbuch enthaltend a/le griechischen .. Menschennamen, soweit in griechischen Urkunden (Papyri ... ) Aegyptens sich vorfinden, Heidelberg "Teocrito e Saffo: fonne allusive e contenuti nuovi (Theocr. 2, 82 sgg., 106 sgg. e Sapph. 31, 7 sgg. L.-P.)", QUCC 24, 107-18 "L'autore ellenistico tra poesia e 'filologia'. Problemi di esegesi, di metrica e di attendibilita del racconto", Aevum(ant) 8, 33-46 Pindaro. Le Jstmiche, Milano2 "'Eniypaµµa-epigramma:

Aspekte einer Wortgeschichte",

MH 53, 123-39 1997 Race, H.W. 1992 Raimondi, V. 1999 Raines, J.M. 1946 Rasche, W. 1910 Raskin, G. 1936 Reed, J.D. 1997 Reinhardt, Th. 1988 Reisch, E. 1885 1899a 1899b 1890 1905 Reisch, F. 1907 Reitzenstein, R. 1970

"Epigramma: osservazioni sulla storia di un termine grecolatino", Maia 49, 189-213 "How Greek Poems Begin", YCIS 29, 13-38 Scelte linguistiche e t07t0\ greco, PhD diss. Urbino

letterari nell'epigramma bucolico

"Comedy and the Comic Poets in the Greek Epigram". TAPhA 47, 83-102 De Anthologiae Graecae epigrammatis quae colloqui formam habent, Diss. Munster Handelsreclame en soortge/ijke praktijken bij Grieken en Romeinen, Leuven Bion of Smyrna. The Fragments and the Adonis, Cambridge Die Darstellung der Bereiche Stadt und Land bei Theokrit, Bonn De musicis Graecorum certaminibus, Vindobonae s.v. "XopT]yia", in RE 3.2, 2409-22 s.v. "Xopucoi ciyci>vt~".in RE 3.2, 2431-8 Griechische Weihgeschenke, Wien s.v. "Dreifuss", in RE 5.2, 1669-96 De adiectivis Graecis in -to~ motionis Graecae linguae specimen, Diss. Bonn Epigramm und Sko/ion, Hildesheim (=Gie6en 1893)

398

THE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

Richardson, N .J. "Aristotle and Hellenistic Scholarship", in La philologie 1994 grecque a /'epoque he/lenistique et romaine (Entr. Hardt 40), Vandoeuvres-Geneve, 7-28 Riemann, H. s.v. "Tripodes", in RE Suppl. 8, 861-88 1956 Rizzo, G.E. II teatro greco di Siracusa, Roma 1923 Robert, L. Hellenica: Recueil d'epigraphie, de numismatique et d'anti1940 quites grecques 1, Paris Hellenica: Recueil d'epigraphie, de numismatique et d'anti1946 quites grecques 2, Paris Hellenica: Recueil d'epigraphie, de numismatique et d'anti1948 quites grecques 4, Paris Robert, J.-Robert, L. 1972 "Bulletin epigraphique", REG 85, 364-526 Robinson, D.M. "New Greek Inscriptions from Attica, Achaia. Lydia". A/Ph 31, 1910 377-403 Sappho and Her Influence, Boston 1924 Robinson, V. "The Nurse of Greece", Bull. Hist. Med. 6, 1001-09 1938 Rodenwaldt, G. Die Komposition der pompejanischen Wandgemiilde, Berlin 1909 Rosenmeyer, P. The Poetics of Imitation, Cambridge 1992 Rosenmeyer, Th. The Green Cabinet. Theocritus and the European Pastoral 1969 lyric, Berkeley & Los Angeles Rossetti, L. "Ricerche sui 'dialoghi socratici · di Fedone e di Euclide ... 1980 Hermes 108, 183-200 Rossi, L. "11 problema dell' endiadi in greco e le orazioni politiche di 1993 Demostene", AION(jilol) 15, 121-44 " 11 testamento di Posidippo e le laminette auree di Pella". 1996 ZPE 112, 59-65 "Larnentazioni su pietra e letteratura 'trenodica': motivi 1999 topici dei canti funerari", ZPE 126, 29-42 Rossi, L.E. "La fine alessandrina dell'Odissea e lo ZHAOI: OMHPIKOI: 1968 di Apollonio Rodio", RFIC 96, 151-63. "I generi letterari e le loro leggi scritte e non scritte nelle let1971a terature classiche", BICS 18, 69-94. "Mondo pastorale e poesia bucolica di maniera: l'Idillio 1971b ottavo del Corpus teocriteo", SIFC 43, 5-25. "Stesicoro o dell'epica altemativa", Orpheus n. ser. 4, 5-31 1983

399

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1989

"Livelli di lingua, gestualita, rapporti di spazio e situazione drammatica sulla scena attica", in Scena e spettacolo ne/1'anti-

chita (Atti conv. int. di Studio, Trento, 28-30 marzo 1988), a c. di L. de Finis, Firenze, 63-78 1995a 1995b Rostowzew, M. 1911 Rubensohn, 0. 1900 1935 Rudhardt, J. 1958 Rumpf, L. 1996 1999 Sallares, R. 1991 Sassi, M.M. 1988 1992

1993 Schefold, K. 1943 1%5 Schmidt, E.A. 1987

Letteratura greca, Firenze 2 "Letteratura di filologi e filologia di letterati", Aevum( ant) 8, 9-32 "Die hellenistisch-romische Architekturlandschaft", MDAl(R) 26, 1-185 "Das Aushangeschild eines Traumdeuters", J. Vah/en, Berlin, 1-15 "Parische KOnstler", ]DAI 50, 49-69

m F estschrift

Notions fondamenta/es de la pensees religieuse et acres constitutifs du cu/te dans la Grece c/assique, Geneve Extremus /abor. Vergils JO.Ekloge und die Poetik der Bucolica, Gottingen "Bukolische Nomina bei Vergil und Theokrit. Zur poetischen Technik des Eklogenbuchs", RhM 142, 157-75

The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World, London La scienza del/'uomo nel/a Grecia antica, Torino "Plutarco antifisiognomico, ovvero: de! dominio della passione", in Plutarco e le scienze (Atti de/ IV convegno plutarcheo), a c. di I. Gallo, Genova, 353-73 "Fisiognomica". in Spazio letterario 1.2, 431-448

Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker, Basel Griechische Dichterbildnisse, Zurich 1965 Bukolische Leidenschaft oder iiber antike Hirtenpoesie, Frankfurt-Bern-New York

Schmidt, J. 1941 Schneidewin, M. 1929 Schonbeck, G. · 1962 Schubart, W. 1909

s.v. "Physiognomik",

in RE 20.l, 1064-74

Die Aristotelische Physiognomik, Heidelberg Der locus amoenus von Homer bis Horaz, Diss. Heidelberg "Die Amme im alten Alexandrien",

Jahrb. fiir Kinderheil-

kunde 70, 82-95 Schulze, H. 1998

Ammen und Piidagogen. Sklavinnen und Sklaven als Erzieher in der antiken Kunst und Gesel/schaft, Mainz am Rhein

400 Schwarz, G. 1971

11-IE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO THEOCRITUS

Die griechische Kunst des 5. U1ld4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. im Spiegel der Anthologia Graeca, Wien 1971 Schwingenstein, Chr. 1977 Die Figurenausstattung des griechischen Theatergebiiudes, Miinchen Schwyzer, E. 1939 Griechische Grammatik, Miinchen Seelbach, W. s.v. "Epigramm", in Kleines Lexikon des Hellenismus, Wies1993 baden2, 159-86 Segal, Ch. 1981a Poetry and Myth in Ancient Pastoral, Princeton 1981b "Caves, Pan and Silenus: Theocritus' Pastoral Epigrams and Virgil's Sixth Eclogue", in Segal 1981a, 336-9 (= ZAnl 26, 1976, 53-56) 1981c "Landscape into Myth: Theocritus' Bucolic Poetry", in Segal 1981a, 210-34 (= Ramus 4, 1975, 115-39) 1981d "Thematic Coherence and Levels of Style in Thoocritus• Bucolic Idylls", in Segal 1981a. 176-200 (= WS 11, 1977, 35-68) Sens, A. 1997 Theocritus: Dioscuri (Idyll 22), Gottingen Serrao, G. Problemi di poesia alessandrina I. Studi su Teocrito, Roma 1971 Settis, S. 1966 XEMlNH. Saggio sull'Afrodite Urania di Fidia, Pisa Shipton, K.M.W. 1997 "The Private Banks in Fourth Century B. C. Athens: A Reappraisal", CQ 41, 396-422 van Sickle, J. 1975 "Epic and Bucolic (Theocritus, Id. VU; Virgil, Eel. I)", QUCC 19, 45-72 1976 "Theocritus and the Development of the Conception of Bucolic Genre", Ramus 5, 18-44 Skiadas, A.O. 1965 Homer im griechischen Epigramm, Athen 1972 "'E1ti ,6µJxp. Ein Beitrag zur Interpretation der griechischen metrischen Grabinschriften", in G. Pfohl (Hrsg.), lnschriften der Griechen, Dannstadt, 59-85 Slings. S.R. 1989 "Anonymous, Parallel Lines from Homer and Archilochus", ZPE 19, 1-8 Smith, K.F. 1901 "Some Irregular Forms of the Elegiac Distich", AJPh 22, 165-94 Smutny, R.J. 1955 The Text History of the Epigrams of Theocritus, Berkeley & Los Angeles

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Snell, B. 1924

401

Die Ausdrucke fur den Begriff des Wissens in der vorplatonischen Philosophie, Berlin

Sogliano, A. 1879 Le pitture murali campane scoverte negli anni 1867-79, Napoli Sommerstein, A.H. 1995-1996 "Aeschylus' Epitaph", MCr 30-31, 111-7 Sourvinou-Inwood, Ch. 'Reading' Greek Death. To the End of the Classical Period, 1996 Oxford Spivey, N. "Bionic Statues", in A. Powell (ed.), The Greek World, London 1995 -New York, 442-59 Stadtmilller, H. 1894-1906 Anthologia Graeca epigrammatum Palatina cum Planudea, Lipsiae Stanford, W.B. 1968 "On the zeta/sigma-delta Variation in the Dialect of Theocritos: A Literary Approach", Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 67 Cl, 1-8 Stanzel. K.-H. Liebende Hirten. Theokrits Bukolik und die alexandrinische 1995 Poesie, Stuttgart 1996 "Selbstzitate in der mimischen Gedichten Theokrits", in Theocritus (Hel/enistica Groningana 2), ed. by M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Wakker, Groningen, 205-25 Steier, A. s.v. "Terebinthos", in RE 5.A.I, 577-81 1934 Stoll, H.W. 1884-1886 s.v. "Daphnis", in Roscher I, 955-61 Studniczka, F. "Des Arkaders Phauleas Weihgeschenk an Pan", MDAl(A) 30, 1905 65-72 Szastynska-Siemion, A. 1986 "The Alexandrian Epigrammatists • Idea of the Literary Work", Eos 14, 217-27 Szepessy, T. 1994 "La collection d'epigrammes de Theocrite", AAntHung 35. 73-102 Taran, S.L. The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden 1979 Tarditi, G. "La nuova epigrafe archilochea e la tradizione biografica del 1956 poeta", pp 11, 122-39 "Per una lettura degli epigrammatisti greci". Aevum( ant) I . 1988

5-15 Thesleff, H. 1981

"Man and locus amoenus in Early Greek Poetry", in Gnomosyne (Festschrift W. Marg), Milnchen, 31-45

402 Thompson, D.J. 1988 Thompson, W.E. 1979 Thraede, K. 1962 Thraemer, E. 1881-1886 1896 Tiberi, L. 1996 Torelli, M. 1979,

IBE EPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO IBEOCRITUS

Memphis under the Ptolemies, Princeton "A View of Athenian Banking", MH 36, 224-41 "Erfinder II", in RAC 5, 1191-1278

s.v. "Asklepios", in Roscher 1, 615-41 s.v. "Asklepios", in RE 2.2, 1642-97 "Epigrammi greci tramandati in versione epigrafica e in versione letteraria", Lexis 14, 71-85

"ldeologia della polis, committenza e ritratto", in Storia e civilta dei Greci 6, Milano, 439-58 Touchefeu-Meynier, 0. 1997 s.v. "Polyphemos I", in UMC 8.1, 1011-9 Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, I. 1966 "Werden und Wesen der bukolischen Poesie", AAntHung 14, 1-3 l Trypanis, C.A. 1970 "The Word ANOYATON", CPh 65, 51 Tsouna, V. 1998 "Doubts about Other Minds and the Science of Physiognomies", CQ 48, 175-86 Usener, H. 1874 "Ein Epigramm von Knidos", RhM 29, 25-50 Vatin, C. 1970 Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme mariee a l'epoque hel/enistique, Paris Veligianni-Terzi, C. 1991 Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehrendekreten der klassischen Zeit, Stuttgart Vendryes. J. 1903 "Une Joi d'accentuation grecque: !'opposition des genres", Memoir. Soc. Ling. Paris 13, 131-46 1938 Traite d'accentuation grecque, Paris Verdenius, W.J. 1983 "The Principles of Greek Literary Criticism". M nemosyne 36, 14-59 Verilhac, A.-M. 1978-1982 TTaio&c; licopot.Poesie funeraire, Athene Vitry, P. "Etude sur Jes Epigrammes de I' Anthologie Palatine qui con1894 tiennent la description d'une oeuvre d'art", RA 24, 315-67 Vox, 0. 1997 Carmi di Teocrito e dei poeti bucolici greci minori, Torino de Waele, F.J.M. 1927 The Magic Staff or Rod in Graeco-lta/ian Antiquity, Gent

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wallace, M.B. 1984

Waltz, P. 1936-1938 Weber, L. 1917 Webster, T.B.L. 1939

403

"The Metres of Early Greek Epigrams", in D.E. Gerber (ed.), Greek Poetry and Philosophy (Studies in Honour of L. Woodbury), Chico, 303-15 "Epigrammes "epideictiques" et manuscrits illustres", A/PhO 5-6 (Melanges E.Boisacq), 348-56 "Steinepigramm und Buchepigramm", Hermes 52, 536-57

"Greek Theories of Art and Literature down to 400 B.C.", CQ 33, 166-79 1964 Hellenistic Poetry and Art, London Weil, H.-Reinach, Th. 1900 Plutarque. De la musique, Paris Weinreich, 0. Antike Heilungswunder. Untersuchungen zum Wunderglauben 1909 der Griechen und Romer, Gie8en Weisshliupl, R. 1889 Die Grabgedichte der griechischen Anthologie, Wien Weller, Ch.W. "The Cave at Vari", A/A 7, 263-88 1903 Welles, C.B. "The Epitaph of Jiulius Terentius", HThR 34, 79-102 1941 Wellmann, M. s.v. "Adamantios", in RE 1.1, 343 1893 Wendel, C. De nominibus bucolicis, Lipsiae 1900 Wendling, E. 1891 De peplo aristotelico quaestiones se/ectae, Diss. Stra6burg Wentzel, G. ETTIKAHl:Ell: 0EnN sive de deorum cognominibus per 1889 grammaticorum Graecorum scripta dispersis, Diss. Gottingen Wemicke, W. 1895 s.v. "Apollon", in RE 2.1, 1-111 1897-1902 s.v. "Pan", in Roscher 3.1, 1347-1481 West, M.L. Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus, Berlin-New York 1974 CQ 47, "When is Harp a Panpipe? The Meaning of 1tT11Ctic;", 1997 48-55 West, S. "Herodotus' Epigraphical Interest", CQ 35, 278-305 1985 Wiesehofer, J. s.v. "Ammen", in DNP 1, 595-600 1996 Wifstrand, A. 1926 Studien zur griechischen Anthologie, Lund Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von 1906 Die Textgeschichte der griechischen Buko/iker, Berlin 1910 Bucolici Graeci, Oxonii2

404 1913 1921 1924 1930 1935-1972 Wilhelm, A. 1928 1947 Wilson, P.J. 1997

Wojaczek, G. 1969

11-IEEPIGRAMS ASCRIBED TO llfEOCRJTUS

Sappho und Simonides, Berlin Griechische Verskunst, Berlin Hellenistische Dichtung in tier hit des Ka/limachos, Berlin 2 "Lesefrilchte", Hermes 65, 241-58 Kleine Schriften, Berlin

"tpoq,oc;", G/otta 16, 274-9 "Zu den griechischen Inschriften aus dem Heiligtum des karischen Gottes I:ivupi", SAWW 224.4, 3-25 "Amymon of Sikyon: A First Victory in Athens and a First Tragic Khoregic Dedication in the City? (SEG 23,103 B)". ZPE 118, 174-8

Daphnis. Untersuchungen zur griechischen Bukolik, Meisen-

heim am Gian Wordsworth, Ch. 1877 Theocritus, Cantabrigiae 2 Zanker, G. Realism in Alexandrian Poetry: A Literature and its Audi1987 ence, London Zanker, P. Die Maske des Sokrates. Das Bild des lntellektuellen in der 1995 antiken Kunst. Milnchen Ziegler. C. Theocriti carmina ex codicibus /ta/is denuo a se collatis, 1879 Tubingae 3 Ziegler, K. Das hellenistische Epos. Ein vergessenes Kapitel griechischer 1966 Dichtung, Leipzig Ziehen, L. s.v. "Opfer", in RE 18.l, 579-627 1939 Zimmerman, C. The Pastoral Narcissus. A Study of the First Idyll of Theocritus, 1994 Lanham Zlotogorska, M. Darstellungen von Hunden auf griechischen Grabreliefs. Von 1997 der Archaik bis in die romische Kaiserzeit, Hamburg

INDEXES

INDEXES

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS

dya06c;: 191 dypt&AQ\OV: 55 6.66poc;: 313 n. 35 ).ayco~61.ov:135; 137 1.e1ovto1tci1.ac;: 54 1.ei1tco:12; 189; 317 AEOvtoµaxac;:332f. AEUICOXPO>