Acosta-Hughes-Lehnus-Stephens-Brill-s-Companion-to-Callimachus.pdf

8/9/2019 Acosta-Hughes-Lehnus-Stephens-Brill-s-Companion-to-Callimachus.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/acosta-hughes-lehnus-stephens-brill-s-companion-to-callimachuspdf 3/711
Cover illustration: Black granite statue o a Ptolemaic queen (59.1 inches high). 3rd century BC. Discovered at Canopus. Image reproduced courtesy o the HILI Foundation. Photograph by Christoph Gerigk.
Tis book is printed on acid-ree paper.
Library o Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Brill’s companion to Callimachus / edited by Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, Luigi Lehnus, Susan Stephens. p. cm. Includes bibliographical reerences and index. ISBN 978-90-04-15673-9 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Callimachus—Criticism and interpretation. 2. Greek poetry, Hellenistic—Egypt—Alexandria—History and criticism. I. Acosta-Hughes, Benjamin, 1960– II. Lehnus, Luigi. III. Stephens, Susan A. IV. itle: Companion to Callimachus.
PA3945.Z5B75 2011 881’.01—dc22
2011011254
Te titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/bccs.
ISSN 1872-3357 ISBN 9789004156739
Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Te Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part o this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any orm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission rom the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items or internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate ees are paid directly to Te Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
1. Callimachus Rediscovered in Papyri ......................................... 23 Luigi Lehnus
2. Te Aetia through Papyri ............................................................ 39 Giulio Massimilla
3. Callimachus as Fragment ............................................................ 63 Annette Harder
4. Te Diegeseis Papyrus: Archaeological Context, Format, and Contents ......................................................................................... 81 Maria Rosaria Falivene
5. Callimachus Cited ........................................................................ 93
7. Callimachus and His Koinai ....................................................... 134 Peter Parsons
SOCIAL CONEXS
8. Dimensions o Power: Callimachean Geopoetics and the Ptolemaic Empire ....................................................................... 155
Markus Asper
10. Callimachus’ Queens .................................................................. 201 Évelyne Prioux
11. Poet and Court ............................................................................ 225 Gregor Weber
12. Te Gods o Callimachus .......................................................... 245 Richard Hunter
13. Callimachus and Contemporary Religion: Te Hymnto Apollo ....................................................................................... 264 Ivana Petrovic
PAR HREE
New Music ................................................................................... 289 Lucia Prauscello
15. Callimachus and Contemporary Criticism ............................. 309 Allen J. Romano
16. Callimachus’ Muses .................................................................... 329 Andrew Morrison
17. Callimachus and the Atthidographers .................................... 349 Giovanni Benedetto
19. Proverbs and Popular Sayings in Callimachus ...................... 384 Emanuele Lelli
PAR FOUR
Adele-eresa Cozzoli
Marco Fantuzzi
23. Individual Figures in Callimachus ........................................... 474 Yannick Durbec
24. Iambic Teatre: Te Childhood o Callimachus Revisited .. 493 Mark Payne
PAR FIVE
25. Roman Callimachus .................................................................... 511 Alessandro Barchiesi
26. Callimachus and Later Greek Poetry ....................................... 534 Claudio De Steani and Enrico Magnelli
27. Arte Allusiva: Pasquali and Onward ........................................ 566
Mario Citroni
CONRIBUORS
B A-H is Proessor o Greek and Latin at the Ohio State University. He is the author o Polyeideia: Te Iambi o Callimachus and the Archaic Iambic radition (2002) and o Arion’s Lyre: Archaic Lyric into Hellenistic Poetry (2010). With Susan Stephens he is the coauthor o Callimachus in Context: From Plato to Ovid (Cambridge, orthcoming).
M A is Proessor o Classics at the Humboldt University o Berlin. He has authored monographs on Callimachus’ poetic meta- phors and the genres o Greek science writing, and has published an edition o Callimachus with German translation. He has published papers on Callimachus, Apollonius o Rhodes, Greek mathematics, archaic law and the emergence o standardized orms o argument, the earliest orms o Greek prose, Galen and his readers, and narra- tives in science.
S B is currently a Researcher teaching Greek Language and Classical Philology at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Milan and Brescia). Her publications include ΦΑΤΙΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΣ : Frammenti di elegia encomiastica nell’età delle guerre galatiche (2001), Te Glory o the Spear (2007), and “Idéologie royale et littérature de cour dans l’Égypte lagide” in Des rois au Prince (2010).
A B is Proessor o Latin Literature at the Univer-
sity o Siena at Arezzo and at Stanord. His recent research includes editing the Oxord Handbook o Roman Studies (with W. Scheidel) and work in progress or his Sather Lectures (2011) on Italy in Vir- gil’s Aeneid . Most o his previous publications deal with the major Augustan poets and their poetics, with requent reerence to Callima- chus and his inuence.
G B is Associate Proessor o Classics at the Uni- versity o Milan. His research interests concern Hellenistic poetry and the history o its interpretation in classical scholarship o the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Il sogno e l’invettiva: Momenti di storia
x
dell’esegesi callimachea, 1993) and the history o classical studies. He has written the commentary to most epitymbia in the editio princeps o
the epigrams o Posidippus (PMilVogl 8.309).
M C is Proessor o Latin Literature at the Istituto Italiano di Scienze Umane, Florence. His publications include Poesia e lettori in Roma antica (1995) and studies o literature and society and literature and contemporary mentalité in the Roman world, as well as on ancient literary epigram. He is editor o Memoria e identità: La cultura romana costruisce la sua imagine (2003). He is currently working on literary canons in ancient literature and on the origin o the concept
o the classic.
A- C is Associate Proessor o Greek Literature at the University o Rome III. Her interests include fh-century the- ater, in particular Euripides’ ragmentary plays; she has edited Eurip- ides’ Cretans with translation and commentary (2001). She has also authored numerous articles on Hellenistic poetry and is editor o two conerence volumes on Callimachus and one on the Argonautic tradition. Recently she has turned her attention to the distinctive eatures o the Hellenistic intellectual, erudition, and literary polemic.
C C is Proessor o Greek at the École Normale Supérieure, Lyon; his principal interests are Hellenistic poetry, didac- tic poetry, New Comedy, and the Greek novel, with particular ocus on intertextuality and poetics. He is the author o La Muse dans la bibliothèque (1999) and Ménandre; ou, La comédie tragique (2003), has published several conerences on Hellenistic poetry and has cre-
ated an online journal or Hellenistic studies at www.aitia.revues.org.He is currently preparing an edition o Euphorion and a commentary on Teocritus Idyll 6.
C D S teaches Greek Literature at the Università degli Studi II, Naples. He has published widely on Hellenistic and late Greek poetry, Greek and Arabic medicine, and Byzantine poetry. His works include an edition and commentary o the rst book o Nonnus’ Paraphrase o St. John’s Gospel (2002) and a critical edition o Paul the
Silentiary’s ecphrastic poems (2011). He is currently preparing critical editions o Galen’s De differentiis ebrium and Aelius Aristides’ Ora- tions 17–25.
xi
Y D teaches at the Tiers Lycée in Marseilles and is a Research Scholar associated with the CNRS (UMR 6125) at the Mai-
son Méditerranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme, Aix-en-Provence. Heis the editor o Callimaque: Fragments poétiques (2006) and is currently co-editing a collection o ragmentary poets o the third century . He is the author o numerous articles on Hellenistic poetry.
M R F is Associate Proessor o Papyrology at the University o Rome II or Vergata. Her principal elds o study include both literary and documentary papyrology, Alexandrian poetry, and the history o the administration o Greco-Roman Egypt. She takes
a special interest in the Greek-speaking intelligentsia o Egypt in the Hellenistic period and in the reconstruction o Greek libraries and archives on the basis o their surviving papyrus ragments.
M F is Visiting Proessor o Greek Literature at Colum- bia University and Proessor o Greek Literature at the University o Macerata and at the Graduate School o Greek and Latin Philology o the University o Florence. He is the author o Bionis Smyrnaei Adonidis epitaphium (1985), Ricerche su Apollonio Rodio (1988), radition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry (with R. Hunter, 2004), articles on Greek and Latin metrics and literary criticism, Hellenistic poetry, and Greek drama. He has also edited (with . Papanghelis) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral (2006).
A H is Proessor o Ancient Greek Language and Litera- ture at the University o Groningen. She has written on Greek tragedy and published a number o mythographic papyri and various articles
on Hellenistic poetry. She organizes the biennial Groningen Work-shops on Hellenistic Poetry and has edited several volumes o the series Hellenistica Groningana. She has also published a Dutch translation o a selection o Callimachus’ poetry, and her edition with introduction and commentary o Callimachus’ Aetia will appear in 2011.
R H is Regius Proessor o Greek at the University o Cambridge and a Fellow o rinity College. His research interests include Hellenistic poetry and its reception in Rome, ancient literary
criticism, and the ancient novel. His most recent books are Te Hesiodic Catalogue o Women: Constructions and Reconstructions (2005), Te Shadow o Callimachus (2006), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek
xii
Culture (with Ian Rutherord, 2009), and Critical Moments in Classical Literature (2009). Many o his essays have been collected in On Com-
ing Afer: Studies in Post-Classical Greek Literature and Its Reception (2008).
N K is Associate Proessor in the Department o Classical and Near Eastern Studies at the University o Minnesota. Her research interests include the history o the book in antiquity, Hellenistic poetry, and the reception o Hellenistic models in Latin literature. Her most recent publications are a study o epigram arrangement in papyrus collections and an essay on book burning and poetic deathbeds.
L L is Proessor o Classics at the University o Milan. His research interests extend rom late-archaic Greek literature to Helle- nistic and Roman poetry, and to the modern history o classical scholarship. He is currently preparing a new edition o the ragments o Callimachus.
E L collaborates with the University o Rome I “La Sapi- enza.” He is the author o Critica e polemiche letterarie nei Giambi di Callimaco (2004) and Callimachi Iambi XIV–XVII (2005), Volpe e leone: Il proverbio nella poesia greca (2006), I proverbi greci: Le raccolte di Zenobio e Diogeniano (2006), and o L’agricoltura antica: Geoponica di Cassiano Basso (2009).
E M is Assistant Proessor at the University o Florence. He has published widely on Greek poetry rom the Hellenistic to the Byzantine period, on Attic comedy, and on Greek meter, including
Alexandri Aetoli testimonia et ragmenta (1999) and Studi su Euorione(2002). He is currently preparing a monograph on the use o Homer in Greek comedy and satyr plays, a critical edition o Greek epigrams by poets o the imperial period and late antiquity (with Gianranco Agosti), and an edition with commentary o the ragments o Euphorion.
G M is Associate Proessor o Greek Literature at the University Federico II in Naples. He is the author o a two-volume critical edition, with commentary, o Callimachus’ Aetia (1996, 2010).
He has written on archaic Greek lyric, Hellenistic poetry, imperial Greek epic, and Greek literary papyri.
xiii
A M is Senior Lecturer in Classics at the University o Manchester. He is the author o Te Narrator in Archaic Greek and
Hellenistic Poetry (2007) and Perormances and Audiences in Pindar’sSicilian Victory Odes (2007), and coeditor o Ancient Letters (2007). He is currently working on Apollonius’ use o historiography (especially Herodotus) and a commentary on selected poems o Callimachus.
P P, Regius Proessor o Greek Emeritus at Oxord Uni- versity, has worked extensively in literary papyrology. He is the author, with Hugh Lloyd-Jones, o the Supplementum Hellenisticum (1983) and an editor o Te Oxyrhynchus Papyri.
M P is Associate Proessor in the Department o Classics, the John U. Ne Committee on Social Tought, and the College at the University o Chicago. He is the author o Teocritus and the Invention o Fiction (2007), Te Animal Part: Human and Other Animals in the Poetic Imagination (2010), and articles on ancient and modern poetry and poetics.
I P is Senior Lecturer at the Department o Classics and Ancient History at the University o Durham. Her Von den oren des Hades zu den Hallen des Olymp: Artemiskult bei Teokrit und Kallima- chos (2007) studies contemporary religion in Hellenistic poetry. She has co-edited volumes on the Roman triumph (2008) and on Greek archaic epigram (2010), and published papers on Greek (especially Hellenistic) poetry, Greek religion, and magic. She is currently working on a commentary on Callimachus’ Hymn to Artemis.
F P is Associate Proessor o Classical Philologyat the University o Venice “Ca’ Foscari.” His publications include works on a wide range o Greek and Latin authors, as well as on humanistic Greek (Greek epigrams o Angelo Poliziano, 2002; Mar- cus Musurus, 2003; Budé’s Homeric Studies, 2007) and the history o Homeric exegesis and reception (Heraclitus’ Quaestiones Homericae, 2005; the manuscript tradition o Greek exegesis to Homer’s Odyssey , 2005; unknown introductions to Homer, 2005 and 2009; a Byzantine portrait o Homer, 2005). He is currently working on an edition o
ancient and Byzantine Odyssey scholia (vols. 1 and 2 [covering Books 1–4], 2007–10).
xiv
L P is Lecturer in Classics at the University o Cam- bridge and Fellow o rinity Hall. She is the author o Singing Alexan-
dria: Music between Practice and extual ransmission (2006) and haspublished various works on archaic and Hellenistic poetry, drama, and the sociology o Greek music.
É P is a Research Proessor at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientique and teaches ancient art history in the Depart- ment o Art History at the University o Paris Ouest–Nanterre–La Déense. She is the author o Regards alexandrins: Histoire et théorie des arts dans l’épigramme hellénistique (2007) and o Petits musées en
vers: Épigramme et discours sur les collections antiques (2008).
A J. R is Assistant Proessor o Classics at the Florida State University. His major research interests and recent publications include work on tragedy, Greek epigram, and Hellenistic elegy. He is currently engaged in a book-length study o aetiological myth in Greek poetry and drama.
R S is D.R. Shackleton Bailey Collegiate Proessor o Greek and Latin at the University o Michigan. She has published widely in Greek literature, particularly on Homer and tragedy. Her books include Credible Impossibilities: Conventions and Strategies o Verisimilitude in Homer and Greek ragedy (1999), Listening to Homer (2002), Epic Facework: Sel-Presentation and Social Interaction in Homer (2008), and an Introduction to Greek ragedy (2010).
S S is Sara Hart Kimball Proessor in the Humanities
and Proessor in the Department o Classics at Stanord University.She is the author o Seeing Double: Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria (2003), and with Benjamin Acosta-Hughes o Callimachus in Context: From Plato to Ovid .
G W is Proessor o Ancient History and Direktor des Instituts ür Europäische Kulturgeschichte at the University o Augs- burg. His publications include Dichtung und hösche Gesellschaf (1993), Kaiser, räume und Visionen in Prinzipat und Spätantike
(2000), and Pseudo-Xenophon: Der Staat der Athener (2010). He is editor o Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus (2007) and Kulturbegegnungen
im ptolemäischen Alexandreia (2010), and is coeditor o Propagand— Selbstdarstellung—Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreich des 1.
Jahrhunderts n.Chr. (2003), Antike und moderne Demokratie (2004),raum und res publica (2008), and the Gnomon Bibliographische Datenbank.
Te texts o Callimachus are rom Peiffer (P.) or Massimilla (M.). In the non-technical papers some papyrological sigla (e.g., hal brackets) have been omitted rom Greek texts. Papyrological abbreviations ollow Checklist o Greek, Latin, and Coptic Papyri, http://scriptorium.lib .duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html. Brie citations are ordinarily placed within text; longer comments expressed as ootnotes.
AP Anthologia Palatina APl Anthologia Planudea CA J.U. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxord, 1925) DK H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker
(6th ed. Berlin, 1951–1952) FGE D.L. Page, Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge, 1981) FGrHist F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin
and Leiden, 1923–1958)
GDRK E. Heitsch, Die griechischen Dichterragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit (Göttingen, 1963–1964)
GLP D.L. Page, Greek Literary Papyri I. (Cambridge, MA 1942) GP A.S.F. Gow and D.L. Page, Te Greek Anthology. Hellenistic
Epigrams (Cambridge, 1965) GVI W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschrifen (Berlin, 1955) H. A. Hollis, Callimachus: Hecale. Introduction, ext, ransla-
tion, and Enlarged Commentary (2nd ed. Oxord, 2009) ICret M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae (Rome, 1935–1950)
IEG M.L. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci (2nd ed. Oxord, 1989– 1992)
IG Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin, 1873–) IGUR L. Moretti, Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae (Rome,
1968–1990) IME E. Bernand, Inscriptions métriques de l’Égypte gréco-romaine
(Paris, 1949) KA R. Kassel and C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci. 8 vols.
(Berlin, 1983–). LDAB Leuven Database o Ancient Books http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/
xviii
LSJ H.G. Liddell et al. A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed. Oxord, 1940)
M. G. Massimilla, AIIA. Libri primo e secondo. (Pisa andRome, 1996). Libro terzo e quarto. (Pisa and Rome, 2010). M.-W. R. Merkelbach and M.L. West, Hesiodi Fragmenta (3rd ed.
Oxord, 1990) MP3 Catalogue des papyrus littéraires grecs et latines http://promethee.philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal/indexanglais.htm OGIS W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae
(Leipzig, 1903–5) PEG A. Bernabé, Poetarum Epicorum Graecorum. (Leipzig,
1987–2007) P. R. Peiffer, Callimachus, 2 vols. (Oxord, 1949–1953) PCG See KA PMG D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxord, 1962) PMGF M. Davies, Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta
(Oxord, 1991–) Powell See CA RE A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll et al., eds. Real-
Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaf . (Stuttgart- Munich, 1894–1980)
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden, 1923–) SGO R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem
griechischen Osten. 5 vols. (Munich, Leipzig, 1998–2004) SH H. Lloyd-Jones and P.J. Parsons, Supplementum Hellenisti-
cum (Berlin and New York, 1983) SSH H. Lloyd-Jones, Supplementum Supplementi Hellenistici
(Berlin, 2005)
SLG D.L. Page, Supplementum Lyricis Graecis (Oxord, 1974)Sk. O. Skutsch, Te Annals o Q. Ennius (Oxord, 1985) SVF H. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. (Leipzig,
1903–1924) Syll W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (3rd ed.
Leipzig, 1915–1924) GF A. Nauck, ragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (2nd ed.
Leipzig, 1889) rGF B. Snell, R. Kannicht, and S. Radt, ragicorum Graecorum
Fragmenta (Göttingen, 1971–2004) West See IEG Σ Scholion
A
Te introduction provides a survey o Callimachus’ extant poetry; an assess- ment o the evidence or his lie; discussion o the differences between Cyrene, the oldest Greek city in North Arica, and Alexandria, the oundation o
which occurred only fy years beore Callimachus began writing, and howthese places are represented in his poems. It concludes with a brie discussion o the current directions o scholarship on Callimachus and the rationale or the topics discussed in this volume.
Callimachus was the most important poet o the Hellenistic age, because o his engagement with ideas about poetry, his wide-ranging generic experimentation, and his sel-conscious stance as a poet between a perormed art and the emerging possibilities o the text.1
His was a singular moment in the transition rom the classical worldo old Greek cities to the new oundation o Ptolemaic Alexandria—a megacity that attracted people o diverse ethnicities rom many locations around the Mediterranean (Scheidel 2004). Callimachus took advantage o the reedoms and challenges that this new environment provided to experiment at the boundaries o the inherited literary past. Whether we regard his various statements on poetry as serious and systematic, as playul, or as captatio benevolentiae, he was unique in his expression o interest in what constituted poetic excellence, and
these statements in combination with his compositions in multiple genres provoked requent and continuous imitation. Yet o his poetic oeuvre, which would have exceeded what we now have o Teocritus, Aratus, Posidippus, and Apollonius combined, only his six hymns and around sixty o his epigrams have survived intact. Te rest has been reduced to numerous citations in later Greek lexicons and handbooks or, beginning in the late nineteenth century, has been discovered on papyrus ragments.
1 For example, his Aetia opens with Apollo addressing him as singer—οιδς—at the very moment when rst he placed his writing tablet on his knees (r. 1.21–24 P.)
Te Poetry
Celebrated or his elegance, learning, and generic experiment, Calli-machus is noted also or the remarkable scope o his poetic output both in its size and in the range. What ollows is an outline o his poetic oeuvre.
Te Hymns
Callimachus’ six Hymns have survived intact because they were collected and transmitted along with the Homeric Hymns, the Orphic
hymns, and those o Proclus. Te manuscript containing them wasbrought to Italy rom Constantinople between the ourteenth and the early feenth century (Bulloch 1985: 71 n. 1); it is no longer extant, but all known manuscripts o these hymns descend rom that single archetype. Papyrus nds o Callimachus’ Hymns conrm the order in which they appear in the manuscript tradition. Tat conrmation, although by no means conclusive, lends credence to scholarly assertions that this was the arrangement o the poet himsel. Internal reerences militate against their having been composed at the same time.
Tese hymns are usually categorized as literary, meaning that they were never intended or perormance,2 though there are dissenters rom this judgment.3 Each hymn eatures a single Olympian divinity—Zeus, Apollo, Artemis, Delos (Apollo), Athena, Demeter. Te rst our have a strong ocus on childhood. All address the deity in the second person singular (usually reerred to as Du-Stil ) and include traditional eatures: the narrative o birth and divine accomplishments. Tree hymns are mimetic, as i the speaker and audience were attending a ritual event. Te poems have very strong intertextual links with the Homeric
Hymns (particularly the Homeric Hymns to Dionysus, to Demeter , and to Apollo), and with Hesiod and Pindar. Hymns 1–4 and 6 are written in hexameters; Hymn 5 in elegiacs. Te dialect o the rst our is epic- Ionic; the last two are in Doric. (On the Hymns, see the chapters by R. Hunter, M. Fantuzzi, and C. Cusset.)
2
See Furley and Bremmer 2001: 1.45–47; Fraser 1972: 1.652–53. Bing (1988band 2009: 106–115) and Depew (1989, 1993, and 1998) state what is still the majority position.
3 See, e.g., Alan Cameron 1995: 24–70.
3
Hymn 1, “o Zeus” (96 lines), begins with Callimachus expressing his doubt about how to hymn Zeus: Was he born in Arcadia, or in
Crete? Te poet opts or an Arcadian birth, afer which the inant isimmediately transerred to Crete, where his growth is prodigious. Zeus then assumes the prerogatives o the king o the gods, taking Olympus or his portion by virtue o his superior might. He has charge o kings, the most important o whom is Ptolemy. Tis hymn is generally taken as the earliest, the king o line 86 being identied with either Ptolemy I (who died in 282) or, more likely, Ptolemy II at the beginning o his reign. (See S. Barbantani.) Te poem has close textual affinities with contemporary philosophical views about Zeus as expressed in Aratus’
opening o the Phaenomena, in Euhemerus,4 and in Antagoras o Rhodes (Cuypers 2004).
Hymn 2, “o Apollo” (113 lines), begins with a hushed anticipa- tion o the epiphany o the god and an exhortation to a chorus o young men to hymn him. Te poem includes events rom the childhood, youth, and nally marriage o the god to the nymph Cyrene. Te central section describes the origins o the Carneia, a estival o Apollo brought to Cyrene rom Sparta by the rst immigrants, and this section encourages belie that the hymn was written or Cyrene. Tis hymn is most amous or its sphragis (105–113), in which Apollo, in support o the poet, spurns Envy with his oot and announces his preerence or pure drops o water carried rom a spring, not the Assyrian river that carries garbage in its great stream. (See I. Petrovic and M. Fantuzzi.)
Hymn 3, “o Artemis” (268 lines), is a diffuse and complicated narrative that begins with the child Artemis asking her ather, Zeus, or a number o gifs, including eternal virginity, her weapons o the hunt, the care o women in childbirth, and choruses o mountain nymphs.
Zeus’s amused response includes even more gifs, including citiesunder her protection and cult titles. Te bulk o the poem is taken up with a catalogue o her many cult sites and titles.5
Hymn 4, “o Delos” (326 lines), recounts Leto’s ight through the eastern Mediterranean as she searches or a place to give birth. Te hostility o Hera prevents other islands rom providing her shelter, but Delos, a wandering island, agrees. In the course o Leto’s wandering, the unborn Apollo prophesies rom his mother’s womb that the
4 He is also alluded to polemically in Iambus 1. 5 See Bing and Uhrmeister 1994 and I. Petrovic 2007.
4
Macedonian Ptolemy (II) will be born on Cos, come to rule Egypt, and will deeat the Gauls (lines 162–95); the event reerred to took place in
275 . Afer Apollo’s birth Delos is xed in the sea; song bursts orth,and the poem ends with a description o the mythological origins o the estival o the Delia.6 Te hymn has close affinities with Pindar’s Hymn 1 and Paean 7b and Bacchylides 17.
Hymn 5, “o Athena” (142 lines), is also called the Bath of Pallas (Loutra Pallados) rom its subject matter. Te poem opens with the invisible narrator summoning the Argive women to an annual rite in which they process the Palladium to the sea in order to wash it. (Te Palladium was the statue o Athena that Ajax took rom its sanctuary
when roy was sacked; he brought it to Argos.) Te central section o the poem contains a cautionary tale directed at Argive men, who are urged to avert their eyes rom the sacred event. Callimachus tells o the blinding o iresias, who accidentally caught sight o Athena bathing in the woods (lines 55–130). Tis poem is the only one o the group in elegiacs; as in the next hymn, the dialect is Doric. (See P. Parsons.)
Hymn 6, “o Demeter” (138 lines), has notable affinities with the previous hymn (Hopkinson 1984a: 13–17). Te poem also opens with an unseen narrator summoning the women or a rite, in this case or Demeter, which has elements o the Tesmophoria and the Mysteries. Te participants’ asting is juxtaposed with the enclosed tale o Ery- sichthon, whose sacrilege in attempting to cut down a sacred grove o Demeter is punished with an all-consuming hunger (lines 25–115).
Te Epigrams
Callimachus’ epigrams were quite admired in antiquity, and accord-
ing to Athenaeus (15.669c) they ormed part o the school curriculum. Tey include erotic, sympotic, dedicatory, and unerary types, and a ew express literary opinions. o judge rom the practice o other epigrammatists, Callimachus probably organized his own epigrams into at least one poetry book; but i he did, it has not survived (Gutzwiller 1998: 183–190). Te epigrams we have today were included in later Hellenistic and Byzantine collections and were subsequently reas- sembled rom sources like the Palatine Anthology and the Planudean Anthology , or occasionally rom ancient sources like Athenaeus.
6 Te poem has ofen been read metapoetically: see especially Bing 1988b.
5
A.S.F. Gow and D.L. Page’s edition o 1965, Te Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, contains sixty-three epigrams and seven rag-
ments attributed to Callimachus, with extensive commentary. (Teirnumbering o these epigrams is designated “GP.”) Rudol Peiffer (1949–53) also prints sixty-three, though not in the same order.
Te Aetia
Callimachus’ most inuential work was the Aetia (Origins or Causes), an elegiac poem arranged in our books o approximately a thousand to feen hundred lines each, with both a prologue and an epilogue.
It consisted o a series o interlocked accounts (aitia) that explainedcertain eatures o cult. Now only about a thousand lines survive, in more than two hundred separate papyrus ragments. (For the geo- graphic range o the Aetia, see M. Asper; or its organization, consti- tuent aitia, and themes, see G. Massimilla; or editorial reconstruction, see M.A. Harder.)
Tere are two recent editions o the Aetia: Callimaco: Aitia, libri primo e secondo (Pisa, 1996) and Aitia, libro
terzo e quarto (Pisa, 2010), Giulio Massimilla’s Italian edition, with
text, extensive commentary, and translation o the Aetia, is now complete in two volumes. Massimilla has renumbered the ragments, which are cited with the designation “M.” or “Mass.” (See his discussion in this volume.)
Callimachus, Aetia: Introduction, ext, ranslation and Commen- tary (Oxord, orthcoming). Annette Harder’s English edition o the Aetia has extensive introductory material, text, very detailed commentary, and translation. As much as possible, Harder has retained the earlier numeration o the Aetia ragments according to Peiffer (1949),
adding a, b, or c where necessary, and the Supplementum Hellenisti- cum (Lloyd-Jones and Parsons 1983).
Te Iambi
Te Iambi was a metrically heterogeneous collection o short poems that insert themselves into the iambic tradition by, in the opening poem, bringing back the archaic iambicist Hipponax rom Hades to attack the poet’s critics, but with a milder style o invective. (Hipponax
was known or the extreme vitriol o his personal attacks; Callimachus adopts a much sofer, moralizing tone.) Tere were at least thirteen Iambi: the rst and thirteenth orm a clear ring composition—the rst by introducing Hipponax chastising the critics as its rame, and the
thirteenth by introducing critics who chastise Callimachus’ imitation o Hipponax. Callimachus’ targets range rom literary critics (Iambi 1
and 13) to sexually irresponsible behaviors (3, 5, 9, 11); we nd ani-mal ables (2, 4), descriptions o statuary (6, 7, 9), a birthday poem (12), and an epinician (8). Te meters include traditional choliambic (1–4, 13), epodic (5, choliambic and iambic dimeter; 6 and 7, iambic trimeter with ithyphallics), brachycatalectic iambic trimeter (11), and catalectic trochaic trimeter (12).
Te poems have been reconstructed rom papyrus ragments and rom a later prose summary (the Milan Diegeseis) o Callimachus’ poetry that gives the order o the individual stories within the Aetia,
the Iambi, and other now ragmentary poems. (See M.R. Falivene.) Te most extensive papyrus o the Iambi, POxy 7.1011, also contained parts o Aetia 3 and 4, ollowed by an epilogue. Tese precede Iambi 1–4, 12, and 13, though with many lacunae. Te Epilogue to the Aetia states in its nal line ατρ γ Μουσων πεζν []πειμι νομν (r. 112.9 P.), “but now I am proceeding to the pedestrian pasture o the Muses”; this has been taken to mean that Callimachus, having com- pleted the Aetia, now turned to writing the Iambi.7 Te act that the title αμβοι heads this group o poems in the papyrus indicates that it was conceived as a unit, most likely arranged by the author himsel.
For recent editions o the thirteen Iambi see: Callimachus’ Book of Iambi (Oxord, 1999). Arnd Kerkhecker’s Eng-
lish edition o the Iambi ollows Peiffer’s numbering. It provides some new readings and extensive notes. All thirteen Iambi are treated, though the poems are not presented as continuous texts.
Polyeideia: Te Iambi of Callimachus and the Archaic Iambic radition (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2002). Benjamin Acosta-Hughes’
English treatment o the Iambi presents the texts with acing transla-tions and some textual notes, accompanied by interpretive essays. He discusses Iambi 1–7, 9, 12, and 13.
7 A less likely alternative (once proposed by Wilamowitz) is that Callimachus is now turning rom poetry to prose. P. Knox (1985a and 1993) suggested that r. 112
was the epilogue to an original edition o Aetia 1 and 2, and that the last line o theragment was one o literary intent, not a reerence to an already accomplished work. For summaries o the scholarship on these positions, see Massimilla 2010: 519–520 and M.A. Harder, orthcoming ad r. 112.9.
Te Mλη
Four poems immediately ollow the Iambi in the Diegeseis, without an additional title. Tereore, some scholars consider that these poems also belong to the iambic collection. (Te act that these our were also occasional poems is not an impediment, since apparently Iambi 8 and 12 were as well.) Also part o the debate is whether Horace’s collection o seventeen epodes resulted rom his knowing a book o seventeen Iambi. Rudol Peiffer treated these our poems separately in his great edition o Callimachus (1949–53), identiying them with the M λη (“Lyrics”) that the Suda attributed to Callimachus ( 1 P.).8
Fragment 225 Pf. Λμνος τ παλαιν, ε τις λλ was, accordingto the Milan diegesis, the rst line o this poem, which “he speaks to beautiul boys.” It was written in the phalaecian meter; its length is not known. Te subject matter was the legend o the Lemnian women who had murdered their menolk. No other lines survive, and the relationship o the boys to the Lemnian women is opaque, though in view o Hymns 5 and 6, the story may have been apotropaic.
Fragment 226 Pf. Te Pannychis or “Night Revel” was, according to the ancient metrician Hephaestion, written in the ourteen-syllable
“Euripidean” meter. It was a drinking song or the Dioscuri. Frag- ments o nine lines survive.9
Fragment 228 Pf. Te Apotheosis of Arsinoe was written in archebou- leans. Parts o seventy-ve lines rom this poem survive. Its subject matter was the death o Arsinoe II and her subsequent transport into the heavens by the Dioscuri. Te poem opens with the poet asking Apollo to lead the singers; and the whole o Egypt is portrayed as mourning the dead queen. It was in part modeled on Andromache’s lamentation or Hector.10 (See É. Prioux.)
Fragment 229 Pf. Te Branchus was written in catalectic choriam- bic pentameters. Only thirteen lines survive. Branchus was a young shepherd whom Apollo loved, and on whom he bestowed the gif o prophecy. Branchus is credited with ounding the cult o Apollo at Didyma, near Miletus. In the ragment that we have he is described
8 Te proponents o a collection o thirteen Iambi include Acosta-Hughes 2002: 4–9
and 2003, and Kerkhecker 1999: 271–282; those who argue or seventeen include AlanCameron 1995: 163–172 and Lelli 2005a. D’Alessio 2007 leaves the question open. 9 Te poem and its subject matter are treated extensively by Bravo 1997: 103–117. 10 D’Alessio 2007: 665–666 and nn. 26, 29.
8
as transplanting a shoot rom Apollo’s laurel at Delphi in the new precinct at Didyma.
For these our poems, see Emanuele Lelli’s recent reedition withtranslation and extensive commentary (in Italian), Callimaco: Giambi XIV–XVII (Rome, 2005).
Te Hecale
Te Hecale was a hexameter poem o around a thousand to twelve hundred lines, o which less than a third survives, in well over a hundred ragments. For this reason, to reconstruct it has proved even
more challenging than Callimachus’ other major poems. Te Hecale relates the story o Teseus’ deeat o the Marathonian bull. On his way to accomplish that task, Teseus takes shelter rom the elements in the hut o an old woman named Hecale, who shares her meager provisions with the hero and relates her lie story. Te next day, when he returns with the bull in tow, he nds that she has died; as a result he establishes a shrine to Zeus Hecalius, an annual east in her honor, and names the local deme afer her. Te poem exhibits very strong Homeric elements: its central theme o hospitality has numer-
ous echoes o Odysseus and Eumaeus rom the Odyssey , at the same time owing much to Attic tragedy (Ambühl 2004). Tere is also a long exchange between two birds who narrate the early history o Attica. Callimachus made extensive use o the Atthidographers or his local history o Attica in this poem. (See G. Benedetto.) Te Hecale has long been claimed as an example o an epyllion or miniature epic, suppos- edly popularized in the Hellenistic period.11
Adrian Hollis’ Callimachus: Hecale (2nd ed.: Oxord, 2009), with extensive introduction, text, and detailed commentary, is now the
standard or this poem. Hollis’ reordered and renumbered ragments o the Hecale are now cited with the designation “H.”
Other Fragments
Other ragmentary poems that contribute to our understanding o Callimachus’ poetic interests include:
Fragments 378 and 379 Pf. In what was apparently a hexameter treatment o the invasion o the Gauls the poet mentions Galatea, the
11 Te category has occasioned considerable controversy. For various views, see Ziegler 1966; Alan Cameron 1995: 437–453; Fantuzzi and Hunter 2004: 191–199; Hollis 2006.
Nereid whose coupling with the Cyclops Polyphemus produced their eponymous ancestor, Galates. Another ragment mentions Brennus,
who led the Gauls’ attack against Delphi in 279/8 . For the impor-tance o the Gauls in Hellenistic poetry, see S. Barbantani (this volume and 2001).
Fragments 381 and 382 Pf. Te Ibis was, according to the Suda ( 1 P.), a scurrilous attack (in either elegiacs or hexameters) on Apollo- nius o Rhodes, though ew scholars accept that verdict today. It was imitated in elegiacs by Ovid, but nothing o the Greek original remains (Alan Cameron 1995: 225–228).
Fragment 384 Pf. Fragments rom sixty lines survive o what was an
elegiac epinician written or Sosibius (Fuhrer 1992: 139–204). Fragment 388 Pf. Tis is the remnant o an elegiac poem that men-
tions Magas, king o Cyrene, and his daughter Berenice II. She later married Ptolemy III (Chiesa 2009).
Fragment 392 Pf. All that remains is the opening line rom what appears to be a poem on the marriage o Arsinoe II.
itles of Other Poems
Te Suda ( 1 P.) attributes a number o other poems to Callima- chus about which we have no urther inormation: “Te Arrival o Io,” “Semele,” “Te Foundation o Argos,” “Arcadia,” “Glaucus,” “Hopes,” satyr plays, tragedies, comedies.
Callimachus in Alexandria
Callimachus was rom the old Greek city o Cyrene, about 535 miles to
the west o Alexandria. In these lines rom a unerary epigram, osten-sibly or his ather, he claims to be related to the distinguished general o the same name, who is attested in other sources (Laronde 1987: 118, 129):
στις μν παρ σμα φρεις πδα, Καλλιμχου με σθι Κυρηναου παδ τε κα γεντην.
εδεης δ’ μφω κεν μν κοτε πατρδος πλων ρξεν, δ’ εισεν κρσσονα βασκανης.
Whoever walks by my tomb, know that I am the child and ather o Cal- limachus the Cyrenean. You would know both. One once led the armies o his homeland; the other sang beyond the reach o envy.
Ep. 21 P. = APl. 7.525
10
In the Cyrenean section o his Hymn to Apollo Callimachus reers to Cyrene as “my city” and to “our kings” (lines 65 and 68). Nonetheless,
the bulk o his poetry seems to have been produced in Alexandria,or at least to have had a very strong Alexandrian ocus. Tose texts or which we have secure external support or a date belong in the reign o the second Ptolemy (Philadelphus, 283–246 ) or early in the reign o the third (Euergetes, 246–221). Tese include the Hymn to Delos (lines 171–87), which alludes to the deeat o Gaulish mercenar- ies in 275 (see S. Barbantani); and the rst line rom a poem that seems to have been written or the marriage o Arsinoe II to her ull brother, Ptolemy II (r. 392 P.)—hence their title Sibling Gods (Θεο
δελφο)—a marriage that occurred between 278 and 274 . Calli- machus also wrote on Arsinoe II’s death (r. 228 P.), which occurred in 270 . wo other ragmentary poems that have been incorporated into the Aetia eature Berenice II, the daughter o Magas the king o Cyrene. (Magas was dead by 246 .) Te Victory of Berenice, at the opening o Aetia Book 3, commemorates the queen’s chariot victory at the Nemean Games in either 245 or 241 ; the Lock of Berenice, at the end o Aetia Book 4, commemorates her marriage to Ptolemy III Euer- getes in 246. (See É. Prioux.) Further inormation comes rom Ath- enaeus (6.252c): namely that Callimachus recorded in his Pinakes that one Lysimachus wrote on the education o Attalus. However, the rst Pergamene king so named took the throne only in 241; i Athenaeus’ statement is accurate, then Callimachus must still have been writing in 240, and possibly even later.12 He also wrote an elegiac epinician or Sosibius (rr. 384 and 384a P.). Consensus now identies this Sosibius with the notorious advisor o Ptolemy IV, which i correct must mean that the poem could not have been written much beore 240 and was
possibly written as late as 230. 13
In light o these data, Callimachus’birth probably ell around 305, and his death sometime afer 240. One o the most distinctive eatures o the new city was its Library.
Probably established under Ptolemy I with the assistance o Demetrius o Phalerum (Erskine 1995 and Bagnall 2002), it had an ambitious
12 For a thorough canvass o the chronological possibilities, see Lehnus 1995. 13 Another option is recorded by Athenaeus (4.144c), who claims that this elegy
was or a Sosibius who wrote a tract on kingship or Cassander. Since Cassander died
in 297 , a poem or this man would require a much earlier compositional date. Butthe number o athletic victories with which Callimachus credits Sosibius suggests a political rather more than a literary gure. See Asper 1997: 5; D’Alessio 2007: 680–681; Lehnus 1995: 12.
11
program o collecting books rom throughout the Greek-speaking world. Although he was never its librarian,14 Callimachus must have
produced his taxonomic masterpiece, the Pinakes, by taking advan-tage o the wide range o Greek literature owing into Alexandria. Te Pinakes was a list o previous writers organized by genre; it included biographies and listed their works with incipits. (See N. Krevans.) Cal- limachus’ extensive prose output (rr. 403–66 Peiffer) included tracts on the winds, barbarian customs, birds, nymphs, islands, and rivers, and at least one (Πρς Πραξιφνην , r. 460 P.) that seems to have been about the critique o poetry. (See A. Romano.)
Further details o Callimachus’ lie are uncertain. Te Suda claims
that he was a schoolmaster (γραμματικς) in the Alexandrian suburb o Eleusis ( 1 P.), but a Byzantine source (zetzes: 4c P.) asserts that he was a νεανσκος τς αλς (“a youth o the court”), a rank o sufficiently high status to seem unsuited to the position o a schoolmaster.15 Alan Cameron argues persuasively that other members o his amily were highly placed, including a number who were known to be Cyrenaic philosophers.16 Another ancestor, Anniceris, according to Diogenes Laertius (3.20), ransomed Plato rom the Syracusan tyrant Dionysius, a story that, however apocryphal, again suggests a Cyrenean amily o some wealth and connections.
Why or when Callimachus moved rom Cyrene to Alexandria is not known, and whether he lived primarily in one or the other city is equally unclear. Between 275 and 246 the two cities were technically at war. Probably this did not require all traffic between the two cities to cease entirely; more likely some exchange was allowed to continue at least sporadically, especially in the long period o the betrothal o Magas’ daughter Berenice to Ptolemy II’s son. But where Callimachus
spent these years is not known, though his poem on the death o Arsi-noe probably means that he was in Alexandria at least in 270. Very ew data survive rom Alexandria itsel, but good documentary evidence rom elsewhere in Egypt indicates that individuals rom Cyrene and Cyrenaica ormed a very large immigrant group in the early Ptolemaic
14 POxy 10.1241, which provides a list o early heads o the Library, does not include Callimachus.
15 Alan Cameron 1995: 3–5. He makes the point that there would have been no
Greek schools in Egypt beore Ptolemy I arrived, and thereore the term γραμματικς in the third century probably meant “scholar” (n. 16). 16 1995: 7–12, ollowing A. Laronde and C. Meillier. See especially Alan Cameron’s
nn. 26 and 29 (pp. 7–8).
12
period, and there is no reason to assume a different pattern or Alexan- dria. Tus Callimachus’ requent reerences to Cyrene and Libya in his
poetry are not necessarily indicative o his location: he may have beenwriting in and or Cyrene, or his reerences may have been intended to recall the homeland or the Cyrenaean community in Alexandria.
Callimachus’ connection with Cyrene and Alexandria is not in doubt, but assertions that he traveled elsewhere are more problematic. How- ever, an Athenian inscription listing contributors to a special levy to aid the state includes the name Callimachus, without urther qualication. It has recently been redated to a period well within our poet’s lietime (around 247 ), and thereore it may indicate both his presence in
Athens, and, as the editor o the text argues, his distinction, since he is identied without any ethnic and is ollowed by “Lycon philoso[pher]” (Oliver 2002: 6). Whether or not we choose to believe that the Cal- limachus o the Athenian inscription is the poet, the nd does illustrate the uid state o Callimachus’ biography as well as his poetry; every new discovery on papyrus or stone, o a new intertext,17 or o a scholium in a medieval manuscript,18 may require us to reassess our previously held ideas.
One o the most distinctive eatures o Callimachus’ poetry is his interest in cult, which regularly maniests itsel in descriptions o stat- ues, rites, and temples. Alexandria is no exception, as he clearly took an interest in some o the earliest o the city’s monuments. In the rst Iambus he conjures up the long-dead Hipponax, who returns rom the underworld to chastise quarrelsome critics in Alexandria, summoning them to a temple “outside the walls.” (Tis is the earliest reerence that we have to Alexandria’s walls.)19 According to the Milan diegesis, this temple was Parmenio’s Serapeum. Tis was not the Great emple
o Serapis built under Ptolemy III, but an earlier shrine, the existenceo which is independently attested by a papyrus letter o 253.20 Te Cape Zephyrium temple dedicated by Callicrates o Samos to Arsinoe- Aphrodite appears in the Nautilus Epigram (Ep. 5 P. = 14 GP) as well as in the elegiac Lock of Berenice. It was in that temple that the lock
17 See B. Acosta-Hughes, in this volume, on the reading μαα δ’ νσσης in the Epilogue to the Aetia.
18
See Pontani 1999 on πολλκ]ι in r. 1 P.19 McKenzie 2007: 41 n. 38. 20 Dieg . VI 3–4 (Peiffer 1949–53: 1.163) and PCairZen 59355. See Fraser 1972:
1.270–71.
13
was dedicated, thence to be translated into the heavens (r. 110.56–57 P.). Callimachus related another catasterism, this time rom the pre-
cinct o Arsinoe’s mortuary temple. Again, rom the Milan diegesis o the now ragmentary Apotheosis of Arsinoe we learn that Callima- chus mentioned the altar and precinct o Arsinoe near the Emporium, rom which the Dioscuri carried her up afer her death.21 Tis mortuary temple, later described by Pliny (NH 34.148), seems to have had a vaulted ceiling, somehow magnetized so that a statue o the dead queen could be seen to levitate (apparently attracted by the iron in her hair). A dedication “to the Canopic god” in Epigram 55 P. (= 16 GP) must reer to the temple that Ptolemy III and Berenice II dedicated to
Serapis at Canopus.22 Another epigram (Ep. 37 P. = 17 GP), describ- ing a dedication to Serapis by a Cretan rom Lyctus, most likely reers to the same Canopic shrine o Serapis, or perhaps to the Serapeum in Alexandria.
Callimachus did not write in a vacuum: Ptolemaic Alexandria was a ertile, thriving poetic environment, in part because imperial patronage strove to make it so; in part because the new city provided opportuni- ties in so many different venues, not the least o which was the newly established Library. Callimachus’ poetry reects various elements o this new space. Demetrius o Phalerum, or example, apparently collected the ables o Aesop. It is unlikely to be coincidence that Cal- limachus uses Aesop in his own poetry. (See R. Scodel.) Callimachus locates Euhemerus in Alexandria in his rst Iambus (r. 191.10–11 P.: the old man scribbling his unrighteous books). Author o the Sacred Register , Euhemerus was amous (or notorious) or his claims that Zeus and other gods had rst been mortals and subsequently came to be worshipped or their benets to mankind.
Callimachus’ most important poetic contemporaries included Te-ocritus o Syracuse, the inventor o the bucolic genre. Associated with Sicily and Cos, he was among the earliest Hellenistic poets, and his residence in Alexandria belongs, probably, between the 280s and the 270s. His Encomium of Ptolemy II (Idyll 17) and Heracliscus (Idyll 24) share numerous verbal and thematic parallels with Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus and Hymn to Delos.
21 Dieg . X 11–13 (Peiffer 1949–53: 1.218). 22 Te temple was amous, and a ragment attributed to Apollonius’ poem on Cano-
pus (r. 1 Powell) is thought to describe its columns.
14
Apollonius o Rhodes, whose surviving poem is the epic Argonau- tica, is also credited with oundation poetry. Tought to have been a
native Alexandrian and a slightly younger contemporary o Callima-chus, he ollowed Zenodotus as head o the Alexandrian Library. Tere are numerous intersections between the Argonautica and Callimachus’ Aetia, not the least o which is the act that the aitia o Callimachus’ poem apparently begin with the Argonauts on Anaphe, the location o a long episode at the end o the Argonautica.23
Aratus o Soli (ca. 315–240 ) wrote the Phaenomena, a didac- tic treatment o Eudoxus’ astronomy that was subsequently o great inuence in Latin poetry. He probably wrote in the court o Antigo-
nus Gonatas o Macedon; whether he was ever in Alexandria is moot. Nonetheless, the proem to Zeus in the Phaenomena and Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus are interconnected, even i priority cannot be established (Cuypers 2004: 100).
Epigrammatists rom a variety o locations also achieved promi- nence during this period. Teir epigrams, ofen imitating earlier stone inscriptions, were beginning to be collected into books o verse.24 Te most important o these writers were Asclepiades o Samos and Posi- dippus o Pella. A roll o more than a hundred epigrams o Posidip- pus, datable to the late third century , was published as recently as 2001.25 A surprising eature o this new collection was its emphasis on the Ptolemies, especially their queens. Te epigrams o Posidippus too share many eatures in common with Callimachus’ Aetia.26
Te exact chronology o all o these poets will continue to be dis- puted, not least because they clearly wrote in response to each other’s texts; and even when allusive priority may seem clear, we know so little about strategies o inormal poetic exchange or what may have
constituted ormal publication that any assertions need to be madewith extreme caution. Teir obviously shared subjects testiy to a rich and very interactive poetic environment and the growing importance o the text as a viable poetic and ideological medium.
23 See M.A. Harder in this volume and 2002a: 217–223. 24 For Hellenistic epigram, see Gutzwiller 1998 and Bing and Bruss 2007. 25 For essays on the epigram collection, see Gutzwiller 2005. 26
See Fantuzzi 2005. Posidippus was identied as one o the elchines in the Scho-lia Florentina on the Prologue to the Aetia. See Alan Cameron 1995: 185–232, and Stephens 2005.
Te Organization of Tis Companion
Te lacunose and evolving status o many o Callimachus’ poems pre-sented an unusual challenge to us as editors o this Companion and accounts in part or why a handbook on this author, despite his importance, makes an appearance so much later than those devoted to his contemporaries. Te circumstances o his survival have dictated many o the individual solicitations or this volume. Approximately a third o the chapters are devoted to explaining how our present corpus o Cal- limachus has come about and what the guiding assumptions have been in collecting book ragments or editing papyrus ragments. Te con-
tributors provide inormation on Callimachus’ linguistic experiments, his use o nonpoetic sources, and the relationship o his prose writings to his poetic corpus. We have also emphasized the importance o his contemporary social context. Since so much o his surviving poetry is about and or the Ptolemies, we have included contributions that ocus on these kings and queens; but equally important are his divinities, his interest in cult, and contemporary literary-critical and musical trends. Te contributors also discuss a number o the characteristic eatures o his poetics. Among ancient poets Callimachus probably uses the widest range o sources, borrowing rom traditions o archaic and classical poetry, as well as rom prose; he experiments with a large number o voices, rom the narrating ego to speaking poets o the past, to mythological subjects, divinities, historical gures, trees, birds, and even objects like Berenice’s lock o hair, which is the main character in the nal elegy o the Aetia.
In the selection o topics, we have made a conscious effort to avoid, insoar as is easible, merely repeating or summarizing material that is
easily accessible in recent scholarship, where it has necessarily been setout with deeper and more nuanced arguments. For this reason we do not include chapters on Callimachus’ relationship to individual Greek precursors like Homer or Hesiod or Pindar; we do not have chapters devoted to particular genres like hymns or iambi, though discussions o individual poems and the generic assumptions that inorm them may be ound throughout as appropriate or specic topics.27 We have
27 For the Hymns, see especially the contributions o M. Fantuzzi, R. Hunter, and C. Cusset; or the Iambi, see especially those o L. Lelli, M. Payne, and R. Scodel.
16
avoided repeating the work o recent scholars on Callimachus and his poetic contemporaries, and we have no chapters devoted to such ques-
tions as perormance versus text, intertextuality, or audience, 28
or thepoet’s relationship to non-Greek Egypt29—though, again, discussion o such topics is interwoven into many o the chapters. We have given considerable thought to shaping this Companion to capture recent develop- ments in Callimachean scholarship, especially the growing trend toward reading his poetry within its political, social, and art-historical con- texts, and to take account o recent publications o new commentaries on the Aetia, the Hecale, and the Iambi. We have included conicting interpretive positions, since there can be no one, canonical approach
to this most Protean o authors. Te chapters have been grouped into sections o the book as ol-
lows. “Te Material Author” begins with a history o papyrological discovery (L. Lehnus); this section continues with a summary o the papyri that represent Callimachus’ most extensive work, the Aetia, and a reconstruction o its narrative (G. Massimilla). Tereafer A. Harder discusses the editorial processes (and possible pitalls) o working with Callimachus’ papyrus ragments, and M.R. Falivene narrates the discovery and the nature o the Milan Diegeseis, a prose summary o Callimachus’ poems that has considerably claried our understanding o the order and content o the individual tales within the Aetia as well as other ragmentary poems. Prior to the recovery o so many o Callimachus’ texts on papyri in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, much o his poetic work, and all his prose, was known primarily through citation: F. Pontani ocuses on the process and habits o mind that result in citation and how it contributes to our modern text; N. Krevans discusses Callimachus’ rich and varied prose oeuvre, which
is now almost entirely lost. In a period that distinguished elevated andspoken language, P. Parsons’ chapter centers on the poet’s engagement with the evolving koine, or popular Greek, the dialect now most widely associated with the Hellenistic period.
Te next section, “Social Context,” surveys selected aspects o Calli- machus’ work in terms o Ptolemaic geopoetics, the Alexandrian court, and religious cult. Beginning rom M. Asper’s consideration o the
28 See, e.g., Alan Cameron 1995; Bing 1988b and 2009; Asper 1997; Fantuzzi and Hunter 2004; and the chapters in M.A. Harder, Regtuit, and Wakker 1993 and 2004.
29 See most recently Selden 1998 and Stephens 2002b and 2003.
17
Ptolemaic empire as it is reected in Callimachus’ poetry, the discussion turns to gures o power in Callimachus: kings (S. Barbantani), queens
(É. Prioux), and courtiers and court society (G. Weber). R. Hunterlooks at the gods that we nd in Callimachus, and I. Petrovic considers inscriptional evidence to assess the cult practices described in the Hymn to Apollo.
Te contributions in the ollowing section, “Sources and Models,” turn to Callimachus’ intellectual environment. L. Prauscello considers Callimachus rom the perspective o the hugely popular New Music o the later fh and early ourth centuries; A. Romano, in light o the development o contemporary literary criticism. A. Morrison looks at
Callimachus’ debt to earlier epic and lyric poets through the lens o the Muses, contrasting previous claims or poetic authority with Cal- limachus’ reappropriation o these traditional gures. G. Benedetto analyzes Callimachus’ use o the Athenian prose chroniclers (known as Atthidographers), particularly in the Hecale. R. Scodel (on able) and E. Lelli (on popular sayings) examine Callimachus’ deployment o olkloric and vulgate eatures o language and culture within more elevated poetic settings.
Callimachus is a master at speaking in a variety o poetic voices, as the chapters in our next section illustrate, “Personae”. In her analysis o Callimachus and the Italian poet Giovanni Pascoli, A.. Cozzoli oregrounds Callimachus’ manipulation o the imagery and imagination o childhood. M. Fantuzzi illustrates how Callimachus constructs his sel-consciously authoritative persona, particularly in the hymns; C. Cusset elucidates how Callimachus makes the voices o earlier poets audible through his own. Y. Durbec turns his attention to the astonishing
variety o characters—mythological, historical, and contemporary—who
inhabit these poems. In his turn, M. Payne also considers Callimachus’poetics o childhood, with particular emphasis on the Iambi and the inuence o tragedy and tragic models.
Te chapters comprised in “Aferlie,” the volume’s nal section, engage with Roman, Greek, and modern aspects o Callimachean reception. A. Barchiesi discusses the presence o Callimachus as a dis- tinct eature o Roman poetry. C. de Steani and E. Magnelli present a detailed and compelling case or the extensive inuence o Callima- chus in later Greek poetry. In his study o G. Pasquali’s ofen cited
(i not read) Arte allusiva, M. Citroni ollows the development o the term and the concept o allusion that lies behind it, ideas that still underpin scholarly views o Callimacheanism.
18
Finally, in his “Epilogue,” B. Acosta-Hughes sketches out a number o eatures o Callimachus’ style that dovetail with modern poetic
sensibilities, particularly in comparison with a much later Alexandrianpoet, C.P. Cavay.
Collected Editions of Callimachus
Because the assembly o Callimachus’ ragmentary texts is a continu- ing process, and thereore the numerical designations or the ragments are increasingly complex, we have appended a brie list o the most
recent modern sources and editions, with an explanation o their con-tents where necessary. Callimachus (Oxord, 1949–53). Tis two-volume edition (in Latin)
by Rudol Peiffer remains the standard. It contains testimonia, all the ragments (o both prose and poetry), the hymns, and the epigrams. It is conventional to cite Callimachus’ ragments by Peiffer’s numbering (designated “P.”).
Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin, 1983). Edited by H. Lloyd-Jones and P.J. Parsons (in Latin), this volume contains ragments o Cal-
limachus that were discovered afer Peiffer’s edition was published, including the papyrus text o the Victory of Berenice; it also includes a revised text o ragment 260 P. Fragments rom this collection are regularly identied with the designation SH .
Supplementum Supplementi Hellenistici (Berlin, 2005). Edited by H. Lloyd-Jones (in Latin), as the title states, this publication supple- ments the previous collection o ragments o Hellenistic poets. It contains a ew new ragments o Callimachus that came to light afer the Supplementum Hellenisticum was published; it is regularly identied
with the designation SSH . Callimaco (4th ed.: Milan, 2007). Giovan Battista D’Alessio’s two-
volume Italian edition o Callimachus contains an extensive introduction, brie but very helpul notes, and translation. It is currently the most up-to-date collection o Callimachus’ complete works. D’Alessio ollows the numbering in Peiffer and Supplementum Hellenisticum where possible.
Kallimachos, Werke: Griechisch und Deutsch (Darmstadt, 2004). Markus Asper’s German edition has an extensive introduction to and text o the complete works, including prose ragments, with acing translation and brie notes. He renumbers the ragments (though he also attaches P. and SH numbers).
Callimaque: Fragments poétiques (Paris, 2006). Yannick Durbec’s French edition, with a brie introduction, text, acing translation, and
brie notes, contains the Aetia, Iambi, Hecale, and the larger hexam-eter and elegiac ragments, as well as the unplaced poetic ragments. He renumbers the ragments (though he also attaches P. and SH numbers).
Editors’ Note
Benjamin Acosta-Hughes is responsible or translating Cusset, Durbec,
and Prioux rom the original French; James Kierstead (Stanord Uni- versity) is responsible or translating Weber rom German and Cozzoli rom Italian; and Susan Stephens, or translating Lelli rom Italian. We would like to acknowledge the work o Paul Psoinos in preparing the bibliography and copy-editing, and Mark Wright (Ohio State Univer- sity) or checking o reerences. Donald Mastronarde came to our aid at a crucial moment in the nal stages o editing, and we would like to acknowledge, as always, his kind generosity. Finally, we are most grateul to our editors at Brill Press or their help and support.
Tis chapter discusses the reemergence o Callimachus’ remains rom the
time o Henri Estienne (Stephanus) to the end o twentieth century. From Stephanus to Tomas Stanley to Vulcanius and Anna Fabri ragments were gathered very slowly. However, Bentley’s Utrecht edition o 1697 provided a dramatic increment both in quality and in quantity. Afer that, the scholar who most contributed to the assemblage o Callimachus ragments was L.C. Valckenaer, whose Callimachi elegiarum ragmenta were published in 1799. Otto Schneider’s edition o 1873 was only partially successul, but by that date Alphons Hecker at Groningen had made substantial advances by discovering a number o new ragments rom the Hecale, ormulating the law that still carries his name, and by suggesting that a polemic prologue should open
the Aetia. Papyri have allowed twentieth century scholars rom Wilamowitzto Peiffer and beyond to reconstruct ull sections o Aetia, Iambi, and the Hecale. Te chapter ends with an up-to-date list o papyri containing ragments o Callimachus’ lost works.
Henricus Stephanus was the rst to attempt a collection o Callimachus’ ragments. His 1577 edition o Callimachus, ostensibly complete or its time, contained no more than a dozen scattered pieces, but this was soon increased to eighty-our by Bonaventura Vulcanius (Antwerp and
Leiden, 1584), thanks chiey to the admission o entries (fy-seven othem) rom the Etymologicum magnum. Tis number was considerably augmented by the end o the seventeenth century by Anna Fabri (Mme. Dacier, 1675) and by Sir Tomas Stanley (Stanleius).1 Single- handedly, Richard Bentley nearly nished the work by bringing the total up to 417 ragments (1697),2 which he had gathered rom the widest range o sources—mostly grammarians, lexicographers, and
1 Stanley’s collection survives in several manuscripts. 2 Note that Dirk Canter had already collected 837 ragments o Euripides by 1571;
c. Collard and Cropp 2008: xxiii–xxiv.
24
scholia.3 Bentley’s collection was urther supplemented by J.A. Ernesti’s Καλλμαχος λος (1761: rr. 418 to 463),4 while urther new ragments
were added by both C.J. Blomeld (1815) and Otto Schneider (1873). Te latter rejected Blomeld’s Spicilegium ragmentorum,5 and started a new series rom ragment 464 to ragment 573, to which he added 393 “ragmenta anonyma,” only 266 o which were to be subsequently accepted by Rudol Peiffer.6
Te numbering and disposition o the ragments proceeded rather randomly afer Bentley. Schneider—whose edition Wilamowitz styled a μγα κακν7—tried to introduce order while retaining Bentley’s numeration, but to do so he resorted to a score o transpositions, suppressions,
additions, and cross-reerences, which resulted in a rather articial lay- out and produced a book that was unwieldy. Schneider’s own theory concerning the structure o the Aetia—namely that according to an alleged testimony o Hyginus the contents were grouped as “agones” (Book 1), “urbium conditores” (Book 2), “inventores” (Book 3) and “sacrorum publicorum causae” (Book 4)8—has long been disproved; to say the least, it heavily underestimated Callimachus’ striving or variety. Bentley’s contention, accepted by Valckenaer (1799: 1–32), that Callimachus’ Elegies and his work entitled Aetia were two separate entities had already been disproved. But the eighteenth century was also the age when, in the wake o Bentley and thanks to the doctrine
3 He was alsely accused o having pillaged Stanley’s unpublished work in a scurrilous pamphlet called A Short Account o Dr. Bentley’s Humanity and Justice to Tose
Authors Who Have Written beore Him: With an Honest Vindication o To. Stanley, Esquire, and His Notes on Callimachus (London, 1699). Te anonymous accuser has now been identied as Abednego Seller (1646?–1705), a nonjuror (i.e., Jacobite) divine
o the Church o England, embittered against bishop E. Stillingeet and his protégéBentley in the afermath o the Glorious Revolution; c. Lehnus 1991b. 4 Ernesti, himsel not a rst-rate scholar, owed much, as he allowed, to the Dutch
(o German origin) David Ruhnkenius, who had checked manuscripts o the Greek Etymologicum in Paris. Tings proved more difficult with the less easily appeased L.C. Valckenaer—otherwise the only contemporary who, i properly asked, would have been able to contribute a ood o new material rom lexicographers and grammarians.
5 Fragments 464 to 507: “pauca tantum nominavit certa incertis miscens Blomel- dus” (Schneider 1870–73: 626).
6 A ew o those remaining have ended up among the Frustula adespota ex aucto- ribus in Lloyd-Jones and Parsons 1983.
7 Manuscript jotting by Wilamowitz on the rontispiece o his Handexemplar o
O. Schneider 1873 (now in the Institut ür Klassische Philologie, Humboldt UniversityLibrary, Berlin). “Illius editionis vitia maniestiora sunt virtutibus” (Peiffer 1949–53: 2.xlvii). I was able to inspect the Berlin Wilamowitz-Handbibliothek in spring 2000 thanks to the kindness o Pro. Wolgang Rösler and Pro. Tomas Poiss.
8 C. Hyg. Fab. 273–277, and see already Rauch 1860.
o the great Batavi (ib. Hemsterhuis, Ruhnkenius, Valckenaer), rag- mentology established itsel as a scientic discipline (suffice it to evoke
L.C. Valckenaer’s masterpiece, the Diatribe in Euripidis perditorum dramatum reliquias o 1767), and people at last began to make extensive use o the wealth o inormation streaming out o the late-antique and Byzantine grammarians. (Valckenaer again deserves mention or his epoch-making 1739 editon o the synonymic lexicon o Pseudo- Ammonius.)
Considerable progress with single sections o the lost Callimachus (Hecale, the Prologue to the Aetia, and the Dream, Linus and Coroebus, and Acontius and Cydippe) resulted rom the activity o scholars like
A. Hecker, A.F. Naeke, and Karl Dilthey during the mid-nineteenth century. A.F. Naeke, a pupil o Gottried Hermann and a proessor in Bonn, worked chiey on the Hecale (Naeke 1842–45), and we owe to him some elicitious joinings o ragments and many sensible observa- tions on style and meter.9 Karl Dilthey in his turn (also coming rom the Bonn school) was the rst to attempt to reconstruct a single complete elegy 10—his acclaimed commentary on Acontius and Cydippe gave what was to become the canonical denition o Alexandrian poetry but ailed to notice that the oundation on which to build was not the Roman Alexandrian Ovid, with his Heroidum epistulae 20 and 21, but the late Greek rhetorician Aristaenetus (Dilthey 1863).
A true genius, the ill-ated Alphons Hecker, rom Groningen, was the man who did the most or Callimachus’ ragments in the period between Bentley and the age o papyri. (Incidentally, both Hecker and Dilthey arrived at the idea o producing a new collection.) Hecker not only saw that what he described as a “prologus galeatus” (“polemical prologue”) should denitely eature in Callimachus’ poems; he real-
ized that such a prologue opened not the Hecale, as had been previ-ously surmised by Naeke, but the Aetia, as we now know rom POxy 17.2079. Indeed, in his doctoral dissertation, Hecker also ormulated the law that now bears his name, “regula Heckeriana” (Hecker 1842: 133):
Nam illud urgemus nullum in Suidae lexico legi versum heroicum alibi non inventum, qui non in Hecale olim affuerit, adeo ut non nisi gravissi- mis argumentis aliis poëtis aliisve carminibus vindicari possint, i.e. si de iis certiores nos ecerit disertum veteris scriptoris testimonium. alibus
9 Otherwise he erred in ollowing Plutarch’s Lie o Teseus as a rame or recon- structing the whole poem.
10 Afer Philipp Buttmann, in act.
26
autem indiciis, si adhuc inedita in lucem proerantur, vel jam e tenebris eruta nos latuerint, vix dubitamus nostras conjecturas rmatum iri.
I insist on affirming that in the Suda lexicon no hexameter, ound only there and not elsewhere, occurs that cannot be derived rom the Hecale. It ollows that these hexameters can be attributed to other authors or works only on the basis o substantial proo: that is, only i a different attribution is explicity provided to us in the testimony o an ancient author. I am certain that my conjectures will be conrmed by this rule i passages as yet unedited come to light in the uture, or any that escaped my notice although already uncovered rom obscurity.
Alphons Hecker believed that the Suda was drawing directly rom a
surviving exemplar o Callimachus’ Hecale; it was R. Reitzenstein whosubsequently pointed out that the Byzantine lexicon derived its wealth o inormation not rom the poem but rom a commentary on the Hecale written (probably in the ourth century ) by the grammarian Salustios, very possibly the same man who was responsible or the commentary on Sophocles (c. Reitzenstein 1890–91: 13–17.) In act, Hecker’s trouvaille has yielded up to two hundred quotations coming with varying degrees o certainty rom the epic poem o Callimachus; and—as an impressive countercheck—no passages attributed to the
Hecale under Hecker’s rule have so ar needed to be reassigned to the Aetia.
By the end o the nineteenth century Reitzenstein’s discovery o the Etymologicum genuinum A (cod. Vatic. gr. 1818) presented us with the last large source o Callimachean ragments rom indirect tradition (even i no complete critical editon o the Etymologicum is yet available).11 World War I had just broken out when Ida Kapp, a pupil o Wilamowitz, in her Berlin dissertation “Callimachi Hecalae ragmenta” perormed the last service o the pre-Peiffer era in the rescue
o lost Callimachus (Kapp 1915).
Papyri
Since the end o the nineteenth century our knowledge o Callima- chus has been radically changed by the discovery o papyri.12 (Te rst
11
C. Reitzenstein 1897.12 On the nds o Callimachus papyri, see Casanova 2006. I am much obliged to Dr. Valentina Millozzi or showing me her unpublished dissertation, Urbino, 2000/2001; thanks are also due to Pro. M. Rosaria Falivene, who ostered that invaluable piece o work.
27
ancient witness to the text o Callimachus to be discovered, however, was not a papyrus at all but a wooden tablet, the so-called abula Vin-
dobonensis, published by Teodor Gomperz in Vienna in 1893.) 13
As o June 2008, I counted sixty to sixty-three papyri,14 preserving parts o the Aetia, Iambi (+ ‘Lyrics’ ), Hecale, and other poems o Callimachus as yet unidentied. A rst group appeared on the eve o the Great War (the most important o which was POxy 7.1011, published in 1910 by A.S. Hunt) and had as an immediate consequence the denitive rejection o the already mistrusted Schneider. A new edition was badly needed, and that was happily entrusted to Rudol Peiffer, an adop- tive pupil o Diels and Wilamowitz and a student o Otto Crusius in
Munich; it was an epochal choice. Peiffer wrote (1921: praeatio):
Ottone Crusio praeceptore, quem morte repentina et praematura nobis ereptum esse cum multis maxime maereo, assentiente et cohortante hanc editionem parare coepi, cum gravi vulnere affectus e bello inelicissimo redieram: quantum illius viri humanissimi disciplinae et benevolentiae debeam, hoc loco dicere non possum. Grato animo nominandus est in primis Hermannus Diels, qui schedas suas, quibus iamborum multa supplementa commendaverat, liberalissime mihi per litteras transmisit, deinde gratias ago quam maximas Eduardo Schwartz, Udalrico de
Wilamowitz, Paulo Maas, qui operam meam multis adiuverunt consiliis. I began to prepare this edition with the consent and at the urging o my teacher Otto Crusius (whom I among many others lament as having been taken rom us by an unorseen and premature death) when, upon suffering a grave wound, I returned a veteran o that most unortunate war. I cannot explain how great is my debt to the teaching and kindness o that most humanistic gentleman. Among the rst to whom I owe a debt o gratitude is Hermann Diels, who with great generosity transmitted to me by letter the les to which he had entrusted many conjectures in the Iambi. And I here render my greatest thanks to Eduard Schwartz,
to Ulrich von Wilamowitz, and to Paul Maas, who aided my work with much advice.
13 PRain VI; c. Gomperz 1893: 3–12. Te abula was ound near Arsinoe in the winter o 1877–78.
14 Variables include POxy 37.2823, which possibly comes rom the Hecale; PBerol. inv. 13417, which may belong with POxy 18.2168 (together with PBerol inv. 11629 and PSI 133); and POxy 18. 2171, which may belong with 18.2172. Tree more papyri
may be related to the lost Callimachus: or POxy 27.2463 (anonymous commentary[on Te Victory o Berenice? ]), see Livrea 1989b and SSH 257–258; or POxy 39.2886 (anonymous commentary [on the Hecale? ]), see SSH 948–949 (but c. also Meliadò 2004); or PMich inv. 3499 (Doric archebuleans on Heracles and Laomedon?), Lloyd- Jones 1974 and SH 992.
28
Peiffer’s rst collection o post-Schneider material appeared in Bonn as an issue o the Kleine exte series. Besides a ew ragmenta nova
minora chiey rom the Etymologicum and rom the scholia to Lyco- phron, the book’s most important items were the abula Vindobon- ensis, the great Oxyrhynchus codex 7.1011 containing Acontius and Cydippe (r. 75 P.), the Epilogue to the Aetia (r. 112), and Iambi 1–4, 12, and 13, then POxy 9.1362 (Icos, rr. 178–83, possibly rom the beginning o Aetia 2) and the Berlin and Florence codices,15 with Aetia I and III, ‘Lyrics’ , and the Hecale.16 A reprint including POxy 15.1793 (containing what possibly is Te Wedding o Berenice and Te Victory o Sosibius) soon ollowed (in 1923), under the somewhat misleading
subtitle Editio maior .17
Rudol Peiffer was to work on the ragments o Callimachus or the next three decades, through vicissitudes both general and personal—he was orced to leave Hitler’s Germany because his w

Documents

Acosta-Hughes-Lehnus-Stephens-Brill-s-Companion-to-Callimachus.pdf