Notes on Palladas

Notes on PalladasAuthor(s): Alan CameronSource: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Nov., 1965), pp. 215-229Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/637915 .

Accessed: 28/05/2014 02:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 173.15.87.22 on Wed, 28 May 2014 02:04:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classical

http://www.jstor.org/stable/637915?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


NOTES ON PALLADAS

I

&K't

&KELS Ka

aoptac7EVELs

Ao'yots KCLYa W q Epw Ot 7rt S ET?7gS

Wd•Oovog ErrypaLppLa UEtVV, ov a rapp g-Tas" o0 yap E ALA7rwv

7•rs AldlKs V'TvovS E'XEt. (Anth. Pal. 10. 92)

So the Palatinus, our only source for this poem. No satisfactory explanation of V'rvovs EXEL has ever been propounded,' and the words are surely corrupt. By deftly changing two letters and replacing oi3 by O Jacobs restored a sense of sorts:

d yap aE .E'A7TWV

r7 7zl779 C lVOvS XEEL.

His text has been adopted in most subsequent editions, Paton (Loeb) translat- ing 'For he who sings of thee pours forth the praises of Justice' and Beckby in his recent Tusculum edition 'Ein Lied von dir-ein Loblied der Gerechtigkeit'. Taken by itself this makes perfect sense, but unfortunately it does not at all accord with the rest of the poem. Palladas is no sycophant-indeed we hear often of his contempt for the

Kd•aa (Anth. Pal. 9. I 19, 394; 10. 83, 86; I i. 323).

Every other poem we have from his pen addressed to a public figure is a lampoon (7. 68 -8; 9. 393; 10. 91; I I. 280, 283, 284, 291, 292, 293), and G. Luck has shown that the much quoted eulogy of Hypatia (9. 400) is not in fact by Palladas-nor indeed about Hypatia (Harvard Studies lxiii [1958], 462 f.). Palladas was well aware that his outspokenness did him little good (c;4toaa JLVPLaKLS ErLypdpLtLap

a tLI7K"ET TTOLELV' / TTOAAWhv yap tLWPL V E'xOpav a7mTEUaaatL7V, 2. 340 ; cf. 341), but nevertheless in 10. 92 promises the lawyer he is addressing a worthy specimen of his renowned 7rappI7ata, an 17rrypappa uqtdv--and then

(with Jacobs's text) offers a banal piece of flattery. Not only is this incon- sistent with his character, it falsifies his promise. L. A. Stella, when discussing the poem in her Cinque poeti dell' antologia palatina (I949), p. 333, was led to remark that Palladas writes 'per una volta senza ironia'. But the irony is there in the first three lines: coobtrTEV'Etr dAo'yo is far from complimentary, and a poet notorious for his stinging lampoons cannot seriously have styled his muse

C786&v. And irony is what we should expect from one who was far from well disposed to lawyers: see especially io. 48. 6-7:

rrHe ycap ha~bu asapn s e OtfatlvO' o fv' n a .raspat aEL vOaEpov, &adaaL t tp 'Arrap-g Uvarat;

He clearly had but scant respect for the legal profession, and o10. 92 must

There is no parallel at all for supposing with T. W. Lumb (Notes on the Greek An- thology [1920], p. 86) that Adlrc giTrvovs iEXeL could mean 'be asleep to Justice'-nor should we expect there to be a parallel: if the phrase meant anything at all, it would surely be our other English expression 'sleep the sleep of

the just', which would be out of the question in the context.

2 I take this opportunity of pointing out that the only correct interpretation of the next line of this poem is that of Theodor Birt, in the preface to his edition of Claudian, M.G.H., Auct. Ant. x (1892), iv-v.



216 ALAN CAMERON

obviously be another such lampoon. While accepting Jacobs's brilliant correction i•gvovg XiEE, we must retain the oi3 of the Palatinus, and insert the O Jacobs realized was required after aE instead:

ov yap a' oArLEv rV • l77S W v ovs X_ .

'For he who lauds you, sings not the praises of Justice.' That is to say this lawyer is the antithesis, rather than the embodiment, ofJustice. The line gains added point when it is realized that one of the stock themes of honorific epigrams of the day was precisely to represent the subject of the epigram as the embodiment ofJustice (see the admirable discussion of L. Robert, Hellenica iv: Epigrammes du Bas-Empire [I948], pp. 13-27). tpdArrwv is none other than the despised KOAae once more, the sycophant who hymns the unjust lawyer for his justice. Palladas says that he too will bring an offering from his 'night- ingale'-though his offering, being, as he promised, a'etov Trappr-alak, has a nasty sting in its tail.

One last point. The lemmatist thought that the next poem in the Palatinus must be the 'epigram' heralded in 10. 92. 3; hence he naively prefixed the word

drlypaLpa to 10. 93 as lemma. Modern commentators likewise assume that 10. 92 is a dedicatory piece to a collection of poems sent to this lawyer-'ein Begleitepigram', according to W. Zerwes, Palladas von Alexandrie (Diss. Tuibin- gen, 1956), p. 228, who thinks that Constantine Cephalas removed it from the other poems it introduced. But Palladas is no Martial or Statius to dedicate books of verses to rich patrons-and in any case he only mentions one epigram. On my interpretation the aEtqvudr1s is contained in the twist in the last line; the poem is itself the rtrypappa.

II

Whatever his shortcomings Palladas was not a run-of-the-mill epigram- matist. More of his poems-a hundred and fifty odd-are preserved in the

Anthology than of any other poet represented, yet almost all of them are contained in Bks. 9 (TtSELK7LtK), IO (7rpo7pETrrtKcQ), and II (UavpvrortKa Kat UK0-

Qrr7TK). Not a single one of the handful that have found their way into Bks. 5

(1pwT•tKc), 6

(,va r t aLrtK), Or 7

(••-Trifi•/a) really belongs there, as Peek has

observed in R.-E. xviii. 3. I6I. The eight poems on Gessius at 7. 68i-8 'are not sepulchral but derisory, and should all be in Bk. 9' (A. S. F. Gow, The Greek Anthology; Sources and Ascriptions [Hell. Soc. Supp. Paper 9, 1958], p. 6o; cf. also Byz. Zeit. Ivii [1964], 279 f.), where five of them are in fact repeated. There are none at all in 12 (pQovaa 7raLt&K), and some of those included in Planudes' Bk. 4 (= A.P. I6. 32 f. on the conventional numbering), mainly epigrams on works of art, are really satirical (e.g. 194, 282 [on which see J.H.S. lxxxiv (1964), 54 f.]) and may in any event have originally formed part of Bk. 9 in the Palatinus (Beckby's edition, vol. iii, p. 9; Gow, pp. 52 f.). It is a little surprising, therefore, to find in Bk. 6 an apparently perfectly straight- forward

&vaOntlar7LKdv ascribed to Palladas:

av't 'BooS

XPVUEOV 7 avaO7iIza•'

s "Iy& TOVc3'•E

O7jKaTo 70lo Aurapo;S Hal7qau;tov rr1ToA4Lovs.

Xp , &v E)K Avv KpOL7OS EI• TEoL,,E

0Ep. (6. 60)



NOTES ON PALLADAS 217

Now this poem is followed by another from Palladas:

SJ vpodv o fpavtov, rPeV AfLOV, 6 isaraoKathpas KEtpapLEVgI77ACaS aVOETO Hatt?btuov,

ov0 a aVr avOpwTrTWV XaAKEvaaTo, rrap U Kat'lvw

eHqaliUov XpvaE-v uoqpav aEpatLE'V- A A apOKP jELVo9S, EL TWALEV KaO' 'Otqpov,

XEpal a E aLras 8lat )eErIrV7UEa X4pis. (6. 6i) Is not the latter a parody of the former? 6. 60 is a rather banal piece, an ordinary dedication of a girl's hair to Isis. 6. 61 is a hymn to the razor that cut off the lock of hair in question, a razor made by no human hand, but fashioned by Charis herself at the anvil of Hephaestus. All this for a razor--parturiunt montes. We are plainly not meant to take it seriously; the prosaic parenthesis tv' ETWwEV KaO' "O-'qpov quite ruins (as it was surely meant to) the solemnity

of the Homeric ALTrapOKpj8EPLVO9. Is then Palladas parodying himself? I think not. It is instructive to compare his only other entry among the vaqPCLa-tLKK, together with the poem that follows it, written by one Eutolmius Scholasticus.

TOV OW- Kal• ras KV7 I 7 ra'T daT'3La Kat 8opv Ka Kpa_

Fopto07rpLAtpLos dVOroT TqtoOE'p. (6. 85)

KV-qtd3as, OC/p)7Ka, aKos, Kdpvv, E)/XOs A6qv07 'Poi30os Mqt•ctdq•E9'AALOS E'KPE''•aUEV. (6.86)

Palladas' poem, as even the lemmatist to 86 half realized, is a parody of Eutolmius. On the analogy of epic &7 for &tpa he coins O08 for Eutolmius'

Odpr7Ka, KVY7 for KVY•PllaL

etc., and his dedicator (a joke or pun of some sort is obviously hidden in the name Fop8to7rptAdptog), instead of dedicating the weapons in question to a god or goddess, dedicates them to Timotheus,' with a pun on the last part of the name that may be represented in English by a name like Godley.

It would seem that in the original edition of his works Palladas sometimes included the poems of others in order to parody them.2 I suggest that 6. 6o, the banal dedication to Isis, is not by Palladas at all, but some other poet (perhaps Eutolmius), and that Palladas included it in his Sylloge, like 6. 86, in order to parody both it and the whole trite and artificial y'vos

aOllalpar•7KdoV. That it should have been attributed to Palladas himself is easily understand- able. Curiously enough ninth- and tenth-century Byzantines seem to have had little interest in the individual authors of poems in anthologies. We are in- debted to the various lemmatists of the Palatinus for the names of the authors of a large number of epigrams left acephalous by the original scribe, and Planudes omits many of the lemmata and ascriptions in the Palatinus. 'Suidas' in the tenth century cites from 430 epigrams in the Anthology, several of them many times (twelve times from 7. 218)-yet not once does he name the author of the poem he is quoting from (always just Ev Etypad4tqaaw; see Gow, op. cit.,

I Perhaps Timotheus, patriarch of Alex- andria from 381-5. Palladas refers several times to Timotheus' successor Theophilus in similar punning fashion: e.g. av3pa --rv 0E6OS LAE (IO. 91. I;90. 2;9. 175- 5). See

Keydell, Byz. Zeit. 1 (1957), 2, Bowra, Proc. Brit. Acad. xlv (I959), 264 f., and my

own article in J.R.S. Iv (1965). 2 For discussion of the other poets in-

cluded in the original edition of Palladas' poems see A. Franke, De Pallada Epigrammato- grapho, Diss. Leipzig, 1899, PP- 47 f., and W. Peek, R.-E. xviii. 3. 160-1.



218 ALAN CAMERON

p. 26). And later collections of epigrams, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, tend likewise to omit the names of individual authors (cf. K. Preisen- danz, Gnomon xxxiv [1962], 656). Hence it would not be at all surprising if Constantine Cephalas had copied both 6. 6o and 6 I out of his copy of Palladas without bothering to note that not both of them were by him; such details did not matter much to readers of epigrams in ninth-century Constantinople.

Indeed the exemplar of Palladas used by Cephalas may not itself have been properly equipped with ascriptions and lemmata (see below, ?IV). A more than usually informative note in the Palatinus at 7. 339 a"87Aov E`'

r•'• 70or0o

yE'yparrrat rrhAv rt E)v ro• oo ro^

aHaAAa~ Ertypapqlaav' EvpEO•7q KELE'VOv 7rr7TOTE U AovKLaVOO vEatV, seems to indicate that poems by other writers included in Palladas' Sylloge were already acephalous in the copy of Palladas used by the lemmatist (who wrote less than a century after Cephalas [cf. Beckby's edition, vol. i, p. 81]). And Palladas would not be the only poet in the Anthology to have poems wrongly ascribed to him: the phenomenon is extremely common; the various sources for such false ascriptions are clearly set out and discussed by Gow, op. cit., pp. 33-39, who concludes that 'ascriptions in [the Palatinus and Planudes] need not be treated with exaggerated deference' (p. 44). It is surely unlikely that the same Palladas who parodies the

dvaO•-pa-C7Kdv at 6. 85

would have himself written a run-of-the-mill dva6-qay-tKdv like 6. 60o and then

parodied his own handiwork. I would submit that it is far more likely that 6. 6o, like 6. 86, is an 'aunt Sally' by another writer.

III

apa pL77 0avv-g- -• j - OKELV -o LEV (LO[ LVOV, "EAA-qvEs aVApEgs voLbopp^ 7TE7TTC0KOTE

OVELPOV EIKovmES ELvat Tv Plov, EL S^LEV 7"[LELS 70T oflov TEOeV-Kd70o; (Io. 82)

First, critical editions should indicate that the first line of the poem is also transmitted, together with the whole of io. 81, in Cod. Laurent. 5. 10, f. 196 under the name of Philemon. See L. Sternbach, 'Analecta Laurentiana', Festschrift Theodor Gomperz (1902), pp. 383 f. This ascription is doubtless false (below, p. 228), as also is the variant C3' 0 '7q XPpdvo- offered for 0 U4 Xpdvos 7rpEXE at 10. 81. 4 (TPpXEt probably omitted through haplography as 81. 5 begins with 7rpEXE, and 0 "

expanded into JiC' 08' i to fill out the metre), but both should at any rate be recorded in an apparatus criticus.

I give the last line, which has unaccountably exercised editors, as presented by both the Palatinus and Planudes. Of the large number of emendations so far suggested all modern editors and commentators (e.g. Beckby; Stella, Cinque poeti, p. 343; Lacombrade, Pallas i [i953], 20; Bowra, Proc. Brit. Acad. xlv [i9591, 257) accept Musurus' -9 "W(pEv, with a question mark after fl3ov in 1. 3, and take the first and last lines as the two horns of a dilemma (Beckby assigns ~ to Piccolos, but the suggestion was made before him by Musurus; see Sternbach, loc. cit.). The poem is one of a series written in 391 when the pagan temples in Alexandria were being destroyed by bands of monks under the orders of the patriarch Theophilus (see Bowra, loc. cit., and J.R.S. Iv [1965], 20 f.), and "EAAMvEs means, as always at this period, 'pagans'. According to Bowra 'Palladas is caught in a dilemma and unable to make up his mind about what has happened. His first thought is that the pagan cause is dead [i.e. 0avdrEs-




in 1. I].... The alternative is that he and others of his kind are indeed still alive, but life itself, the whole system which they have taken for granted, has come to an end'. But surely there is no direct contrast between Oavu~vds in 1. I and

?•pLEV in 1. 4; indeed the finite verb of 1. I is also

6O4ILEV, and 11. I and 4

seem to me to be different ways of expressing much the same idea rather than the two horns of a dilemma. If then the first and last lines do not offer alternatives, Musurus' -q ceases to have any raison d'itre. But with the El of the Palatinus and Planudes the sense of the poem becomes so clear and straight- forward that it is difficult to see why it was ever suspected, much less rejected. The last line is a simple statement of fact, and El is used, as often, "to cite a fact as a ground of argument or appeal" (LSJ, s.v. El B. vi). 'Are we not dead (i.e. spiritually dead) and alive only in appearance ... if (= since, seeing that) we remain alive (i.e. physically alive) while our way of life' (i.e. what makes the physical life worth living) is dead and gone.' Though pagans like Palladas have managed to survive the collapse ofpaganism in Alexandria with their lives, the life that is left to them is unreal like a dream.

For a a remarkably close parallel compare a letter written by the pagan sophist Libanius shortly after the death of the last pagan Emperor, the apostate Julian: a--EXvs ~ 'r~WVES V E-V7-E4KaflEV (Ep. 1187). And compare also Zosimus

4. 3, where we learn that the pagan hierophant Vettius Agorius Praetextatus protested that Valentinian's law forbidding pagans to celebrate nocturnal rites would Jfl1w-rov roo09 "EAAu•7• Ka-rag-r-ctU7E v lov.

IV There are no external criteria to fix the chronology of Palladas' life. The

only ancient writer to mention him, without any indication of date, is John Tzetzes in the prolegomena to his commentary on Lycophron. Hence we are thrown back on the various hints offered by the poems. I I. 292 can be dated to 384, o. 90o, 91 and several others to 391, and Io. 89 perhaps to 394.2 The lemma to 9. 528 refers the poem to the 'palace of Marina'. Now it is indisput- able that the Marina in question is the youngest daughter of the Emperor Arcadius, born in 403, who is explicitly attested as having built an otKOS

r•-v Mapv&rs.3 Obviously it is unlikely that she built her palace before she was twenty or so at the very least, and it has, therefore, been assumed that Palladas must have lived until at least 420-30. Stella, following Franke, suggests 360 for his date of birth. But Sir Maurice Bowra has recently proposed a much earlier date, 319, on the grounds that 10. 97, which he dates to 391, was

Plov in 1. 4 may refer more precisely to Palladas' livelihood as a schoolmaster, for he seems to have been obliged to give it up as a result of the persecution of the pagans: cf. J.R.S. I965.

2- The evidence is collected by Stella, Cinque poeti..., pp. 379-83, and Bowra, Proc. Brit. Acad. xlv, 266: cf. also Byz. Zeit. lvii (1964), 279-92. But Bowra and Stella are mistaken in accepting Jacobs's identifi- cation of the Patricius mentioned in II. 386 with a quaestor (Stella by oversight writes 'consul') at Constantinople in 390. Patricius, as I have shown in J.H.S. lxxxiv (1964), 58- 59, was an Alexandrian charioteer.

3 The nominative is T& Mapivrjs (as in Theophanes Continuatus, p. 460 Bekker), the normal form for the name of such 'palaces' (see D. Tabachovitz, Sprachliche und textkritische Studien zur Chronik des Theophanes Confessor, Diss. Uppsala, 1926, pp. 3 f.): there was an OLKOS r-Jv HAaKtSlag, r6>v AvrTLOXov etc. (cf. the index to R. Janin's Constantinople byzantine [1950] passim). Bowra (Byz. Zeit. liii [I96o], I) rightly rejects Stella's view (Cinque poeti ..., p. 382) that the Marina in question was Marina the wife of Valentinian I and mother of Gratian.



220 ALAN CAMERON

written when Palladas was 72 (Proc. Brit. Acad. xlv. 266 f.). This revised chronology has much to commend it, and the only serious objection to its acceptance is the lemma to 9. 528-unless Palladas wrote the poem when he was over a hundred. In Byz. Zeitschr. liii [I960], 2 f. Bowra gave reasons for simply disregarding the lemma, and argued that the poem fitted better in the context of 391 in Alexandria than fifth-century Constantinople (see below, p. 225). Johannes Irmscher, however, in Wiss. Zeitschr. d. Univ. Rostock (Fest- schrift Rudolf Helm) xii (1963), 236 f., has defended the authority of the lemma, which he thinks may preserve some genuine information. In general there can be no doubt that Bowra was right when he wrote that 'the scanty lemmata on Palladas' poems seldom go beyond what may be deduced from the text, and even on this they are sometimes demonstrably wrong', concluding that they 'reveal far too much stupidity, ignorance and guesswork' to merit serious con- sideration (op. cit., p. 2). But how far can we trust a lemma which is not obviously a deduction from the contents of the poem ? There are, it seems, only two such lemmata; the one to 9. 528, and that on II. 292.

But before deciding whether these lemmata are of any value, it might be worth reflecting on the significance of the fact that all the others are not. I0. 92, obviously addressed to an important person, has the heading Els

apXovwa, 9- 394, about the love of money, Els q~hapytvpovs, 9. 165, a tirade against women, ELS yvvatKagS ~dyOS avtkauaos.

It is inconceivable that Palladas was responsible for such fatuous lemmata. There can be little doubt that they were added by Constantine Cephalas, or one of the lemmatists of the Palatinus. On the other hand such of Palladas' poems as stand sorely in need of explanation (e.g. the series Io. 89 f.; see J.R.S. lv [1965], 20 f.) have no lemmata at all. The series 9. 165 f. are almost all equipped with a lemma of some sort, very few of the poems in the series 10. 44 f. are. But then most of the poems by other authors in the first part of 9 have lemmata, and very few of the other poems in 10 have them. As Gow has seen, 'these variations do not reflect the charac- teristics of the anthologies on which [the Palatinus] is drawing, and seem refer- able in part to the copy of Cephalas which the scribe is using, in part to his own industry or idleness' (op. cit., p. 17). For instance it seems likely that the original editions of the Garlands of Meleager and Philip of Thessalonica did not have lemmata, though the Palatinus often provides them (Gow, loc. cit.). All the evidence points to the conclusion that the original edition of Palladas was likewise not equipped with explanatory headings and lemmata (see also above, p. 218). If so then the two lemmata mentioned above are probably at best only intelligent guesses made by a tenth-century Byzantine scholar.

Now for I I. 292:

'Av-vyos ovpav•7srrV7TEp77tLEvos

E9 rrTOov 0AES alvyos-r apyvpo " ataXos carLTEpECTov.I

W ta KCL-oTW KPECIU•v•, iova/4S''

5Y5VVOV TOJ XELPWV.Z 56Evp ivc/3-q& K~a'W, vvv yap aVCW KaTE/71PS

I Once more Palladas is satirizing the honorific epigrams of his day; d1TELpE'cors is one of the stock epithets of the genre, and the pentameter of one typical specimen, Kaibel 902 B 2, ends Ev'Xos dTELpEp(Lov. Robert suggests that this was a standard formula, which Palladas is here satirizing

(Hellenica iv. 98). Similarly when Palladas denies that officials are KaOapot and dyvot (e.g. 9- 393. I, I I. 285- 4), he is again using the words most frequently employed in their praise in such epigrams; see Robert, pp. 39-40.

2 For the text cf. ? V below.




The lemma given by the Palatinus is as follows: Els rtva LAdAoooov ?EvdoEvov

frapXov 'rAAos rl BaAEv-rtvavoi Ka'l BAEVo70S. The -rwva reveals at once that the lemma is a guess, and nothing to do with Palladas himself. Yet it is a fairly acute guess; the lemmatist realized that dv-rvyop c&pyvpqr-l in 1. 2 alludes to the special silver-plated carriage of the city prefect-many inscriptional epigrams on city prefects, with which he will doubtless have been familiar, refer to these carriages (cf. Robert, Hellenica iv [1948], 42, nn. 3 and 4) and the Anthology itself contains a number of epigrams in their honour-and intelligently deduced from the contrast between apyvp~rl and dvpavc-qs, and from the gist of the poem as a whole, that a 'philosopher' had been appointed city prefect. But what of the date, 'in the reign of Valentinian and Valens' (364-78) ? This looks circumstantial enough, and at least one distinguished historian has been prepared to entertain the possibility that it is correct (W. Ensslin, Klio xxxii [1939], 103). Indeed there would have been little reason to doubt it, were there not two other competing and contradictory lemmata to point the way to the real answer, and show that it can only be a guess-and a mistaken guess at that. According to Planudes the poem was written Els OE

~r L790ov 7EvdyEVov

ivrapxov KwvrravrtvordAEows rE'r

BaAEvrtvLavoO Kat' BaE'v-ros. And it is also preserved in two manuscripts containing Themistius' paraphrase of Aristotle's De Anima, introduced by the lemma: -r70

av'rov• OE1trlov orVlXOL ElS EvdTOv, o'rE

E-rapxov E'7rolrCEcv advrov 3pauLAE•jb 'Io vAavds (Laur. 87. 25 and Monac. 330).I The nearest to the truth is Planudes. The poem was written (by Palladas) on the occasion of Themistius' appointment to the prefecture of Constan- tinople-but Themistius was prefect not during the reign of Valentinian and Valens, nor during the reign of Julian, but in 384, during the reign of Theo- dosius I.2

That the poem was written in 384 is rendered almost certain by the fact that when Themistius laid down his office he delivered a speech justifying himself to those who had criticized him for laying aside his philosopher's cloak and stooping to public office, in which (Or. 34- 30) he warns his listeners not to belittle the art of government just because Plato represented philosophers afrod

"r-g OIa-s OECwpLas KaTra alvovI ras Eo l 7rjV dvOpW•7dV-qv.

Then after observing that -r -"vW Kal

K•d"W (T o;X

r,7T oOV he continues that there are various sorts

of philosophers, on the one hand Epicurus aapKics rj80ovqv 7-rEOaaKaS, on the other Plato whose thoughts range "vow dEl; he himself is midway between the two extremes, Ev [LETratLXtu, dyaTrovrTg, E 7torE o Ev a v oW Et•;LEV, 7TorT 8K KLa7,

Cf. Bandini, Catal. cod. graec. bibl. Laur. iii (I770), 409, Hardt, Catal. cod. mon. graec. bibl. reg. Bavar. iii (18o6), 318. This lemma is also to be found in the scholia to the poem printed in the Wechel edition of I6oo00, and is reproduced in the Aldine edition of Themistius together with the poem. The Wechelian scholia are still sometimes quoted as though they might preserve some genuine ancient lore; in fact they were almost certainly made up by Musurus (see J. Hutton, The Greek Anthology in Italy to the rear i8oo [1935], 155-8, with a list of the manuscripts which contain them). Many of them derive, like this one, from 'Suidas': cf. also J.H.S. (1964), p. 58 n. 40.

2 Cf. H. F. Bouchery, Ant. Class. v (1936), 205 f. The special carriage for the city prefect had only been introduced the year before (A. Chastagnol, La prefecture urbaine [I960], 203 f. though cf. A. Momigliano, Rendiconti Lincei viii. 19 [19641, 225 f.), so Themistius will in fact have been one of the very first prefects to make use of one. Con- servative opinion was shocked at the in- novation (Chastagnol, loc. cit.) and it may be that what particularly incensed Palladas was the thought that a philosopher like Themistius should have consented to ride in such an unprecedentedly ostentatious vehicle.



222 ALAN CAMERON

Kal TO KTo '

(

.

) ac&"V 0o1

7Tavr7TaTL KorC

E'•CTO ,

W aAAa VCO0EV

E7)i'7T'aL

Kal cdrr4EvOzvETrac. The prolonged development of the mvw / Kd•-Tw

theme with regard to the relative claims of philosophy and public office in both Themistius' speech and Palladas' poem renders it virtually certain that one is picking up the words of the other; it is not possible to say for certain which (most scholars argue that Themistius is answering Palladas, but it seems to me more likely that Palladas is satirizing Themistius' sophistry),' but there can be little doubt that the speech and the poem were written within a very short time of each other.

The lemma that assigns Themistius' prefecture to the reign of Julian would appear to be a false deduction from 'Suidas' 's entry s.v. OE pLrTS, which says that Themistius v7rapXos rrpoEPflABh ql KCwvaravTrvofrdAEho~w by Julian; but though Julian may have proposed Themistius for the prefecture, he did not actually appoint him (it was probably one of the many plans cut short by his pre- mature death). As for the date offered by the Palatinus (an error that puzzled Bouchery, Themistius in Libanius' Brieven [I1936], p. 214 n. 9), the dE= followed by an Emperor's name suggests a biographical dictionary, like that of Hesy- chius of Miletus; I would conjecture that the lemmatist saw that Palladas'floruit was given in such a work as 'in the reign of Valentinian and Valens' (if born in 319 he would then have been in his forties, the standard age for a man's floruit), and not unnaturally assumed that the people Palladas wrote about were likely to have flourished at the same time.z

It is interesting that Planudes should be more nearly right than the Palatinus, for in general he is even less interested in lemmata than the scribes of the Palatinus, and when he and they differ, it is seldom Planudes who is to be trusted (cf. Gow, op. cit., p. 39). Franke has shown that in at least one case where Planudes offers a different lemma, he misread a correction in the Palatinus, from which he was at this point copying.3 But the lampoon on Themistius is a rather special case. The poem was accessible in numerous places other than an edition of Palladas or Cephalas' Anthology. It was often added to manuscripts of works of Themistius (and hence, understandably enough, came later to be ascribed to Themistius himself); in addition it is found in a manuscript of Libanius' Declamations (Laur. 57. 22, f. 94) and in another containing among various other works Planudes' translation of the Disticha Catonis (Laur. 59. 44, f. 3"1). So widely read a man as Planudes is sure to have come across the poem somewhere-his contemporary Theodore Hyrtacanus quotes from it in one of his letters (Ep. 61)--and when he came to it in the Palatinus remembered it well enough (possibly also recalling the passage in Themistius' speech) to know that the 'philosopher' of the Palatine lemma was Themistius, and corrected it accordingly. But apart from this he

I I cannot accept the usual view that Epicurus in ? 30 stands for Palladas (cf. most recently J. Irmscher, Wiss. Zeitschr. d. Humboldt-Universitdt zuBerlin vi [ 956/7], 168). Themistius' point is simply that as a philosopher he stands midway between the materialism of Epicurus and the idealism of Plato, and is therefore at liberty to accept public office with a clear conscience: cf. also J.H.S. lxxxiv (1964), 57.

2 This explanation is rendered the more likely by a clear example of the reverse deduction: Bandini, when cataloguing a

poem of Palladas included in Laur. 32. 5 (Index s.v. Palladas) describes him as 'sub Valentiniano et Valente Impp. clarus'- evidently deducing from the lemma in question that Palladas flourished at the same time as the philosopher he wrote about.

3 De Pallada 16; clear confirmation of the view upheld by Pfeiffer (Callimachus ii [9531], xciii) that Planudes had access to the Pala- tinus itself. Cf. also I I. 279. i, where Planudes repeats the gap left in the Palatinus (see below, p. 226).




remembered only that Themistius had been prefect of Constantinople, and was content to copy out the erroneous date given by the Palatinus. Planudes' lemma does, therefore, give us information beyond what can be deduced from the poem, but only because the poem in question was particularly well known and generally associated with the name of Themistius, not because he had access to information that derived, directly or indirectly, from Palladas (for such information would obviously have given the correct date).

There is in fact some slight evidence that the poem was already lacking a lemma as early as the end of the fourth century, that is to say in a copy made during Palladas' own lifetime. For the lemma to a rather mediocre translation of the last two lines among the recently discovered Epigrammata Bobiensia (No. 50; see below, ?V) reads as follows: 'In eum qui ex librario grammaticus erat'. This suggests that the lemmatist (who may also have been the translatorI) was unaware of the connexion of the poem with Themistius, but, knowing that Palladas was a grammaticus and that many of his poems were about teachers and teaching (Ep. Bob. 47 'De matrimonio grammatici infausto' is a translation of one of these), guessed that this one was as well.

What now of the lemma which refers 9. 528 El 70 V oLKOv Maplv•• ? It should

be clear that it can at best be only another such intelligent guess. We have seen that there were numerous sources from which the learned Planudes might have come to know that the subject of9. 292 was Themistius, but where is the humble lemmatist of the Palatinus-whose editorial activity, if not wholly negligible (cf. Preisendanz, D.L.Z. lxxx [I959], 184), is not conspicuous for independent research-likely to have been able to discover the purpose for which Palladas wrote a piece like 9. 528? Here is the poem:

XpI-LcLavol yEya(WTEgs 'OAtrta &bFpcLT EXovTEs E6VdC&E V'ovacEvOUW a 7TrL•oLOE& OvE yap av-ovs- X(O'-q cAALv cyovUa q0EpEqPCtOP ~v ivpt O7jUaEL.

The Olympians that have turned Christian are bronze statues of pagan gods or goddesses, and they have 'turned Christian' because they now adorn a Christian church or religious building of some sort instead of a pagan temple. Elsewhere Palladas writes of some Victories who suffered a similar fate- adapted, no doubt, to serve as Angels (16. 282, cf. J.H.S. lxxxiv [19641, 54 ff-). The last line requires a word or two of elucidation. The 'XAAtS was originally a purse containing a certain number of copper coins, but later came to be used simply to denote the coins themselves (cf. A. H. M. Jones, J.R.S. xl [1959], 34 f.) :2 it is called

bEpE'aflov because by Palladas' day use of the debased copper

currency was restricted to the purchases and transactions of everyday life, gold being required for all official purposes (copper currency is styled 'pecunia in usu publico constituta' in a law of 356: cf. Jones, Later Roman Empire, i. 441).

It is uncertain how many of the lemmata to the Ep. Bob. go back to the writers themselves: see the preface to Munari's admirable editio princeps (1955), 19. n. 2, and Speyer's new Teubner edition (1963), vi. n. 8.

2 LSJ wrongly allege that the word means here 'bellows', like the Latin follis. But not only does this not suit the context, it would be a unique example of this meaning in an age when the word was the standard

name for one of the commonest coins of the realm. West and Johnson, Currency in Roman and Byzantine Egypt (1944), p. 136, claim that 'the use of the termfollis does not seem to have been introduced into Egypt until about the close of the sixth century'. Palladas' poem (which they do not refer to) is clear evidence that the term was in common use in Alexandria almost two centuries before this.



224 ALAN CAMERON

The tone of the poem, coming as it does from the pen of a staunch pagan like Palladas,' is plainly ironic;2 he congratulates the statues on not being melted down and turned into coins-a fate envisaged for them a few years before by the Christian Firmicus Maternus (De err. prof. rel. 28. 6: 'deos istos aut monetae ignis aut metallorum coquat flamma ...').

Now if the lemmatist thought that the EvOdcSE of 1. 2 referred to the palace of Marina, then Marina's palace must presumably have contained some pagan statues which might be deemed to answer to the description given in 9. 528. There were in fact many such collections in Constantinople. That of Arcadius' cubicularius Lausus (housed in a palace known as r' Aa'haov) contained among other masterpieces of ancient Greece the Olympian Zeus of Pheidias, the Samian Hera of Lysippus, and the Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles (Cedrenus, p. 564 Bekker). But the fact that a tenth-century copyist thought that Palladas' poem referred to Marina's art collection by no means proves that Palladas actually wrote it with Marina's palace in mind. J. Irmscher has recently pointed out that since the building was still standing as late as September 867, when it is mentioned in passing in connexion with the assassination of the Emperor Michael the Drunkard, it may easily have still been there for the lemmatist to see only a century or so later.3 But he is surely quite mistaken to think that this in any way supports the authority of the lemma. On the contrary does it not render it even more likely that it is simply the guess of a man who had been reminded, appropriately enough, of Palladas' 'converted Olympians' while paying a visit to the pious Marina's collection of pagan statues ? If he had referred the poem instead to the collection of Lausus, which was utterly destroyed during the two terrible fires of 477 and 532, then the very fact that he could not have seen i-r Aca'uov might have lent some support to the lemma's claim to preserve some genuine ancient information.

Careful study has convinced Gow that lemmata to poems ascribed to definite authors (i.e. non-inscriptional poems) naming places not mentioned in the text are 'fictions of the lemmatists' (p. 18 n. I); and it is surely natural to assume that the lemma to 9. 528 is no more than the fiction of a lemmatist who felt it incumbent on him to fix the location of EdvOdC0 in 1. 2, and could think of no more suitable place than the palace of Marina. Anyone who still regards this treatment of the lemma as unduly cavalier would do well to examine the series of lemmata appended to the

I For Palladas' paganism cf. J.R.S. 1965 and bibliography there cited.

2 Hence Bowra is in my opinion un- doubtedly correct to take the epithet ?ereopogo applied to Palladas in the lemma to this poem as an insulting allusion to his paganism. I have nothing to add to his discussion (Byz. Zeit. I960, p. 3), except to remark that it is out of the question that it should mean 'suspendu, donc incredule' (Waltz, R.JI.G. lix/x [1946-7], 209), 'hovering between hope and fear, anxious, restless' (Luck, Harv. Stud. lxiii [1958], 462) or the similar interpretation proposed by Irmscher (Wiss. Zeit. Rostock xii [19631, 238); not least because lemmatists simply do not indulge in

such acute psychological analysis, however appropriately Palladas might in fact be so described. The epithets they apply to poets are limited to nicknames, ethnics or profes- sional titles-and their purpose is normally only to distinguish homonyms (except in the conventional sobriquet wrapafidgar for Julian -precisely the category into which /LErerpo& falls).

3 FIpas. Studies in Honor of George Thomson, Acta Univ. Carolin., i963, 129f.: add to Irmscher's references Gr6goire, Recueil des inscr. grecques chret. d'Asie Mineure (i922), P. 308, mentioning a certain Magnus, curator of

r' Mapvr•ls, and cf. also Janin, Const. byzan-

tine, p. 357-




poems immediately preceding and following 9. 528 by the same lemmatist ('J')-all of them completely worthless.

There can be little doubt that the poem was written in Alexandria in the early 390's, when we happen to know that pagan statues were being melted down by the Christians (Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 5. 16, Palladas, Anth. Pal. 9. 441, 773)-the ideal context for 9. 528. And although there were many collections of pagan statues in Constantinople, none of them had ever been objects of cult or worship there, and accordingly their transference to a Christian setting would not have evoked there the sort of comment it did in Alexandria (cf. Palladas' poem on the converted Victories). Constantinople had been a Christian founda- tion from the start. Furthermore, for the first line to gain its full force, the 'converted Olympians' must now be adorning a specifically Christian building: it is not enough that they should merely be part of the art-collection of a pious Byzantine princess. There is not the slightest evidence that Marina's palace was a religious institution of any sort (contrary to what Bowra supposed in Byz. Zeit. liii [I960], 2-3); it may indeed have been a group of buildings or even estates rather than just one single palace, or it would hardly have had men of such high rank as its curator in later years (cf. Jones, Later Roman Empire, i. 426, iii.

103). In the only other poem whose location Palladas fixes with vOdBSE, EVOdB?E

plainly refers to the school where he taught in Alexandria (9. 174. I), and there is really no good reason to believe that any of his poems were written anywhere but in Alexandria (cf. J.H.S. lxxxiv [1964], PP- 56-58). We may, therefore, confidently reject the lemmatist's connexion of the poem with the palace of Marina together with the date that connexion implies, and nothing now remains to contradict the revised chronology for the life of Palladas proposed by Bowra.

V

70aJ 7TOTE KpEaouWV, avOLS 3' 'EYvov 7roAV XEClpwov. E-op avdCfqlj6 KaTW. 1-ro y ap cavW KaCTE•7)S.

(I I. 292. 3-4) This is the text of the Palatinus and Planudes. The Laurentian manuscript of Libanius' Declamations already referred to (above, p. 222 and cf. Bandini ii. 366) preserves 1. 3 in a rather different form:

?ruOa KO7TW K(0PElUWV, avac/scs 5E yElvov pEya XELpwv.

Jacobs preferred the Laurentian text on the scarcely disputable but dan- gerously subjective ground that 'longe elegantiorem esse sponte apparet' (Animadv. in Anth. Graec. ii. 3 [18o0i], p. 192), but subsequent editors have been reluctant to desert the earlier and weightier authority of the Palatinus and Planudes. According to Boissonade the variant 'servit saltem explicandae ultimi versus sententiae' (ap. Dtibner, ii [1872], p. 384), and Beckby, the most recent editor of the Anthology, does not even record it in his apparatus. There is in fact a decisive reason for accepting the Laurentian text. Compare the Latin version of the last two lines already mentioned:

Sursum peior eras, escendens sed mage peior. scande deorsum iterum, descendisti qui(a) sursum.

(Ep. Bob. 50)



226 ALAN CAMERON

It is a poor piece of work,' but beyond any reasonable doubt a translation of the Laurentian text, not that of the Palatinus. Escendens is plainly a translation of avaflds, and sursum peior eras represents, albeit with the wrong emphasis, -uOa K

•70 Kpdaoaov (it could not possibly have been got out of uOJ 'rorE

KpECo'Cov). The translation is probably the work of a certain Naucellius, a

friend of Q. Aurelius Symmachus, consul in 391, and dates in any case from the end of the fourth century (Munari's edition, pp. 21 f.). Since then the Laurentian text can be traced back to within twenty years or less of the date when Palladas' poem was actually written-the terminus post quem is 384, the year of Themistius' prefecture-it is likely enough to be what Palladas wrote, or at any rate closer to what he wrote than the tenth-century Palatinus.

That both KCT-o and cvaflJs should have disappeared from the copy from which the Palatinus and thence Planudes derived is not so surprising as might at first sight appear; once avaI3dS had dropped out by accident, or become illegible, then KdT70 would have seemed pointless and some would-be Aris- tarchus probably expelled it deliberately, on the not unnatural supposition that it had intruded from the KCTWo immediately below in 1. 4, and obscured the true reading. They were replaced by the stopgaps rro7E and av'Ots. The

7ore is suspiciously reminiscent of the 7To7rE ~LE dvw6... 7TorT 8E Kd7W Of the

parallel passage in Themistius (above, p. 221) and that av'Ots is no more than a stopgap might have been detected long ago from the ignored reading of another fourteenth-century Laurentian MS. (59-44, f. 311) 07c9 7TOTE KPE'U'WV,

vv '8' 'dyE'vov rToAt XEtpow. viv is another attempt at a stopgap (in this case un- metrical) to replace the missing ava3fls. A word is actually missing from Anth. Pal. I I. 279. I in both the Palatinus and Planudes (the exemplar evidently being defective at this point) and the gap was variously repaired until the Latin adaption Ep. Bob. 61 showed what the missing word must have been (see Weinrich, Gnomon xxxi

[1959], 242). The last line of the poem has much more point if the ground has been prepared for it as with the Laurentian reading in 1. 3, as an explanatory paraphrase (a translation is hardly possible) should make clear. 'You were better when low down (i.e. a private citizen), but when you rose up (i.e. accepted the office of city prefect) you became worse. Rise (i.e. morally) to your former low estate. For your rise (to the prefecture) has been a (moral) descent.' Comparison with Anth. Pal. 7. 685 (cf. also Peek, R.-E. xviii. 3. 167) will show that such an accumulation of puns is entirely in Palladas' manner-it is, moreover, already suggested by the numerous occurrences of avow and KJ-oW in the passage of Themistius which Palladas is mocking.

VI

cv /L77 yEACOpLEV roV /3iov i-ev 3parE'qV Tv?qv 7-E r7Topv77 pEvj(rLYW KWtOVLEV••V, oJ7)V EaVTOtgS 7Jpo EOv(LEv 7•vTOTE

iva4lov& opVrrE d EVTrV XEa7•Povg.

(Anth. Pal. x. 87)

This is one of a series of poems on Tyche (on which see especially Bowra, 'Palladas on Tyche', CQ. N.s. x [1960o], I 18 f.) as given by both the Palatinus

I Compare the more elegant version (from the Palatine text) of the Jesuit Petavius: 'Qui melior fueras, nunc peior factus, in

imum / Ascende, in summum qui modo lapsus eras.'




and Planudes. The whole poem is also to be found in a rather different form inscribed on a fourth-century lavatory wall in Ephesus (cf. R. Weishdupl, Jahreshefte d. isterreich. archdol. Inst. v [1902], Beiblatt 33-34):

Av L/ y' gAwtLEv rvy Ploov Trv 8paTrETv 7TLVVmES 77 TPUV c/VES. 7 qAEAOV/LE'VOL,

0vvqv ECavTrot7 TrpOEVOVJ/EV ' CLVo-"E, aValovVS opWCVES EVrVXEUTEPOV!S.

It has always been assumed so far that this Ephesian inscription (E) is an adaptation or parody of the poem transmitted by the Palatinus under the name of Palladas (P), 'das Gedicht wenigstens in entferntere Beziehung zu der Latrine zu setzen' (Weishiupl, loc. cit.; cf. also E. Kalinka, Wiener Studien xxiv

[I902], 295). Most recently Sir Maurice Bowra has suggested that the Ephesian responsible was shocked by Palladas' description of Tyche as a prostitute and deliberately bowdlerized the second line: 'To call Tyche a strumpet may be to anticipate Hamlet, but it is extremely violent for a Greek' and 'even in this humble setting Palladas' words were thought to be excessive' (op. cit., p. 12o). But there are one or two considerations which tend, in my opinion, to militate against the too ready assumption that E is simply an adaptation of P.

In the first place, AcOtFLE goes much more naturally with 8par'-rTqv than does

yEAc-LE•: we must 'catch hold' of life as it 'runs past' us and enjoy it-

a popular and ubiquitous theme, best exemplified in Horace's 'carpe diem' (C. i. I I. 8) and 'dona praesentis cape laetus horae' (C. 3. 8. 27). Kalinka was so impressed with this point that he argued that gAw•tve should be restored in P (op. cit., p. 293). But he was surely wrong in his contention that the last three lines of P run as easily after JAw•OEV as after yEACpEv. For while we may speak of catching hold of run-away-life, it is odd to speak of catching hold of Fortune: much more effective to laugh at her.

I suggest that E should be regarded not as an adaption or perversion of P, but as a separate poem in its own right. In the first place, the variants from P offered in the first two lines of E are so closely linked with one another that it is out of the question that they are no more than casual slips. Second, I cannot see how E can be regarded as in any sense a parody of P. And is one really to suppose that a man who altered well-known poems in order to inscribe them on lavatory walls was offended by the word 7rop' ? E, as it stands, is a perfectly consistent and coherent whole (more coherent indeed than P), a rather banal example of the carpe diem motif.

Now clearly one or other of the two poems is an adaption of the other. I would suggest, however, that it is E which is the original, and that P is Pal- ladas' adaption of E. There is one clear proof, to my mind, of E's priority. For while in E 8pa7rr--qv develops in a natural and appropriate fashion the metaphor hinted at in A•owLEV, in P, though not especially inappropriate, 8pa7rE'7v is not at all an obvious or natural epithet for f8ios in the context. Palladas took it over from E without realizing that once he had changed

,aWALEV to

YEAwLEv, 8parri~ y no longer had any particular point. The hypothesis that it is Palladas who is the adaptor does not of course

require us to suppose that he saw E and adapted it to his purpose on a visit to the Ephesian building in question. It was doubtless not originally composed for this humble setting, and is probably in fact the work of a well-known



228 ALAN CAMERON

and much quoted writer-a natural assumption in view of the fact that it was chalked up on a wall in Ephesus and imitated by Palladas in Alexandria. Its sententious character and iambic metre suggest perhaps a poet of the New Comedy. Some years ago in a discussion of the influence of the poets of the New Comedy on the Greek Epigrammatists ('Comedy and the Comic Poets in the Greek Epigram', T.A.Ph.A. lxxvii [I9471, 83 f.) J. M. Raines devoted several pages to Palladas' debt to Menander, reaching the conclusion that of all the epigrammatists 'the most persistent imitator of Menander is Palladas of Alexandria' (p. 95). His results have unfortunately been neglected in recent work on Palladas (and also in A. Dain's recent study of the Fortleben of Menan- der in Maia xv [19631, 278 f., who has very little to say about Palladas), though the extent of Palladas' debt is of no little importance for a proper evaluation of his originality, and of particular relevance to the present discussion. To the numerous echoes of thought and language collected by Raines we may now add Dyscolus 88; Menander's use there of the phrase dovrs td0s has perplexed many an editor ('perobscurum', notes Lloyd-Jones, ad loc.), but the reading of the papyrus is confirmed and explained by Pal- ladas' imitation in Anth. Pal. ix. 394- I (cf. M. Gigante, Riv. difil. xc [1962], 185). Attention might also be drawn to the lines of Palladas transmitted in Laur. 5, Io under the name of Philemon (above, ? III init.). The mistaken attribution is perhaps to be explained by the hypothesis that the lines of Palladas in question are an adaption of some very similar verses by Philemon (it is worth observing that Sternbach [Festschrift Gomperz, pp. 395-7] was able to produce a host of parallels from Philemon for every line). The five iambic lines of II. 286 are of particular importance for my argument. The first two lines are actually transmitted elsewhere as Menandrean monosticha (133 and 413 Meineke, 197 and 609 in Jakel's new Teubner edition of 1964), and Raines plausibly suggests that since 'this whole epigram is strange, and much more disconnected than is usual with Palladas' that the whole is simply 'a cento from Menander' (op. cit., p. 96). It may be that not all the lines are by Menander, but we have here at any rate clear proof that Palladas was quite prepared to pass off under his own name a poem of which at least two lines had been lifted in their entirety from the work of another.

In the light of this realization that Palladas was evidently fond of adapting (not to say plagiarizing') and parodying (see ? II above) the work of other poets, I would submit that it is not merely possible but extremely probable that Io. 87 is Palladas' adaption of someone else's poem, perhaps Menander or one of the other New Comedy poets with whom he was so familiar.

One of Palladas' favourite, not to say obsessional, themes is the injustice of Tyche (see Bowra, op. cit. passim).z Observing therefore that this idea was well expressed in the last line of E,

avaclovs~- 0pCWoES EjTVXECTECOVo-v

This gives rise to the difficult question, how far is one to ascribe to Palladas himself the opinions expressed in these (and other borrowed) lines? Plainly he shared them up to a point, but is it fair to deduce from the references in them to slaves that Palladas was 'blind fAr die sozialen Probleme der Zeit' (Irmscher, op. cit. [p. 223 n. I], p. 174) ?

2 An interesting commentary both on Palladas' preoccupation with Tyche and his familiarity with Menander is provided by the papyrus published by J. Barns, 'A New Gnomologium; with some remarks on Gnomic Anthologies (I)', in C.Q. xliv (1950), I26 f., a collection of gnomes by various writers, many probably from Menander, wholly devoted to the subject of Tyche. The




he adapted the poem by substituting a line mentioning Tyche for the line in E that could most easily be spared and least suited his purpose, and deftly changed y' hJAwLEv to

yEAW-•LEv (the neatness of this change must have been

especially satisfying to one who so delighted in puns and word play as Palladas), a verb that could be used of both fl1os and Tvx4. The line of his own com- position which he inserted to introduce Tyche is a not altogether happy combination of the EVt'a-raa (= caprices, cf. Menander fr. 84. 5 K6rte) he attri- butes to her in Io. 62. 2, and his comparison of her to a prostitute in Io. 96. 1o.'

Bedford College, London ALAN CAMERON

purpose of the collection was primarily didactic (Barns, pp. 135 f.), and is an example therefore of the sort of text book used in Egyptian primary schools, such as Palladas taught in. Now Palladas was not an original writer, and if he used a textbook like this with his pupils, it is easy to see why in his own compositions he recurs so often to the subject of Tyche and borrows so often from Menander.

xA corrector of the Palatinus seems to have found 7ro'pvrjl 1•kEv',acav

awkward for he altered ~7ropvrjs to 7rdpv-qv, presumably con- struing 7rdpv-qv as accusative in apposition to Tv'Xqv, and taking E;v'iaatv with TvX'qv instead. This is perhaps preferable; cf. io. 62. 2 where Palladas says that TvXrq is

pEvItaa avpop•Evq. Mr. E. C. Yorke kindly read an earlier draft of these notes.



Documents

Notes on Palladas