TWO NOTES ON THE GREEK ANTHOLOGY

(An th . P a l . ix.474, 395 and 458)

b y Alan Cameron

I

This i s a wretched enough piece. Though included by Cephalas a s an epigram, it i s in fact a rhetorical exercise of a familiar type, a s explicitly noted by the lemmatist's Tivas 6v dnoi A6yov~ Ei6o8La b p h a T(V 'EAivqv €15 T ~ V Qdrpov. sented to such readers as i t may find in the future in a more readable form. the text of the Palat inus, a s printed by both Stadtmueller and Beckby. UE'O for a6v and y ~ v k 8 h q ~ for y~vk8hq.

Nevertheless, it deserves to be pre- The first line i s

But Planudes offers In both c a s e s I believe that his reading i s to be preferred.

F i r s t d o . A s A. Wifstrand (Von Kallimachos z u Nonnos (Lund 1933) p. 170) has shown, the whole series in which this piece occurs (ix.449-480) was written not earlier than about the second half of the fifth century A.D. Their author, while not in every respect iuratus in verba magistri, shows clear traces of the influence of Nonnus. Now two Nonnan rules to which every other poem in the series adheres without exception are: a) that the second and fourth elements should never be monosyllabic in the same line (i.e. that the first and second feet should not both be spondees). The one exception in NOMUS, xiv. 187 (1.rrapydS TE rhqvE6S TE. . .), i s 'excused' by the proper names: cf. P. Maas, Greek Metre 999, R. Keydell, edition of Nonnus, p.37* § 11. b) that there should never be word end after the fourth element if it i s monosyllabic (no exceptions in Nonnus: cf. Maas, 9 92, Keydell, p. 35* 5 3). piece of work like this one metrical fault i s probably to be tolerated. two quite different metrical faults, we may legitimately be suspicious of that word. when both can a t once be removed by d o . Planudes' reading i s clearly superior to the Palatinus (457.3), and we must certainly accept his oE'o here.

With a6v ix. 474.1 violates both rules. In an inferior But when one word creates

There is a t least one other place in this series where Especially

58

The view that Planudes drew directly on the Pafatinus, and that a l l variant readings he offers are to be ascribed to conjecture (so R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus ii (1953) p. xciii) must now be defi- nitely abandoned. Planudes used two exemplars, both of which contained a substantial number of poems absent from the Palatinus (cf. A. S . F. Gow, The Greek Anthology: sources and ascrip- tions (1958) p. 51). Anthofogie (Diss. Zurich 1965) pp. 31-55, with a convenient l ist a t pp. 45 f . of Planudes’ superior readings.

See particularly now the detailed arguments of F. Lenzinger, Zur griechischen

In addition, there i s a considerable number of examples in Nonnus and Nonnan poetry in general of d o used in precisely this sedes , where u6u would have caused a violation of either one or both of these rules. rra16al xxxii. 217, 69pa 9 6 ~ ~ ~ s oko T T ~ T ~ O U , and with the very same word ~drhhos used in ix. 474.1, cf. xxxiv. 370, XahKEiqu &o ~drhho~ and Paul the Silentiary, AP v . 236.3, 00 yap, i6i)u d o ~drhh05. Cf. a l so Nonnus xxxiv. 27, xxxiii. 163, xxx. 289, Paul, A P v. 258.3, 241.1 etc. , and already Calli- machus h. iv. 321, r p i v pkyau series under discussion: &yx~p&y uko Trat6i.

Note, for example, Nonnus xxx. 75, 6 6 ~ 6 poi oko TraXa, xl. 30, 00 6kXopai ogo

uko pdpou. Note particularly AP ix. 460.2, an example from the

Dr G. Giangrande, who kindly commented on an earlier draft of this note, i s inclined to retain o6u a s the lectio difficilior, explaining alo a s an emendation designed to restore the metre to the Nonnan norm. But i s i t really plausible to credit Planudes with such metrical expertise? His record as an emendator does not stand very high (for examples, s ee J . Basson, De Cephala et Planude syllogisque minoribus (Diss. Berlin 1917) pp. 15 f., P. Waltz, Anthologie grecque i (1928) pp. I-li). syllable (e.g., a t AP vii. 272.1, 317.2 or 540.1, on which cf. Basson, op. c i t . p. 16). be reluctant to suppose him capable of removing a flaw which has apparently not even troubled modern editors of the Anthology.’ likely that a scribe would have (perhaps unconsciously) substituted the common prose form of the possessive pronoun for the more ‘poetical’ 060 than that (disallowing the possibility of actual emendation metri causa) an original 5611 would have been corrupted into do.

He i s capable of repairing obvious metrical defects, such a s a missing or extra But I should

And if we apply the uter in utrum principle, i t i s surely more

Now for yEu&hqs. Cf. Od. iv . 232 6 yap na i jou6s ~ i o i yeu&hqS, xii. 130, Epijs 26 Eiui PuQOhqS, 11. xix. 111, oi ofis kg dipcrrbs ~ i u i yEukehq5, etc. I t seems unlikely that the author of a declama- tion on a Homeric theme would have used this common Homeric formula in anything but i t s stan- dard form. and i (v) 283. yuvaiKbs fq yeui6hq, are not really parallel to the formula under discussion, and the other passage from Manetho, pauih$GoS ~ T ’ I yeukOhq i s only superficially parallel. a s a noun (= ‘Queen’). construed as an adjective agreeing with i t and misunderstood. examples from Nonnan poets: Colluthus 250, A165 h i yEukOhqS, ?Pamprepius, Page Gr. L i t . Pap. 140.b.41, lThaTGjui66S kaai yeuleh[q~] (it i s unfortunate that the crucial letters are a restoration, but the genitive i s certain after the genitive nhaTdUi6Os), and the probably fifth century epigram AP ix. 212.3, I l a ~ j o u b s ~ U T I yEukf3AqS (directly from Homer). For earlier examples M . L. West kindly refers me to Ap. Rh. ii. 521, AVK&OU& e5oi yEukehqS and ‘Hes.’ frag. K 2 Merkelbach (= Pap. Oxy. 1358 ii). 19, where for the papyrus yEuEOhql he has conjectured yeukOhq5 (CQ (1962) 181). Much simpler, surely, to postulate, not a variation on the formula, but the slight and common error of an omitted sigma on the part of the Palatine scribe. prepared to postulate precisely the same error in this very poem when they accept (and rightly so) Dubner’s k ~ 6 ~ 8 q s for the h6xOq of both the Palatinus and Planudes.

For possible variations Giangrande refers me to 4p. Rh. i. 133, Manetho ii (i) 284 62 But the first two examples, T @ ’ h ’ i 6$ edoio Kiev Aauaoio yEukOhq, and

For pcmiA$s i s used there Had Manetho written yEukBhqSI paoih&os would inevitably have been

Compare rather the following

Both Beckby and Stadtmueller are

59

I 1

I have not made a detailed analysis of the poems in this series, but the general similarity and homogeneity of phraseology between them strongly suggests that many if not a l l come from the same hand, or a t any rate from the same school. collection of epigrams on similar themes. For example, the word G E K ~ ~ O S , not so far a s I (or LSJ) know attested elsewhere (though cf. T P ~ ~ T T ~ O S in Nonnus, xlvii.487, Agathias, AP vii . 552.7, following Callimachus, h. i i i . 72, where see Schneider ad loc.), occurs in ix. 461.7, 462 .5 and 474.3. The rare @31ajuwp occurs in both 457.1 and 473.3; pap6noTyou in the same sedes in both 451.2 and 452.4. For i~6xOqs a t the end of the line = d, cf. 457.6 &pfiiou Y ~ K O S ~ T ~ X ~ T I S .

and style in all of them will be perceived a t once by anyone who takes the trouble to read them through.

That i s to say, they are not jus t a random

For the otiose & T P E K ~ S in 474 .2 cf. 459.1. The close general similarity in tone

These exercises are of little interest in themselves. But they do serve to illustrate the tenacity of the epic tradition in the schools of the fifth century, and help to explain why i t was that such a bulk of epic poetry continued to be produced throughout that century (cf. my sketch in Historia xiv (1965) 470-509). s t i l l shown by these poets of a now Christian world in themes from c lass ica l mythology, and in particular from the Trojan cycle (the subject of the greater part of the exercises). of Smyrna wrote a continuation of the Iliad (probably in the fourth century, rather than in the third, a s his latest editor, F. Vian, supposes), Colluthus a Rape of Helen and a now lost Kahu- GwuiaK6 (Suidas, s . v . : this i s the theme of ix. 453 and 465), Tryphiodorus a Capture of Troy and a variety of other such epics (now fortunately lost: for the list, Suidas s .v . ) including a T& K a e ’ ‘I.rr.rro6dryeiav (the subject of ix.480).

It a l so provides an interesting commentary on the strong interest

Quintus

Before leaving the subject, I take this opportunity of pointing out that one of these exer- c i ses helps too to explain a poem by a much more interesting writer, Palladas of Alexandria. The poem i s ix.395:

Both Plan. and Pal. give ‘Opqpos a t the end of line 1, but we must obviously accept Grotius’ ’06uaw6~. natural sl ip for even the most alert of copyists. named in the epigrams of the Anthology (see the three columns of references in Beckby’s index nom. s . v . , and cf. in general A. D. Skiadas, Homer im griechischen Epigramm (Athens 1 9 6 9 , esp . pp. 151 f.) - at least fouc times in other poems by Palladas himself (ix. 165.7, O%EV ‘Oyqpos, x 50.1 E ~ P ~ K E V ‘O~qpos, ix. 166 .1 , x. 47.2).

In a Homeric context, indeed after a direct quotation from Homer, i t was a very The more so since Homer i s so frequently

The lemma reads E’IS uKEuaaiau ~ K X ~ T O U . ZKXUTOU i s apparently some sort of Aphrodisiac Palladas’ point i s (see Jacobs’ note ad loc.: Animadv. in Anth. Graec. i i .3 (1801) p.213).

that if Odysseus had caught jus t one whiff of this delicious potion, he would have told ten Pene- lopes to weeptheir hearts out. adaptation of Od. i . 58, where the Ka.rru6s in question i s the smoke curling up into the sky above Ithaca.

Line 1 comes, of course, from O d . ix .34 , and line 3 i s a neat

Palladas often makes fun of Homeric themes (ix. 165-9, 173, x. 47, 50 &c.; cf. Skiadas,

60

op. c i t . , pp. 153 f.), and not unnaturally scholars have always assumed that here too it i s Homer who i s the butt of his satirical pen. least , these dreary rhetorical exercises based on Homeric themes. their number i s a development of precisely the theme Ti 6v E?TTOI '06uaa~b~ hmipbs T?S ' l e & K q s , concluding with the very same quotation with which Palladas had begun (ix. 458):

Perhaps, however, it i s not Homer alone, but in part, a t It so happens that one of

Xalp I ' I ~ & K T ~ , PET '&ceha, VET 'Ehyea m i ~ p i x Bah&croqS &amaaioS T E ~ V o66aS iK&vopai, +pa vo jao AatpTtp 6hoxbv TE K ~ I dryhaov uita poJvov.

ws oC6kv yhirmov 4s maTpi6oS 066'~ TOKT~UV. ' UbS yap *EpOs KaTteEh<EV kHbV VbOV * 0 ~ 6 a K d l OrCTbS, I I

This actual piece dates from something like a century after Palladas. been many such exercises on the theme in earlier centuries - a hypothesis that can be confirmed in a most striking manner if we turn to the precepts of the influential late third century rhetor Menander on the ~ ~ K & I O V m6hew~ (Rhet . Graeci i i i . 433.4f. Spengel):

But there will have

T ~ T E mchv moejao TT)V m6h1v. . . Tis yap "Ipqpai mapanqch mapa A ~ T O I ~ ~ Y O U S & ~ I K ~ P E V O S OCK Bv 6pds T T ~ O T I ~ ~ U E I E V ,

c js oC6'~v ~ ~ ~ K I O V i j s maTpi6oS 066; TOKT~WV,

4 s yaiqs Kdi Kamvov hoep6aKovTa voijoai.

Both the lines which Palladas had worked into his skit (though the second is a conflation of Od. i . 58 and 59, and quoted a s though i t followed directly after Od. ix. 34 - a clear indication that Menander did not get his quotations direct from a text of Homer). This i s hardly jus t a coincidence. Nor i s i t surprising that even before, a s well as after, these two quotations had received Menander's seal , the motif of Odysseus' longing for Ithaca and the hackneyed wisp of smoke pop up all over the place in literature of the Roman period (see the examples quoted by W. Gernentz, Laudes Romae (Diss. Rostock 1918) pp. 73-4: Cicero, De L e g . ii . 3 , Ovid, Ex Ponto i. 3. 33 f. , Dio Chrys., Or. xiii .4, Himerius, Or. xliv (viii). 1, Rut. Nam., i. 193 f.).

c5s 'Duqpbs T O 6 cpqu1.

Palladas makes fun of a lot of things and a lot of people in general. More particularly,

And in a recent article in a s Louis Robert pointed out (Epigrarnmes du Bas-Empire, Hellenica 4 (1948) 39 f. , 981, he makes fun of the conventional topoi of the honorific epigram of his day. JRS 55 (1965) at pp. 21-30 I attempted to show that he a l so made fun of some of the clichks and catch-phrases of contemporary Christian apologetic. of contemporary literary fashions should have tired of these tediously conventional exercises on Homeric themes, and decided to write one of his own - but one with a difference. At the very least , the fact that both the Homeric lines which Palladas makes fun of in A P ix.395 were so frequently quoted in all solemnity by poets and rhetors alike will have greatly increased the poem's impact on contemporary readers.

It i s hardly surprising that S O keen a critic

Bedford Col lege , London

NOTE

1 Moreover, it is relevant to note that, while Planudes knew Nonnus well and imitated nim extensively in h i s own poetry (cf. M. Schneider, Berl . Phil. Woch. 14 (1894) 617-91, h i s imitations were 'nicht in metrischer, sondern nur in sprachlicher Hinsicht", Schneider, 617.

61